This September when classes started, it wasn’t the first time I had met with the students who walked through the door. That’s because during the week before they arrived on campus, I had conducted online group interviews with students who expressed an interest in taking my courses. All the students had to do was show up at one of the times I had set aside to meet with them.
The interviews are a tradition at Sarah Lawrence College, where I teach, and they are designed to let students get to know more about us as individual faculty in order for them to see if they want to take one of our courses. It’s a practice other colleges should try.
The interviews, which typically last about 30 minutes, are not a substitute for the descriptions of my courses or the syllabi I post. They are best described as the academic equivalent of a movie trailer.
The difference in this case is that the students, unlike moviegoers, are not asked to sit quietly in their seats. They are invited to ask questions after I have conducted a short presentation of what I hope will happen in my class. In these precourse interviews the students are the ones with the decision-making power. When an interview ends, they can simply decide my class is not for them and go off to another interview.
Some of the questions I get are of the nuts-and-bolts variety. How much reading do I assign a week? How many papers do I require over a term? But many of the questions are substantive. Why Book X rather than Book Y? What was the most interesting essay I got back last year?
If there is enough time, I will ask the students interviewing me to say why my course might interest them and how it fits in with the other courses they are contemplating. Students are welcome to stay after the group interview is formally over and have a one-on-one conversation.
During the interviews, I also try to explain my thinking about teaching. I don’t, for example, subscribe to the tonnage theory of assigned reading. A course in which a student races through 500 pages a week is not, I believe, better than a course in which a student closely reads 200 pages a week.
Equally important, I don’t think students should be strictly on their own when it comes to writing their papers. In the so-called real world, my editors don’t wait until I have published a book or an essay to offer up their advice. They do it before I publish, and I try to apply that practice in my classes. I see myself as my students’ editor before I ever become their judge and jury.
When it comes to AI and ChatGPT, I don’t have a lot to say these days. I think the subject has been talked to death. I tell my students to stay away from AI and ChatGPT as much as possible. Why, I ask, pay good money for an education, then turn to software that limits your critical thinking and research? The writing assignments I give are, I hope, sufficiently thoughtful that AI and ChatGPT can only be of minimal value. When it comes to long-form essays, I want my students to think about the material they are analyzing with a depth that is impossible on a timed test.
Looking back on a week of interviews, I often worry that I have imposed too much of myself on students. But in the end that is, I think, a risk worth taking. What precourse interviews offer is a chance for students to see that a course is more than a rote plan. It’s an undertaking that depends on mutual engagement that resists easy prediction.
Nicolaus Mills is chair of the literature department at Sarah Lawrence College and author of Winning the Peace: The Marshall Plan and America’s Coming of Age as a Superpower (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Rupert Houghton, a Student at Magdalen College School.
Loneliness is a fundamental part of being human, and it occurs as a part of everyone’s life at some point. But today’s world, and the changes in the way we all interact mean that loneliness has found new, easier ways to enter the lives of many people, and particularly, younger people. The statistics on this are clear:
10.3% of British secondary school students feel ‘often or always’ lonely (ONS)
43% of 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK would feel uncomfortable about admissions that they feel lonely (YouGov)
Loneliness is clearly a big issue for those in higher education and for those about to enter it. There are some schemes and policies to attempt to counteract this, but what is often not considered when it comes to policymaking is that loneliness is a physical condition, not just one based on feelings. How, then, should loneliness be thought of differently?
An important fact to remember when dealing with loneliness is that humans are not merely social out of choice, but out of evolutionary necessity. Pre-agrarian humans (before the Agricultural Revolution 7000 years ago) operated in groups, and they depended on each other to fulfil different roles for the group’s overall survival. As a result, humans evolved to seek out positive social relationships as working with others was crucial to our survival.
Loneliness is used to signal to the brain that a person’s social inclusion, and therefore survival, is at risk, and the brain therefore starts fighting for survival. Social rejection uses the same neural networks as physical pain, and causes a minor stress response in the brain. Loneliness is merely the prolonged and sustained activation of this stress response and so puts physical stress on the mechanisms within the brain that cause it.
When this response is elicited, the brain starts to transition itself into a socially hyper-alert state, as it attempts to preserve existing positive relationships, and minimise the number of negative interactions experienced. Studies have shown that the brain changes its own structure to accommodate this and changes the way facial expressions are read. Lonely individuals show a heightened sensitivity to negative social stimuli, including negative facial expressions, words, phrases, or pictures. They were shown to more quickly and accurately spot negative social cues but were also seen to mislabel neutral and even positive social cues as negative more often than their non-lonely counterparts.
In a pre-agrarian human social structure, this problem would have been resolved relatively quickly. It was necessary to work together in groups to survive, which would force a degree of socialisation. To avoid social rejection, an individual would perhaps change some aspects of their own behaviour and be able to pick up on the reaction of their peers, and so change to be better accepted into the group, which would enforce more positive social relationships.
