UC may still implement some changes to the program, including a potential cap on the number of incentives supported.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
In a letter to system chancellors Tuesday, University of California system president James Milliken said he would not end financial support for hiring postdoctoral fellows out of the UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program.
“Given the myriad challenges currently facing UC—including disruptions in billions of dollars in annual federal support, as well as uncertainty around the state budget—reasonable questions were raised in recent months about whether the University could maintain the commitment to current levels of incentive funding,” Milliken wrote in the Tuesday letter.
He said he considered a proposal to sunset the incentive program but ultimately decided against it. Still, he said, there may be some future changes to the program, including a potential cap on the number of incentives supported and changes to how they are distributed across system campuses.
“After learning more about the history and success of the program and weighing the thoughtful perspectives that have been shared, I have concluded that barring extraordinary financial setbacks, the PPFP faculty hiring incentive program will continue while the University continues to assess the program’s structure as well as its long-term financial sustainability.”
During National Transfer Student Week, I had the opportunity to present my dissertation findings. I was eager to share insights and connect with others doing similar work. Yet my excitement quickly gave way to disappointment: Multiple organizations were hosting overlapping events. Would anyone attend my session if there were other opportunities?
That moment clarified, for me, a larger truth about the transfer ecosystem. Despite our shared commitment to improving outcomes for transfer students, we often work in parallel rather than in partnership. True, sustained collaboration remains one of the missing links in creating a more coherent and equitable transfer experience.
Some Context
Collaboration should be the connective tissue of the transfer ecosystem. No single institution, system or organization can solve the challenges of transfer alone. When institutions, state agencies, employers and organizations work together, they have a better chance of building workable and successful pathways. The literature has increasingly suggested this point. Aspen et al.’s Tackling Transfer initiative implies that isolated campus reforms will not be entirely successful.
It emphasizes strengthening partnerships and using shared data and goals to make improvements. Similarly, both versions of the Transfer Playbook advocate success via intentional, ongoing partnerships.
Professional associations echo this message. For example, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers’ new conference, called The Assembly, is rooted in collaboration across sectors and institutions to solve transfer and mobility problems. This shift positions the association as a platform for collaboration, not just a publisher of best practices. Likewise, the National Association of Higher Education Systems is spearheading initiatives in the transfer and mobility space because it understands the need to have system-level collaboration.
These references send a clear message: Collaboration is an important strategy to improve the learner’s experience. This is a fundamental shift in our focus. When we center collaboration on the learner experience, rather than on the institution, it shifts the focus and the opportunities. Rather than designing projects around the interests of a single campus, foundation, or consulting contract, collaboration gives us the opportunity to ask, “What happens to the student through the educational journey that prevents successful transfer, and how do we solve that together?”
Challenges and Opportunities
As essential as it is, collaboration seems to be a challenge. To truly accomplish a collaborative network, institutions and agencies will need to look beyond their own boundaries. They need to be willing to pause their own goals to complement, support or provide an opportunity to another group. This has influential and financial implications, but it may end up being a better use of limited and shrinking dollars.
Changing the nature of how we collaborate could afford more opportunities and have a big impact. Collaboration can be complicated for organizations whose funding depends on producing value through exposure, engagement or consulting revenue. Partnerships may overshadow individual organizational accomplishments and lead to future financial growth.
For institutions, grant dollars for improving transfer are so highly competitive that they are sometimes impossible to obtain. More likely than not, funders are looking for the largest impact for their dollar, and that often translates into large-scale system- or statewide initiatives that will affect the most students or provide a large enough data set. That goal immediately eliminates small colleges from opportunities, further reducing the chance for improvement at the institutions that often need it the most.
On campuses, the need for collaboration is just as clear. Advocating for transfer is not the job of a single person with “transfer” in their title. It requires coordinated action across admissions, advising, faculty governance, financial aid, registrar, student life and employer partnerships. AACRAO’s task force on transfer and the award of credit, for instance, highlights the importance of cross-functional teams in redesigning policies and communication so students experience a coherent—not conflicting—set of messages about how their credits move.
Interestingly, the very reports we rely on for guidance point toward a different path. The Tackling Transfer work, for example, is grounded in multistate, cross-sector collaboration and explicitly calls for understanding the incentives and disincentives that shape institutional behavior around transfer. Lumina’s guidance on building local talent ecosystems emphasizes that durable change comes from coalitions willing to redesign systems together, not from one-off pilot projects.