Nowadays, however, it is harder for this process to take place. Instead, it is far easier for people to spend more time alone or reduce the time they spend socialising. The changes in neural pathways therefore start to have a different effect on a lonely person’s behaviour. As they become more sensitive to negative social stimuli, their brain can view them as ‘threatening’, and attempts to prevent exposure to them, causing them to self-isolate. This, rather than fixing the problem only exacerbates the perception of low social standing, increasing the feeling of loneliness.
The main physical impacts of loneliness come from its effects on the hormones secreted by glands within the brain. One of these hormones is cortisol, often called the ‘stress hormone’. Loneliness has been shown to make the brain overwork and produce more cortisol than it would ordinarily. This leads to a number of detrimental health effects: high levels of cortisol have been linked to chronic inflammation, disrupted sleep cycles in young adults, and raised blood pressure.
Loneliness is clearly becoming an endemic problem, particularly in secondary and higher education and is having a very real effect on students’ health. Loneliness is a self-perpetuating condition and something that easily becomes chronic, so it is therefore best to prevent it before it begins. The policy focus must be placed on making students aware of loneliness before it can start to impact on people’s education and wellbeing. Whether that be through making universities give more open information on loneliness, how to keep social, or ensuring that students are informed about how the choices made could affect their risk of loneliness, starting a conversation about it before it becomes a problem should be a priority.
If that question immediately makes your heart race, muscles tense, or your face do an unflattering cringe type of expression, you’re not alone. This question used to immediately spike my blood pressure too, until I realized I wasn’t actually frustrated with the question itself or even the student who asked it, but I was frustrated with the culture we have created in education that influences this type of behavior.
Many students approach their education with a narrow goal: study hard, ace the exam, and get an A in the class. It can feel disappointing when students seem to only care about what will be on the test or how they can bargain to bump up their grades, compared to learning and applying new knowledge to real-world experiences. Traditional grading systems tend to highlight performance above progress and prioritize short-term achievements over long-term growth. This approach not only confines deeper learning but also limits students’ understanding of what success in education truly means. Alternative grading methods that support critical thinking and meaningful reflection, like competency-based grading, can effectively promote student learning and enhance engagement.
Point-Chasing vs. Progress-Making: When Learning Takes the Lead
Traditional grading systems often:
Emphasize point accumulation rather than true comprehension
Include punitive consequences for errors without offering a chance to revisit/improve early coursework
Encourage a focus on “final” grades instead of continuous learning and growth
Traditional grading can also be inconsistent (“Traditional Grading Systems vs. Standards-Based Grading Systems” 2023). A student who only partially understands the content might pass with the application of extra credit or a grading curve, while another student who makes significant progress over time may still fail simply due to early struggles that cannot be counterbalanced. As educators in higher education, we recognize that learning isn’t always linear; so why do our grading practices assume it is?
Meeting Students Where They Are: What is Competency-Based Grading?
Competency-based grading promotes multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency in specific skills or learning outcomes instead of assigning a single score or high-stakes pass/fail grade to an assignment (Townsley and Schmid 2020). In addition to knowledge, this framework assesses expected student attitudes and skills in a progressive design that holds students accountable. It is important to define clear learning outcomes along with a constructive feedback process to guide future development toward mastery. Naturally, this approach shifts the focus from a final judgment to ongoing growth and improvement. If a student does not meet expectations for a certain skill, they aren’t faced with a permanent loss of points but instead could remediate and try again. (Hanson n.d.)
Putting Mastery into Motion: Strategies to Get Started
Transitioning from a traditional grading system can be a daunting task. Here are six helpful strategies to get started:
Start small. Unless the program is completing a comprehensive curriculum redesign, reworking your entire course all at once is not recommended and would likely overwhelm you and the students alike. Pilot competency-based grading by applying it to a single assignment or unit taught within the course.
Define clear learning outcomes. Identify the specific skills and competencies all students should be able to demonstrate. Ensure outcomes are specific, measurable, and student-centered. For example, “will demonstrate proper hand hygiene using aseptic technique” is preferable to “will understand proper hygiene practices”.
Use outcome-driven rubrics. Competency-based education closely aligns with backward design, so use the determined learning outcomes to build directly correlated rubrics. Focus on mastery, not points. Allow students to access the rubrics in advance. Describe what “competent” looks like by providing specific criteria with behavioral statements for different levels of achievement and provide routine formative feedback on how students can improve if they do not meet expectations. Some of the same assignments can be used, but the method of assessment changes.
Use a 4-point scale (or similar) to assess student progress. Competency-based grading focuses on students demonstrating mastery of specific learning objectives rather than accumulating points. (“Extending Our View of Extending” 2022)
Plan for remediation activities. Incorporate opportunities for revision/resubmission attempts or re-demonstrations into the course schedule. For feasibility, set limits on the total number of resubmissions/re-demonstrations allowed or set a specific timeframe such as within one week of receiving faculty feedback.
Focus your feedback. Avoid commenting on everything and instead, try to highlight one or two priority areas to guide students toward targeted improvement and maintain a manageable workload. Offer timely individualized support and feedback based on each student’s needs. (Farah 2021; Townsley and Schmid 2020)
Troubleshooting the Transition
Challenges are expected to accompany any change but can usually be mitigated with some thoughtful planning. Although higher education seems to collectively be moving toward competency-based grading, some faculty may experience resistance from their faculty peers and learners. Being transparent by sharing the reason behind the change and how it will benefit students can help increase understanding and engagement from both parties. Providing real-world examples in this area and the powerful impact competency-based education has already had on learning is an influential bonus! Faculty may express valid concerns centered around the increased workload related to time and additional resource demands necessary for success. Since remediation takes time and effort from students and faculty alike, be sure to set clear limits on remediation assignments and the process for completion. Be the example you set for others by utilizing available resources and seeking out professional development opportunities to increase your knowledge. Several online tools, including assessment builders, feedback templates, and progress-tracking programs, can assist faculty in maintaining consistency and efficiency in competency-based grading implementation.
What You Gain When You Grade for Growth
After making the transition and offering a more personalized and reflective learning experience, students focus more attention on what they are learning as opposed to what grade they are getting. Their confidence and willingness to take academic risks increases while anxiety decreases without the fear of irreversible grade penalties taking up real estate in their mind. Instead of asking “How many points did I lose?”, students start asking “How can I improve or make that better?” – which is inspiring! Grading for growth isn’t about lowering academic standards. It’s about redefining meaningful learning and reshaping expectations. Minor changes can lead to major transformation. Take the first step and be prepared to marvel at what happens when students are empowered with the tools and encouragement to grow.
Lisa Pitzer, DNP, MSN, RN, CNE, CNE-cl, serves as an Assistant Professor of Nursing at Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing in Peoria, Illinois. In this role, she oversees the Nursing Resource Center Simulation Laboratory and provides instruction in fundamentals and medical-surgical nursing. Dr. Pitzer is a Certified Nurse Educator and Certified Academic Clinical Nurse Educator whose scholarly interests focus on simulation-based pedagogy, curricular innovation, and advancing student success in nursing education. She is an active member of the National League for Nursing, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, and Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.
Townsley, Matt and Deron Schmid. “Alternative Grading Practices: An Entry Point for Faculty in Competency-Based Education.” The Journal of Competency-Based Education 5, no. 3 (2020): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1219.
The Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) is excellent in all kinds of ways.
It eschews the competitiveness of league tables. It provides a multi-faceted look at everything that is going on in the world of knowledge exchange. And it is nuanced in comparing similar kinds of institutions.
KEF is not overly bureaucratic and it is helpful for universities in understanding where they might improve their knowledge exchange work.
The KEF is the friend that would help you move house even if it isn’t the first one you would call for a gossip. It is nice, it is helpful, it is realistic on what is and isn’t working. In the very kindest way possible it is straightforward.
The problem is that the nuance of the KEF doesn’t make for sensational coverage. There isn’t an up and down narrative, there aren’t really winners and losers, and of course there is no funding attached. It is a mirror to the world of knowledge exchange that simply shows what is going on.
And if you dig deep enough the stories are good. Queen Mary University of London is doing a superb job at IP and commercialisation as well as public and community engagement all the while generating £760m of GVA. Birmingham Newman University is playing a significant role in local growth and regeneration through partnerships, placements, collaborations and consultancy. While the University of Plymouth has one of the most complete radar diagrams with a distinct focus on its maritime work.
Every single event about how the sector promotes its value discusses the need for universities to have a better story about their places, economic impact, and the tangible impact they make on people’s lives. The KEF is a single source of hundreds of such stories, but somehow it is not cutting through.
Perhaps, one of the reasons is because the consequences of doing badly (whatever badly means in the context of KEF) is very little. It is not the public shaming tool of the TEF, it is not the funding mechanism of REF, and it doesn’t attract very much media attention. It could have been so different. As Jo Johnson, then Science Minister, said at the launch of KEF
Our ambition is that the new KEF will become an important public indicator of how good a job universities are doing at discharging their third mission, just as the REF rewards excellence in research and the TEF rewards excellence in teaching and student outcomes.
The KEF does not reward anything, but it could (yes – its constituent parts are linked to HEIF but that isn’t quite the same thing.)
My favourite gains
Another model of funding distribution is possible. One of the major concerns about the REF is that it is becoming too complex. REF measures inputs and outputs, it looks at impact but not in the same way as KEF, and there is also the ongoing debate about People, Culture, and Environment, as a measure of research excellence.