What If We …
So, what might it look like to take collaboration seriously across the transfer ecosystem? Consider these collaborations:
Build shared agendas and calendars. National, regional and virtual events could be coordinated through a master calendar or hub so that transfer professionals aren’t forced to choose between overlapping webinars and conferences hosted by organizations that share the same goals.
Co-create tools and publications. Instead of each group producing its own tool kits and reports, organizations might collaborate on cross-branded resources that show how their frameworks align. Treat multiple opportunities as complements, not competitors.
Align state and regional efforts with institutional partnerships. The literature on national transfer reform emphasizes that systems and regions are critical units of change. State agencies, coordinating boards and foundations can use this insight to convene partnerships that bring institutions, employers and community organizations to the same table.
Elevate practitioners as collaborators, not just implementers. The most effective transfer-focused reports and research draw heavily on the expertise of people doing the day-to-day work of advising, curriculum design and transcript evaluation. Our collaborations should be built with, not just for, these practitioners.
Expand professional development and knowledge. Ideas could be to offer membership deals across organizations that support transfer students to engage more people in professional development opportunities amid decreasing budgets. Or, create a centralized repository or organization that can serve as a single source of information, rather than the plethora of sites, agencies, organizations and companies offering current professional development and resources.
These aren’t small shifts. They require seeing ourselves not as competitors in the transfer space, but as collaborators of its progress.
And So …
If we truly want to strengthen the ecosystem, we must build structures that make collaboration the default and not the exception. Many of the publications we rely on and reference already pointing us there. The question is whether we will follow their lead, not just in language but in practice. By working together, we can move beyond fragmented efforts toward a shared vision of mobility, equity and opportunity for every learner who dares to transfer.
Trustees at member institutions across the Big Ten are pushing back on a proposed $2.4 billion private equity deal that some argue has been too rushed, lacking transparency and proper vetting.
Now, with trustee criticism mounting, the conference appears to be prolonging talks amid a push to finalize a plan to establish a for-profit arm of the Big Ten, which would control its media and sponsorship rights and sell a 10 percent stake of that entity to the investor. The deal would give members an immediate cash infusion, with a minimum $100 million disbursement across the league, while more prominent athletic programs would receive an even higher revenue share. That money is needed, even at wealthy institutions, as universities adjust to a changing world of college athletics, which includes direct payments for players that began earlier this year.
The proposal would also maintain the current 18 universities as Big Ten members through 2046.
Dissent among the Big Ten ranks seems to have prompted the potential investor—the University of California pension fund, or UC Investments—to slow down the deal.
While UC Investments indicated in a Monday statement that it “remains very excited” about the offer, officials wrote they will work with members in the “coming months” to solidify the deal. (Prior reports indicated the conference hoped to put the deal to a league vote by mid-November.)
“As we have continued to evaluate this opportunity over the past five months, we remain convinced that the unity of the 18 Big Ten university members is key to the success of Big Ten Enterprises,” Chief Investment Officer Jagdeep Singh Bachher wrote in the statement. “We also recognize that some member universities need more time to assess the benefits of their participation. UC Investments likewise requires some additional time to complete our due diligence as recent developments unfold and we continue to engage with the conference.”
The CIO also lauded Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and his team.
“The process they have led has been rigorous, honest and fair—among the best we’ve seen. Recent misinformation has distorted some aspects of its effort,” Bachher wrote in the statement.
But several trustees at Big Ten member institutions have raised concerns about a lack of transparency into the deal, saying they have received little information about the arrangement and yet been asked to rubber-stamp it on a compressed timeline.
Trustee Dissent
UC Investments announced a commitment to a unified process for making a deal just a few days after the American Council of Trustees and Alumni held an online meeting with individual board members representing five Big Ten institutions. The meeting, held Friday, included trustees from the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the University System of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University and the University of Southern California, all of whom had concerns about the deal.
Tom McMillen, a Maryland regent, said in the recorded meeting that “no trustee has been given a balanced view” of the pros and cons of the proposal, according to his conversations with other governing board members across the conference. He also called for third-party evaluations of the arrangement.
“It’s shocking to me that a decision of this magnitude, there are no opposing views presented,” McMillen said.