To make the REF more manageable and make the KEF more meaningful perhaps it is time to add funding consequences to KEF and just shift the pressure a little bit. Previously, I have made the argument that one way of doing this would be to rationalise all of the funding mechanisms that bump into KEF:
As a starting point it would be sensible to rationalise HEIF allocations and KEF measurements. Without getting into the weeds at this stage a joint data set would likely draw from an enhanced HE-BCI survey, Innovate UK income, research income, journal data, and non-credit bearing course data from the Office for Students. The most straightforward way would be either to dispense with HEIF entirely and allocate the whole pot to KEF with a strengthened self-assessment element, like in REF, or use KEF as the sole basis for HEIF allocations. This would avoid both double counting funds and reduce administrative burden.
Given the government agenda around universities and economic contribution now might be the time to consider going further.
One measure could be to allocate a proper funding formula to KEF. In keeping with the spirit of KEF each university would still be organised into a cluster, ensuring like for like is being compared, and funding would be allocated on a formula basis depending on their contribution to each of the seven areas. Each area would not have to receive the same level of funding. Instead, the government could vary it from time to time depending on national priorities or alternatively universities could (in advance) make a pitch for their own growth priorities ensuring they devote energy to and are rewarded for where their strengths lie. This would also help with greater specialisation.
Simultaneously, the government could add in a more dynamic competition element that is tied to funding. For example, given the state of the economy it might make sense to provide greater reward for the institutions contributing to local growth and innovation. This then becomes a whole new kind of funding route with funding to support the things universities are good at and a gentle nudge toward the things government wish them to do.
Something changed
The trade-offs, and the arguments, would of course be significant. In a world of fiscal constraint one of the trade-offs would be reducing funding allocated through REF or through grants in order to fund KEF.
Reducing funding through REF may help to reduce some pressure on it but it isn’t clear that reducing the pot for exploratory research would be a net economic good in the long-term. Reducing grant funding would mean simply trading off one lever to direct research activity for another.
Simultaneously, adding in funding allocations to KEF would undoubtedly make it into a more high-pressure exercise which would then attract costs as universities looked to maximise their returns. The exercise would need to be carefully managed to, as far as possible, rely on public data and limited returns.
Nonetheless, it seems to be a wasted opportunity to have an exercise which is primed for measuring engagements between universities and wider society and economy, at precisely the time there seems to be a consensus this is a good idea, but with few levers to enhance this work. The benefit of looking at a funding allocation toward KEF could be a greater spread of providers rewarded for their work, greater focus on growth and social contribution, and greater attention on the work universities do alongside research and teaching.
The road to a new kind of KEF is long. However, if the debate about REF has taught us anything, it’s that trying to change a single exercise is exceptionally hard. If the current arrangements feel tired, and reform feels piecemeal, perhaps now is the time to look at the whole ecosystem and look at a system which prizes universities third mission as much as their other work.
Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Multicultural Affairs and International Education Julian Hill was promoted by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after the May election. Picture: Jason Edwards
An international education framework will shape the “next phase of maturity” of the Albanese government’s vision of a quality-first, managed-growth tertiary education sector.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Associate Professor Aaron Driver. Picture: Future Campus
Almost all employees at the University of New England (UNE) use AI each day to augment tasks, despite the wider sector slowly adopting the tech into its workforce.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
University of the Sunshine Coast pro-vice-chancellor (global and engagement) Alex Elibank-Murray and technology lead Associate Professor Rania Shibl share their experiences of partnerships with industry to enhance student experience in fast-changing fields.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
As the new academic year approaches, universities across the UK are gearing up to welcome thousands of new students.
The first week on campus is all about helping students feel welcome, and evidence shows that this transition period is crucial for fostering a sense of belonging.
But why should we care about fostering belonging in our students? Well, belonging is a basic human need and central to our wellbeing. Belonging is predominantly about social relationships, but also the environment, cultural groups, and physical places we reside in. That is, belonging is about all areas of life.
For university students, a sense of belonging at their institutions is one of the key factors to help them get the most out of their degree. Students who report a strong sense of belonging to their university course often experience better mental health and general wellbeing.
Overlooking postgraduate taught (PGT) students
Worryingly, however, there is a lack of focus on postgraduate taught (PGT) students within the belonging literature. It is perhaps easy to assume that because PGTs have made the transition to university already, they will find the transition to the next level of study easy. But from the (limited) research out there, the transition from undergraduate to PGT is just as challenging, and surveys exploring wellbeing consistently reveal PGT students have poor, and sometimes the worst, wellbeing levels of any student cohort.
PGT students are also overlooked more broadly across the higher education landscape. There is heavy weighing on the importance of the National Student Survey (NSS) which explores undergraduate student experience. The NSS is highly influential, publicly published and discussed in the media and league tables. In contrast, the (optional) Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) is much less visible and has much lower response rates. The response in 2024 was proudly published as the highest ever response rate at 13 per cent of the UK PGT student population. The 2024 NSS achieved a 72.3 per cent response rate. This may be in part due to the visibility of the PTES, and shorter course length, but could also reflect a weaker sense of belonging in these cohorts.
What can we do to improve PGT student belonging?