Michigan regent Sarah Hubbard echoed similar concerns on the ACTA call, arguing that there was a need for more oversight and for trustees to have a formal role in discussing the proposal. She also questioned the need to expedite the process with such limited information available.
“This lack of transparency and information for the fiduciaries at our universities is unacceptable,” Hubbard said.
Penn State trustee Jay Paterno questioned the need for secrecy around the potential investment. Given that the Big Ten is about to create “a for-profit company using what are essentially public dollars,” he argued, boards need to know more in order to be able to advise their institutions accordingly. Ultimately, Paterno said, he wanted to see the Big Ten put its cards on the table.
“If it’s such a great deal, show us the deal and let’s go,” Paterno said.
Outstanding Concerns
UC Investments signaled it would work on the deal over the “coming months”—likely signaling a slowdown in the process—but it has offered no information about where things stand.
A UC Investments spokesperson referred questions about trustee concerns to the Big Ten, which did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
But outside analysts echo many of the concerns raised by trustees. Armand Alacbay, chief of staff and senior vice president of strategy at ACTA, said the organization has no position on the proposal itself but got involved because of concerns about trustees being shut out of the deal.
“Anyone we’ve heard from on this has said it’s not enough time, not enough information, not enough of anything to make this decision. Some have been told that it’s a nonvoting decision for them, that they don’t even have a right to make a decision because it’s the conference,” Alacbay said. “Well, I would say that the intellectual property and media rights of your athletic department are a significantly large asset of the institution and justify a level of board oversight.”
Karen Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, told Inside Higher Ed that while private equity has seeped into numerous areas of college athletics in recent years, the investment in a conference is a new approach. And what happens with the Big Ten will likely set the stage for other conferences.
She said if the Big Ten can successfully navigate a maze of thorny legal and political concerns, then other athletic conferences will be more likely to follow in their footsteps. “But if they constantly get land mines and roadblocks thrown in the way,” others will be more hesitant, she said.
Weaver also pointed to concerns lawmakers raised that could upend or complicate the deal.
Last week U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, issued warnings about the proposal in a statement and individual letters to both university and conference leadership. She argued that such a deal “may be counter to your university’s academic goals, may require the sale of university assets to a private investor, and may affect the tax-exempt purpose of those assets.”
Cantwell also emphasized the different priorities of universities and private equity investors.
“The primary goal of these companies is to make money for the firm, which is unlikely to align with the academic goals of your university or its obligations as a not-for-profit organization,” Cantwell wrote. “These investors will be focused on maximizing their investment, not on preserving and growing athletic and academic opportunities for student athletes.”
The state of Virginia promised all undergraduate students a meaningful internship experience and partnered with Handshake to elevate opportunities.
Internships can be a meaningful step in a college student’s career development. That’s why the commonwealth of Virginia is working to guarantee that undergraduates have a fair shot at paid experiential learning.
The Virginia Economic Development Partnership announced a new collaboration today with the job board Handshake as part of the state’s effort to train and retain local talent through internship opportunities.
Virginia has committed to giving all undergraduate students at least one form of meaningful work-based learning before graduation, said Megan Healy, senior vice president of talent and workforce strategy at VEDP. Overseen by the Virginia Talent and Opportunity Partnership, this work-based learning could include experiential learning or a paid internship.
The partnership with Handshake is one layer of a multifaceted approach to increasing opportunities for entry-level applicants to break into local job markets, helping to reduce brain drain and encourage economic development for evolving local markets.
State of play: Internships provide students with skills and experience for future careers, but for many of them paid internships remain out of reach. A 2024 report from the Business–Higher Education Forum found that nearly half of students who wanted an internship didn’t participate in one, and of those who did, only 70 percent said it was a “high-quality experience.”
A 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 38 percent of respondents believe their college should emphasize helping them find and access paid internships to enhance career services, and 30 percent want help making strong connections with potential employers.
Virginia has recently seen a dramatic drop in available internship listings; when President Trump took office in January, he slashed the federal workforce, reducing available roles in the D.C., Maryland and Northern Virginia region. Internship postings dropped 36 percent in June 2025 compared to June 2024, according to Lightcast data—a 20-percentage-point-greater decline compared to similar metropolitan job markets.
Brookings Institute
VEDP’s partnership with Handshake includes data sharing within the platform and additional visibility into existing or future internship opportunities for students.
Over 70 percent of colleges and universities in Virginia, representing 470,000 students, already connect to Handshake, said Christine Cruzvergara, the company’s chief education officer. In addition, 20,000 Virginia employers have posted more than 150,000 jobs and internships on the platform.
Building better internships: One of Virginia’s goals is to develop opportunities for students outside of metropolitan hubs.
“The state of Virginia is very diverse, and the majority of students that graduate from a lot of the Virginia schools end up going to Richmond or Northern Virginia—those are the two main hubs that most students go to,” said Cruzvergara, a former Virginia resident and college administrator herself. “But there are so many other regions of Virginia that also need amazing talent, and I think this particular initiative is going to help distribute more of that talent.”
The state is partnering with local business in more rural areas—including near Virginia Tech in Blacksburg and in Charlottesville, where the University of Virginia is located—to establish more high-impact and paid internships to attract students from these universities.
“We’re also looking at ways to connect students from those specific institutions,” Healy of VEDP said. “They also have the most out-of-state students because they’re very popular and very highly ranked.”
To increase internship offerings across the state, VEDP hosts regular training sessions to help employers build meaningful internship experiences for students and assists them in listing jobs on Handshake. The state hopes that connecting students with employers on an already-trusted platform will help expand access to opportunities as well as meet talent demands in the commonwealth.
Small businesses (employing 150 people or less) are also eligible for a grant program if they hire interns; the state will provide $7,500 in matched funds to compensate an intern for eight weeks and 120 hours making at least minimum wage.
“I think this particular initiative is going to help distribute more of that talent, because they’re going to tap into the local economy and the local employers to create the internships and opportunities that will be needed to attract students and also help them see this could be a great place to live In Virginia,” said Cruzvergara.
How is your college or university increasing opportunities for students to intern? Tell us more here.
Are you searching for a learning designer, instructional designer or, as the University of Michigan calls the role, a learning experience designer? If so, your search is the perfect fit for Featured Gigs. Please reach out.
Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?
A: Imagine being the person who turns bold ideas into learning experiences that reach thousands of learners across the globe. The University of Michigan’s commitment to life-changing education, a key pillar of our Look to Michigan vision, drives this role’s focus on expanding access to high-quality, equitable learning experiences for a global audience.
The learning experience designer senior role advances the Center for Academic Innovation’s mission to collaborate across campus and around the world to create equitable, lifelong educational opportunities for learners everywhere. At CAI, we help translate Michigan’s academic excellence into scalable, learner-centered opportunities, both in our noncredit and for-credit portfolios. The learning experience designer senior role is at the forefront of our work.
Designers at CAI don’t just build courses; they co-create learning experiences that merge research-informed design and empathy with faculty expertise. We ensure every online or hybrid course reflects Michigan’s commitment to excellence while reimagining how learning reaches people across every stage of life, whether they are traditional students, working professionals or lifelong learners.
Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?
A: Reporting to the learning experience design lead, the learning experience designer senior operates within a highly cross-functional team that brings together experts in design, technology, data and media. We have a highly collaborative environment, both within the center and with our faculty and academic partners.
As a learning experience designer senior, the ideal candidate will be collaborative and relationship-driven, working closely with faculty and academic unit leaders across the university’s schools and colleges to design meaningful online and hybrid learning experiences. We work in an environment that values experimentation, collaboration and continuous learning.
Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?
A: Our learning experience designers at CAI are connectors and translators. We turn teaching goals into actionable design strategies and align pedagogical vision with institutional priorities. In your first year, success looks like being a trusted connector who builds strong relationships across our team and with our academic partners. You’ll be shaping not only our courses but our culture, contributing your voice, curiosity and care to our thriving community.
In three years, this role may become a recognized mentor, leader and thought partner in learning experience design across U-M. A person in this role would be recognized for advancing best practices in digital pedagogy, mentoring colleagues and contributing to the university’s growing portfolio of online and hybrid programs.
Beyond that, success means lasting impact. The courses and programs you’ve helped build will keep reaching new learners, and the practices you’ve influenced will continue guiding our work long after any single project ends.
Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?
A: This role offers the chance to develop strategic, creative and leadership skills that are highly transferable across higher education and beyond. Learning experience designers in this role gain experience with a diverse range of online and hybrid learning experiences, from degree programs, noncredit MOOCs and certificate-based stackable programs. This prepares our designers for roles that require both pedagogical expertise and operational agility.