Taken together, it seems as though PGT students often feel a weak sense of belonging on their courses and are overlooked by the sector. As a staff member working closely with PGT students, and a PGT student who has suffered a lack of belonging, we recognised the issue and noted the lack of clear guidance for educators to start thinking about these issues in their own settings.
We therefore produced a free guide for educators to consider PGT belonging in their own contexts. The guide is available to download for free from the Open Science Framework (OSF).
In the guide, we have outlined what belonging is, why it is so crucial for all students, but we have a particular focus on PGT students. We have also provided prompts for educators to reflect on their current practice, with the aim of inspiring staff to identify opportunities for increasing belonging.
We have provided 5 simple evidence-based recommendations that educators can make now to work towards increased belonging in PGT students, which we will highlight in turn here. The first recommendation is around language and communication. PGT students report feeling that a lot of the generic information received from university was tailored to their undergraduate peers. Simple rewording for each cohort receiving the emails would really help students feel seen and valued.
And staff need to develop an awareness of the cohort diversity. Some students will be entering straight after undergraduate, but many return to study after time away which can be challenging. PGT students have higher tuition fees and typically no separate maintenance loan, thus it is common for these students to have work commitments alongside their studies. PGT students are expected to learn independently at a higher level, often within just a year. Many universities run conversion courses, allowing students to change discipline. This can mean grappling with a different epistemology, which is a unique challenge.
Ideally, staff should provide appropriate levels of support to the unique needs of the cohort. One way in which this tailored support could be provided is through informal upskilling workshops to ensure students understand the expectations of the programme. These could be run by the school, department, or centrally.
The final two recommendations centre around the ability to form social connections. PGT students feel that due to such full timetables, they have limited opportunities to develop connections with their peers. Scheduling opportunities for PGT students to socialise, particularly when they are already on campus, can help develop those much-needed social connections. For instance, holding a regular coffee morning or study session can mean students have a space to work and socialise in between teaching sessions.
Students also need to develop meaningful relationships with teaching staff. When staff actively schedule and attend student events, they help cultivate authentic relationships that enhance student engagement. These informal social opportunities can nurture a community feeling.
Final thoughts
With all this in mind, how will you ensure your next cohort of PGT students feels a sense of belonging? Download the guide, reflect on your practice, and start making small, meaningful changes – because every student deserves to feel that they belong.
What is Full-Funnel Marketing for Higher Education?
At its core, full-funnel marketing means investing in upper-funnel awareness and mid-funnel consideration strategies to drive lead generation efforts and investing in post-inquiry marketing to continue to nurture prospects into students.
While we like to think of the student journey as a linear process and clear path that every student follows, the reality is that every student journey is unique, and it rarely follows the exact path we proscribe. In spite of this reality, it is helpful to understand the stages of the journey that all prospective students must go through in some form. Understanding the stages of the student journey allows us to deploy a full funnel approach to our marketing and enrollment management efforts – one that takes a holistic approach and creates a student-centered experience that is more likely to result in better outcomes for your marketing efforts and ultimately your students.
Rather than focusing marketing efforts on lead generation efforts, a full funnel marketing approach invests in upper funnel activities and post-inquiry student engagement opportunities. Upper funnel marketing builds awareness and educates prospective future students. Down funnel pre-post-inquiry marketing nurtures prospective students, builds a relationship and helps the student move from consideration to enrollment and graduation.
In this article we will discuss the following topics:
Understanding the Student Journey
The student enrollment funnel is a critical framework for understanding the path prospective students take from initial awareness to becoming enrolled students. By recognizing the key stages and the specific needs of students at each point, institutions can tailor their outreach and support to maximize enrollment success.
Here’s a breakdown of the key stages of the student enrollment funnel:
When prospective students are just starting to consider higher education or specific programs, they are forming their first impressions on a variety of universities. This broad stage is your institution’s opportunity to grab their attention and inform them of who you are. The goal here is the craft and deliver messaging that excites your prospective students to learn more and easing them into the next stages of their decision-making journey.
You must lead with your brand story and values. This is where you establish your reputation as a forward-thinking innovator, a career catalyst or a community builder. Use powerful visual storytelling on social and video. Use organic content to expose the authentic student experience. This is how you bypass the noise and build a foundation of trust before a student even knows your name.
Grab the attention of these prospective students so that they’re aware of your institution through these channels:
Search
Social media
Over-the-top (OTT) advertising
Program Display
Audio
Video
Crafting and delivering messaging that focuses on your institution’s unique strengths such as innovative programs, a vibrant campus life, outstanding online options, or personalized student support can be beneficial for guiding potential students through the early stages of their decision-making journey.
2. Consideration: The Value Proposition
At this stage, students have narrowed their focus to a few institutions and are actively researching their options. This consideration stage is recognized as the longest in the student journey, lasting from the moment they first become aware of colleges all the way through enrollment. During this extended period, prospective students constantly revisit and refine their choices, narrowing down their top pick schools. According to our latest Engaging the Modern Learner Report, a majority of students have at most three schools in their consideration set. This highlights the importance of maintaining engagement throughout this critical phase.
The content here must prove your value. Forget the general brochures. Provide dynamic, personalized content that highlights your reputation in a way that’s relevant to the student’s specific interests. If you’re known for a top-tier nursing program, the content must show career outcomes, job placements and alumni stories. This is about converting curiosity into tangible desire by connecting your brand promise to a student’s personal ambition.
Highlight your strengths through informative content across various channels:
Search
Social media
Over-the-top (OTT) advertising
Program Display
Audio
Video
By providing informative, clear and confidence-building content that addresses student concerns, your institution can increase its visibility and solidify your institution as a top contender in the prospective student’s final selection process.
3. Conversion: The Proof of Promise
Prospective students compare their top choices and make their final decision. The communication strategy here should focus on addressing the prospective student’s final concerns, offering reassurance and providing clear and accessible information about their next steps.
During the conversion phase of the student enrollment funnel, prioritize creating a frictionless experience. By offering clear communication, readily available resources, and a streamlined application process, you can significantly increase your chances of converting prospective students into enrolled students, solidifying their decision to choose your institution.
Your admissions process is not just an application. It is a live reflection of your brand. The communication must be consistent with the brand promise. If your reputation is built on student-centric support, every email, phone call and text must be empathetic and helpful. Use hyper-personalized messaging and AI-powered tools that make the student feel heard and valued. The goal is to make the application feel like the first step in a personalized relationship not the end of a transaction.
Channels for increasing the likelihood of conversion during the conversion phase:
Search
Social
Email
SMS
By providing clear guidance, addressing concerns and showcasing the value proposition of your institution, you can ensure a seamless transition from prospective student to applicant.
Your institution has successfully captured the attention of prospective students and established an initial connection. At this stage, students are dedicating time to carefully consider their top options for advancing their education. Maintain and deepen prospective students’ interest by delivering messaging that is personalized, detailed and addresses each prospect’s specific concerns and questions. The key to a successful lead nurturing strategy is to provide a supportive, no-pressure environment while supporting their decision-making process and nudging them closer to taking the next step with your school.
This is where you double down on your brand. Your nurturing strategy should not just remind students of deadlines. It should make them feel like a part of your community before they ever set foot on campus. Use targeted campaigns that introduce them to their future classmates, faculty and student support services. Reinforce the values they fell in love with during the awareness stage. This mitigates “melt” and transforms an accepted student into an enrolled student.
Channels that can maximize your lead nurturing efforts include:
Search
Social
OTT
Program Display
Audio
Video
Email
SMS
Truly cultivate an understanding and support for prospective students navigating through the application process by delivering messaging that inspires them to complete their educational journey, personalized guidance and reminds them of the enriching experiences that await them at your institution.
5. Enrollment: The Starting Line
At this stage, prospective students have become applicants, now it’s a matter of getting them to enroll and move forward at your institution. Offering content that effectively addresses any final concerns and provides reassurance that their decision to enroll at your institution is the right choice, right fit and right time for them.
Enrollment is not the end of the funnel. It’s the beginning of a lifetime of brand loyalty. Acknowledge and celebrate this moment. Use this stage to welcome them to the community and prepare them for their new life as a student and future advocate for your brand.
Convert your applicants into enrolled students with these channels:
Feature content that addresses barriers such as affordability, mental burnout, and enrollment complexity by highlighting the availability of financial aid, scholarships, flexible payment options and personalized support services to promote streamlined enrollment process.
Utilizing email and SMS will be the most effective in delivering this type of content. Incorporating strategies such as targeted email campaigns and personalized phone calls can be effective. As long as the content you are offering provides clear and easy-to-follow instructions for the enrollment process, your institution can help eliminate any confusion or frustration and solidifying that the students’ decision to enroll at your school was the right one.
The Importance of Full-Funnel Marketing
At EducationDynamics, we have always taken a holistic approach to student recruitment and believe it is essential for long-term growth and sustainability. We have seen several shifts in the landscape that make a full-funnel marketing strategy more valuable than ever before.
Increasing Complexity in the Media Landscape
First, we see increasing complexity in the media landscape, from consumer behavior to advances in marketing channels. The average number of streaming hours consumed continues to rise. At the same time, ad-supported streaming platforms are growing in popularity and the social media landscape is fragmenting. In our latest Online College Students Report 2024, about 70% of online college students utilize primarily ad-supported streaming services and use YouTube, Spotify, YouTube TV, Netflix, and Hulu daily. These landscape changes are important in that they tell a story about where prospective students are spending their time online and how we can effectively reach them with advertising.