People who grow in this role are well positioned to step into leadership positions, including leading design teams, shaping instructional design strategy within academic units or moving into broader academic innovation–focused roles within or outside of higher education.
Please get in touch if you are conducting a job search at the intersection of learning, technology and organizational change.
This blog was kindly authored by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Strategy atHEPI.
It is the ninth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the others in the series here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
There have been oodles of column inches already published about the Post-16 White Paper, and many have rightly focused on the headlines: increased tuition fees, a return of targeted maintenance grants funded by an international students levy and a move towards more specialist institutions.
In this blog, I want to dive beyond these headlines, as the paper contains a number of further bold policy proposals, some of which could be transformational for the sector.
Break points
The White Paper places a strong focus on flexible learning, including a greater number of Level 4 and 5 qualifications. There is a specific target of at least 10% of young people going into Level 4 or 5 study, including apprenticeships, by 2040. Clearly, the Government wants to see more movement in this direction from the sector, adding:
We need to build clear and well-understood pathways at these levels [4 and 5], underpinned by qualifications that are easier to study close to home, which are both modular and flexible.
In terms of higher education providers, the Government sets out:
We will expect providers to offer more flexible, modular provision and strengthen progression routes from further education into higher education, supported by transferable credits. We will consult on making student support for level 6 degrees conditional on the inclusion of break points in degree programmes. This marks a significant shift towards a more inclusive and adaptable model of learning, empowering individuals to tailor their educational journey.
There is little detail, but it reads to me that the Government will consult on a proposal that students will only be able to access student loan funding for institutions that offer ‘break points’ at Level 4 and 5 of a full three-year degree.
This was also a recommendation from the Augar report, which outlined:
… providers with degree-awarding powers will be required to offer them [level 4 and 5 qualifications] as ‘exit’ qualifications if learners choose to leave a course early.
In my experience, most institutions now do this. If a student wants or needs to finish their studies at the end of their first year, for example, (providing they have passed the required modules), the institution would offer to award them with the Level 4 qualification that recognises their learning to date – most likely a certificate of higher education. However, ‘CertHEs’ are only routinely awarded ‘mid-degree’ if a student withdraws, and many students don’t know that there is an option to take a qualification at the end of their first year. One might wonder if providers could maintain this ‘consolation prize’ status quo. However, the paper goes further, stating:
The introduction of break points will ensure that learners are acquiring vital, usable skills in every year of higher education. It will give them the option to break down their learning, achieving a qualification at level 4 after the first year and level 5 after their second year of studies, while also ensuring institutions are incentivised to support those who wish to continue their studies. This will enable young people to ‘stay local and go further’ by connecting local provision at level 4 and 5 with internationally recognised degree-level providers, unlocking opportunity and ambition across every region.
I am reading between the lines here, but it looks as though providers may be expected to award students at the end of each year of learning, increasing awareness of stackable, flexible learning, and potentially a knock-on increase in student mobility between institutions. As with much of this White Paper, we await the details.
Accommodation
The white paper outlines:
We will work with the sector and others so that the supply of student accommodation meets demand, including increasing the supply of affordable accommodation where that is needed. We will work with the sector, drafting a statement of expectations on accommodation which will call upon providers to work strategically with their local authorities to ensure there is adequate accommodation for the individuals they recruit.
Firstly, this statement is a little ironic given that the Renters Reform Act that has just passed through parliament is likely to reduce small (generally one to two bedroom) off-street student housing provision – as outlined by Martin Blakey in his blog.
This feels woolly to me. What levers does the Government have to pull to increase the supply of affordable accommodation for students? If it does have any, why have these not been pulled already? The main driver of expensive student accommodation is that there are not enough houses (for the general population as well as students), allowing rents to be driven ever higher. Providers working strategically with local authorities won’t deliver more housing stock. (Unless the magic house bush grows alongside the magic money tree?)
We’ve seen a ‘Statement of Expectations’ previously, delivered by the OfS in relation to sexual harassment prevention and response on campus. This was an evaluated stepping stone on the way to regulation. Could there be an increased expectation on institutions to provide affordable accommodation as part of future regulation? A sensible ideology, perhaps. After all, we know students want and need cheap places to live. But given the financial position of many institutions, the resulting pause in capital building projects, the increase in commuter students and the impending decline in 18-year-old population numbers, I can’t see many subsidised student flats being built anytime soon.
Apprenticeship ‘units’
We have known since before the 2024 General Election that Labour wanted to expand the Apprenticeship Levy to become the Growth and Skills Levy. We see some more detail about this in the paper:
We want employers to be able to use the levy on short, flexible training courses.
Currently, apprenticeships are funded by the apprenticeship levy. Businesses with a pay bill of over £3 million pay 0.5% of this into the levy ‘pot’. Businesses can then use the levy fund to cover the cost of training apprenticeships. Since the introduction of the levy, the number of apprenticeship starts has fallen, and the age profile of apprenticeships has changed. Since 2015, proportionately more apprenticeships have been started by those aged 25 or over.
Source: Department for Education, Apprenticeships and traineeships data
So – the apprenticeship levy was, unintentionally, a good policy for lifelong learning; businesses wanted to reinvest their levy costs into their business and found that an effective way to do this was to upskill colleagues already employed in their organisation, often on higher or degree apprenticeships. The flip side of this meant that the intended outcomes of the policy, supporting school and college-leavers into apprenticeships, were stymied.
To tackle this, most Level 7 Apprenticeships were defunded, with the aim of pushing funding back towards younger learners and lower-level apprenticeships. So the move to ‘apprenticeship units’ feels undermining of this aim. Again, this is likely to be great for lifelong learning. Employers will be able to upskill their workforce, initially in ‘priority areas’ such as artificial intelligence, digital and engineering.
There is a limited pot of growth and skills levy funding, which has been fully or overspent for the last two academic years. So if the Government wants to increase apprenticeships for younger learners, it will need to expand this pot, and potentially ring-fence some of this. The potential for a bigger pot is hinted at:
We will work with businesses and employers over the coming months to ensure that the growth in skills levy author is developed to help meet their needs and incentivise further employer investment in training.
However, ring-fencing is not mentioned. The Government will need to put some guardrails in place here if they want to meet their target of two-thirds of young people going to university, further education or a ‘gold standard apprenticeship’ by the age of 25.
Conclusion
So, while some of these statements are bold, remember that White Papers set out proposals for future legislation; there is a long way to go before legislation is in place. Further, there are several places in the white paper where the Government doesn’t specifically propose legislation; instead, there’s a sense of just asking the sector nicely. This is all well and good, but in times of severe financial constraint, asking institutions nicely to take steps that will cost them money is unlikely to yield results.
As the higher education sector in England gets deeper into the metaphorical financial woods, the frequency of OfS updates on the sector’s financial position increases apace.
Today’s financial sustainability bulletin constitutes an update to the regulator’s formal annual assessment of sector financial sustainability published in May 2025. The update takes account of the latest recruitment data and any policy changes that could affect the sector’s financial outlook that would not have been taken into account at the point that providers submitted their financial returns to OfS ahead of the May report.
Recruitment headlines
At sector level, UK and international recruitment trends for autumn 2025 entry have shown growth by 3.1 per cent and 6.3 per cent respectively. But this is still lower than the aggregate sector forecasts of 4.1 per cent and 8.6 per cent, which OfS estimates could result in a total sector wide net loss of £437.8m lower than forecast tuition fee income. “Optimism bias” in financial forecasting might have been dialled back in recent years following stiff warnings from OfS, but these figures suggest it’s still very much a factor.
Growth has also been uneven across the sector, with large research intensive institutions increasing UK undergraduate numbers at a startling 9.9 per cent in 2025 (despite apparently collectively forecasting a modest decline of 1.7 per cent), and pretty much everyone else coming in lower than forecast or taking a hit. Medium-sized institutions win a hat tip for producing the most accurate prediction in UK undergraduate growth – actual growth of 2.3 per cent compared to projected growth of 2.7 per cent.
The picture shifts slightly when it comes to international recruitment, where larger research-intensives have issued 3.3 per cent fewer Confirmations of Acceptance of Studies (CAS) against a forecasted 6.6 per cent increase, largely driven by reduction in visas issued to students from China. Smaller and specialist institutions by contrast seem to have enjoyed growth well beyond forecast. The individual institutional picture will, of course, vary even more – and it’s worth adding that the data is not perfect, as not every student applies through UCAS.