Changes in Prospective Students’ Search and Decision-Making Habits
Secondly, we are seeing changes in how prospective students are searching for and making decisions about higher education. As the focus on student loan debt and the value of higher education continues to be top of mind for students, we are seeing this manifest in prospective students doing more research even after the point of inquiry. In our 2024 Online College Students Report, 40% of online college students initially inquired at two schools and 21% inquired at three. Once they narrowed their selection 30% of online college students applied to two schools and 16% applied to three. Students are motivated to find the best value. They are therefore continuing to research past the point of inquiry and application to confirm their decision to invest—not just in tuition, but also their time and energy. Higher education marketers aim to respond by continuing to leverage various marketing channels to keep schools in the mix and reassure students why these schools are right for them and their circumstances.
With all these changes in the market, winning universities and colleges are shifting their marketing strategies to meet this dynamic environment. By implementing a full-funnel marketing approach, institutions can benefit from:
Increased Brand Awareness: A full-funnel strategy keeps your institution at the forefront of prospective students’ minds throughout their entire research journey. This consistent presence across various channels significantly increases brand awareness and strengthens institutional identity.
Improved Student Conversion Rates: By nurturing leads with targeted messaging and valuable content at each stage of the funnel, you effectively guide them towards enrollment. This personalized approach fosters trust and increases the likelihood of conversion from initial inquiry to final acceptance.
Stronger Return on Investment (ROI): Full-funnel marketing allows for targeted campaigns and data-driven optimization. This ensures your marketing budget is spent efficiently, reaching the right audience with the right message at the right time. You’ll see a significant improvement in ROI as you convert more qualified leads into enrolled students.
A Better Student Experience: At the heart of a full-funnel marketing strategy is a desire to deliver a better student experience by meeting the student wherever they are on the journey. A strong full-funnel marketing strategy is empathetic to the prospective student, listens to their direct and indirect engagement cues, and delivers an experience that provides the right information at the right time and on the right platform.
By embracing a full-funnel strategy, institutions can effectively navigate the complex media landscape, address the evolving needs of prospective students, and ultimately achieve their enrollment goals.
Growing Enrollment with Full-Funnel Marketing
While the execution of a full-funnel marketing approach will vary depending on the institution, there’s a common thread: measuring success through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tailored to each stage of the funnel. This means monitoring and measuring the micro-conversions and engagements along the journey in addition to the more obvious traditional conversion points like requests for information, application and enrollment.
Here’s a breakdown of KPIs for different funnel stages:
Top-of-Funnel (TOFU):
Brand Awareness: Focuses on metrics like impressions, reach, and brand recall to gauge how effectively your campaigns are building familiarity with your institution.
Website Traffic: Tracks overall website visits and unique visitors to understand how well your TOFU efforts are attracting potential students.
Engagement Rates: Measures user interaction on your website, such as time spent on pages, click-through rates on calls to action, and social media engagement, indicating deeper interest.
Mid-Funnel (MOFU):
There are two types of ‘Mid-Funnel’ stages in higher education marketing. We refer to the portion of the stage where the focus of marketing is on lead generation as pre-inquiry activities. Whereas, in admissions, enrollment and new student starts are the goal. We refer to this portion of the stage post-inquiry activities.
Pre-inquiry activities
Pre-inquiry activities include efforts made to connect with prospective students prior to directly contacting an institution for information. When tracking the effectiveness of these activities, higher ed marketers may consider these key metrics to determine their strategies’ ability to attract, engage and convert prospective students:
Lead Generation: Tracks cost-per-lead (CPL) alongside the volume of qualified leads generated by your mid-funnel activities (e.g., webinars, downloadable content).
Inquiry Volume: Measures the number of inquiries received through various channels, indicating a stronger interest in your programs.
Content Engagement: Analyzes how users interact with your mid-funnel content (e.g., white papers, blog posts) to assess its effectiveness in nurturing leads.
Post-inquiry activities
Following prospective students’ application submissions, your institution should prioritize a smooth transition into enrollment. A frictionless enrollment streamlines the process, ensuring a higher conversion rate while enhancing the overall student experience. To track the effectiveness of your post-inquiry activities, consider the following metrics:
Application Yield: Analyzes the percentage of applicants who complete the application process and submit their materials.
Offer Acceptance Rate: Measures the proportion of admitted students who accept your institution’s offer which indicates program interest after the students’ initial hurdle.
Lead Conversion Rates: Tracks the percentage of leads nurtured through email marketing or other channels that convert into applications.
Application Completion Rates: Measures how many inquiries progress towards completing the application process.
Bottom-of-Funnel (BOFU):
Enrollment Conversion Rate (Yield Rate): Tracks the percentage of admitted students who finalize registration and officially become enrolled to assess the effectiveness of the enrollment process.
Cost-per-Enrollment (CPE): Analyzes the total marketing spend divided by the number of enrolled students, reflecting the overall efficiency of your marketing efforts.
Deferral Rate: Analyzes the breakdown of admitted students who request to postpone their start date, providing insights into reasons for enrollment delays.