Modelling the impact
OfS has factored in all of the recruitment data it has, and added in new policy announcements, including estimation of the impact of the indexation of undergraduate tuition fees, and increases to employers National Insurance contributions, but not the international levy because nobody knows when that is happening or how it will be calculated. It has then applied its model to providers’ financial outlook.
The headline makes for sombre reading – across all categories of provider OfS is predicting that if no action were taken, the numbers of providers operating in deficit in 2025–26 would rise from 96 to 124, representing on increase from 35 per cent of the sector to 45 per cent.
Contrary to the impression given by UK undergraduate recruitment headlines, the negative impact isn’t concentrated in any one part of the sector. OfS modelling suggests that ten larger research-intensive institutions could tip into deficit in 2025–26, up from five that were already forecasting themselves to be in that position. The only category of provider where OfS estimates indicate fewer providers in deficit than forecast is large teaching-intensives.
The 30 days net liquidity is the number you need to keep an eye on because running out of cash would be much more of a problem than running a deficit for institutional survival. OfS modelling suggests that the numbers reporting net liquidity of under 30 days could rise from 41 to 45 in 2025–26, with overall numbers concentrated in the smaller and specialist/specialist creative groups.
What it all means
Before everyone presses the panic button, it’s really important to be aware, as OfS points out, that providers will be well aware of their own recruitment data and the impact on their bottom line, and will have taken what action they can to reduce in-year costs, though nobody should underestimate the ongoing toll those actions will have taken on staff and students.
Longer term, as always, the outlook appears sunnier, but that’s based on some ongoing optimism in financial forecasting. If, as seems to keep happening, some of that optimism turns out to be misplaced, then the financial struggles of the sector are far from over.
Against this backdrop, the question remains less about who might collapse in a heap and more about how to manage longer term strategic change to adapt providers’ business models to the environment that higher education providers are operating in. Though government has announced that it wants providers to coordinate, specialise and collaborate, while the sector continues to battle heavy financial weather those aspirations will be difficult to realise, however desirable they might be in principle.
The Adult Student Priorities Survey (ASPS) is the instrument in the family of Satisfaction-Priorities Surveys that best captures the experiences of graduate level students and adult learners in undergraduate programs at four-year institutions. The Adult Student Priorities Survey provides the student perspectives for non-traditional populations along with external national benchmarks to inform decision-making for nearly 100 institutions across the country.
Why the Adult Student Priorities Survey matters
As a comprehensive survey instrument, the Adult Student Priorities Survey assesses student satisfaction within the context of the level of importance that students place on a variety of experiences, both inside and outside of the classroom. The combination of satisfaction and importance scores provides the identification of institutional strengths (areas of high importance and high satisfaction) and institutional challenges (areas of high importance and low satisfaction). Strengths can be celebrated, and challenges can be addressed by campus leadership to build on the good where possible and to re-enforce other areas where needed.
With the survey implementation, all currently enrolled students (based on who the institution wants to include) can provide feedback on their experiences with instruction, advising, registration, recruitment/financial aid, support services and how they feel as a student at the institution. The results deliver external benchmarks with other institutions serving adult learners, including data that is specific to graduate programs, and the ability to monitor internal benchmarks when the survey is administered over multiple years. (The national student satisfaction results are published annually). The delivered results also provide the option to analyze subset data for all standard and customizable demographic indicators to understand where targeted initiatives may be required to best serve student populations.
Connecting ASPS data to student success and retention
Like the Student Satisfaction Inventory and the Priorities Survey for Online Learners (the other survey instruments in the Satisfaction-Priorities family), the data gathered by the Adult Student Priorities Survey can support multiple initiatives on campus including to inform student success efforts, to provide the student voice for strategic planning, to document priorities for accreditation purposes and to highlight positive messaging for recruitment activities. Student satisfaction has been positively linked with higher individual student retention and higher institutional graduation rates, getting right to the heart of higher education student success.
Ask for a complimentary consultation with our student success experts
What is your best approach to increasing student retention and completion? Our experts can help you identify roadblocks to student persistence and maximize student progression. Reach out to set up a time to talk.
Two institutions, The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) and SUNY Morrisville, shared their experiences implementing the College Student Inventory (CSI) during a webinar I hosted. Both institutions found the CSI valuable for identifying at-risk students, gauging their willingness to accept help, and connecting students with relevant campus resources. The CSI’s value lies in its ability to identify students at risk, gauge their receptivity to assistance, and facilitate immediate connections to campus resources.
The College of New Jersey (TCNJ)
Jamel T. Johnson, director of the office of mentoring, retention, and success programs, spearheaded a campuswide implementation of the CSI in 2025, building on their previous use within the Educational Opportunity Fund program. Johnson aimed to increase completion rates from approximately 70% to 100%. They achieved a remarkable 93.7% completion rate and are now analyzing the data to inform targeted interventions and partnerships across campus. Johnson’sfocus is on understanding the data gleaned from the CSI to inform broader campus initiatives, signaling an ongoing process of implementation and refinement. As Johnson stated, “We’re excited about what we have seen, and we’re excited about where we’re going to be going with the assessment.”
The CSI’s Overall Risk Index showed Johnson that there was concern with commuter students. He was able to get this data in front of a team within their student affairs division whose core task is to support commuter students. “We’ve met with them and now they’re deploying different efforts to meet the needs based upon what we have seen.” Johnson is set to administer the Mid-Year Student Assessment (MYSA) and will use the data to help further their efforts for their commuter students.
When asked, “What types of early intervention strategies have you found to be most effective when guided by?” Johnson used two words “conversation versus correction”. Again, emphasizing that the CSI is not an aptitude test. Johnson did not want correction and score talk to be the first interaction his students had with his staff.
Johnson emphasized the importance of stakeholders seeing themselves reflected in the data when discussing campus collaboration. When a campus fosters collaboration and effectively utilizes its data, the positive impact on students becomes evident.
SUNY Morrisville
Brenda Oursler-White, director of assessment and accreditation and interim dean for the School of Liberal Arts, Science, and Society, implemented the CSI in fall 2023 to improve first-time, full-time student retention rates. There was a significant increase in completion rates, rising from 73% in fall 2024 to 85.3% in fall 2025. Oursler-White attributes this success to student engagement, clear messaging about the benefits of the assessment, and connecting students to resources based on their results.
SUNY Morrisville’s success was partly driven by showcasing the tangible benefits of completing the CSI, specifically the increased likelihood of returning for the spring semester compared to those who didn’t participate. Oursler-White stated, “The College Student Inventory isn’t like magic wand, meaning if you complete it, you’re going to be successful. They still have to put in the work.” With a target to improve first-time, full-time student retention rates, she expressed that a key challenge was securing buy-in from faculty, staff, administration, and students.
When asked, “What types of early intervention strategies have you found to be most effective?” Oursler-White’s response was similar to Johnson’s. She put an emphasis on using the word ranking rather than score and working with the student to interpret their results. The student saw 65% and thought of it as a letter grade. When in reality they were above the national norm and at the 65th percentile. It was important to have clear communication and to allow the student to learn more about themselves while building a relationship and a sense of belonging. Oursler-White took it upon herself to hand out over 600 student reports, meeting within the classroom to work with students hand-in-hand with their results and next steps.
Boost student success through motivational assessment
We are grateful to these two campuses for sharing their experiences to assist others with understanding how the data can best be utilized on campus. If you are interested in learning more, download the webinar recording.
To explore next steps and discover how the College Student Inventory (CSI) can impact retention and student success efforts, ask for a walkthrough or please reach out to me via email.
We develop a college list based on your student’s academic profile, personal preferences, and financial parameters.
Included Tools:Our exclusive Student & Parent Portals offer advanced college search capabilities unavailable anywhere else.
📅 Application Strategy & Planning
We guide students through deadlines, requirements, and priorities unique to each school.
Included Tools:Our proprietary App Tracker maps every task by college to keep you on pace and fully informed.
✍️ Personal Statements & Essays
We provide structured support for brainstorming, drafting, revising, and polishing personal statements and supplemental essays.
Included Tools:A collaborative Google Drive folder gives us a shared workspace for timely feedback and revision support.
💰 Financial Aid & Scholarships
We go beyond the FAFSA, helping you navigate institutional aid, merit scholarships, and cost-conscious strategies.
Guiding Principle:The best way to afford college is to choose wisely—and we’ll help you do just that.
🎤 Interviews & Academic Profiles
Students will be prepared for college interviews, resume creation, and academic profiles that highlight strengths and achievements now and in the future.
Included Tools:We help students document activities and skills in ways that support their applications and future goals.