Monitoring these KPIs across the funnel stages provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of your full-funnel marketing strategy. This allows for data-driven adjustments to optimize each stage and ultimately improve your return on investment (ROI) for student recruitment.
By incorporating the costs associated with all stages of the funnel, you can leverage blended cost-per-enrollment (CPE) metrics. This provides a more holistic view of marketing effectiveness and allows you to utilize directional or causal analyses. These techniques go beyond simply observing correlations between upper funnel activities (such as brand awareness campaigns) and lead generation/bottom funnel results (like applications). They can help you understand the cause-and-effect relationships between these stages. Directional analyses can point you in the right direction, while causal analyses can provide more definitive evidence of the indirect impact that upper funnel activities have on lead generation and bottom funnel results.
Embracing a Full-Funnel Approach
As prospective students continue to search for higher education options and make decisions based on value, it is crucial for institutions to adapt their marketing strategies to meet this demand. Embracing a full-funnel approach will ensure that institutions stay competitive in the higher education market and achieve their enrollment goals.
Are you ready to transform your transform your marketing strategy to grow enrollment? Start a conversation with EducationDynamics today to discuss how we can help you implement a customized full-funnel strategy that drives enrollment growth and achieves your unique goals.
Edan Kauer is a former FIRE intern and a sophomore at Georgetown University.
Elliston Berry was just 14 years old when a male classmate at Aledo High in North Texas used AI to create fake nudes of her based on images he took from her social media. He then did the same to seven other girls at the school and shared the images on Snapchat.
Now, two years later, Berry and her classmates are the inspiration for Senator Ted Cruz’s Take It Down Act (TIDA), a recently enacted law which gives social media platforms 48 hours to remove “revenge porn” once reported. The bill considers any non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI deepfakes, to fall under this category. But despite the law’s noble intentions, its dangerously vague wording is a threat to free speech.
Artificial intelligence, free speech, and the First Amendment
FIRE offers an analysis of frequently asked questions about artificial intelligence and its possible implications for free speech and the First Amendment.
That may sound like a no-brainer, but deciding what content this text actually covers, including what counts as “arousing,” “humiliating,” or “degrading” is highly subjective. This law risks chilling protected digital expression, prompting social media platforms to censor harmless content like a family beach photo, sports team picture, or images of injuries or scars to avoid legal penalties or respond to bad-faith reports.
Civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have noted that the language of the law itself raises censorship concerns because it’s vague and therefore easily exploited:
Take It Down creates a far broader internet censorship regime than the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has been widely abused to censor legitimate speech. But at least the DMCA has an anti-abuse provision and protects services from copyright claims should they comply. This bill contains none of those minimal speech protections and essentially greenlights misuse of its takedown regime … Congress should focus on enforcing and improving these existing protections, rather than opting for a broad takedown regime that is bound to be abused. Private platforms can play a part as well, improving reporting and evidence collection systems.
Nor does the law cover the possibility of people filing bad-faith reports.
In the 2002 case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court said the language of the Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA) was so broad that it could have been used to censor protected speech. Congress passed the CPPA to combat the circulation of computer-generated child pornography, but as Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in the majority opinion, the language of the CPPA could be used to censor material that seems to depict child pornography without actually doing so.
While we must acknowledge that online exploitation is a very real issue, we cannot solve the problem at the expense of other liberties.
Also in 2002, the Supreme Court heard the case Ashcroft v. ACLU, which came about after Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to prevent minors from accessing adult content online. But again, due to the broad language of the bill, the Court found this law would restrict adults who are within their First Amendment rights to access mature content.
As with the Take It Down Act, here too were laws created to protect children from sexual exploitation online, yet established using vague and overly broad standards that threaten protected speech.
But unfortunately, stories like the one at Aledo High are becoming more common as AI becomes more accessible. Last year, boys at Westfield High School in New Jersey used AI to circulate fake nudes of Francesca Mani, who is 14 years old, and other girls in her class. But Westfield High administrators were caught off guard as they had never experienced this type of incident. Although the Westfield police were notified and the perpetrators were suspended for up to 2 days, parents criticized the school for their weak response.
So to Speak podcast: ‘Robotica: Speech Rights & Artificial Intelligence’
A year later, the school district developed a comprehensive AI policy and amended their bullying policy to cover harassment carried out through “electronic communication” which includes “the use of electronic means to harass, intimidate, or bully including the use of artificial intelligence “AI” technology.” What’s true for Westfield High is true for America — existing laws are often more than adequate to deal with emerging tech issues. By classifying AI material under electronic communication as a category of bullying, Westfield High demonstrates that the creation of new AI policies are redundant. On a national scale, the same can be said for classifying and prosecuting instances of child abuse online.
While we must acknowledge that online exploitation is a very real issue, we cannot solve the problem at the expense of other liberties. Once we grant the government the power to silence the voices we find distasteful, we open the door to censorship. Though it is essential to address the very real harms of emerging AI technology, we must also keep our First Amendment rights intact.
