La Trobe University vice-chancellor Theo Farrell and VC Fellow Susan Zhang quizzed Southern New Hampshire University president Paul LeBlanc about artificial intelligence (AI) at the latest HEDx conference in Melbourne.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ) will shed 259 jobs to plug a multi-million dollar budget hole despite all other Queensland universities reporting a 2024 surplus.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has taken bold steps to reach its own equity targets in a time when sector voices are calling on institutions to take action.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The Trump administration is freezing more than $1 billion in federal funds at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University—the latest colleges to see their federal grants and contracts threatened, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing anonymous officials.
The affected funds will include money from the Agriculture, Defense, Education and Health and Human Services Departments. The Times didn’t say why those universities were losing the money aside from noting that both institutions are facing civil rights investigations related to alleged antisemitism on campus. In recent weeks, Northwestern has sought to highlight its efforts to combat antisemitism, which include policy changes and mandatory antisemitism training for students, faculty and staff.
However, the administration can’t legally pull funding from colleges for civil rights violations until after a lengthy process that’s supposed to include notice to Congress and the opportunity for judicial review. Still, the Trump administration has used other avenues—which some experts say are illegal and are the subject of legal challenges—to cut off money. They include tapping a task force to investigate colleges and targeting their grants and contracts. The task force is currently reviewing Harvard University’s federal funding, which totals $9 billion, and has demanded several changes in order for the college to continue receiving money.
“This was wrong last week, it is wrong this week, and it will be wrong next week,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education.
Jon Yates, a Northwestern spokesman, said the university learned via the media about the freeze, which would affect “a significant portion of our federal funding.”
“The University has not received any official notification from the federal government,” Yates wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Federal funds that Northwestern receives drive innovative and life-saving research, like the recent development by Northwestern researchers of the world’s smallest pacemaker, and research fueling the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. This type of research is now at jeopardy. The University has fully cooperated with investigations by both the Department of Education and Congress.”
Cornell didn’t respond to an Inside Higher Ed request for comment.
The American Jewish Committee on Tuesday warned the Trump administration against making dramatic cuts to universities’ funding, adding that such a step should be a last resort.
With the UK government’s focus on opportunity as part of its mission-led approach, ensuring equitable access to higher-level skills development and training must be prioritised across all education sectors.
To address skills shortages and support social mobility, high-quality, place-based solutions must be embedded within a cohesive tertiary landscape. College-based higher education plays a pivotal role in this system, not as a second-tier option, but as an essential component of the HE ecosystem.
For the many people who cannot (or choose not) to leave their local area due to financial constraints, work or family commitments, higher education must remain a viable and accessible option. This means providing alternative, innovative pathways that allow individuals to develop higher level skills within their communities.
Many institutions are committed to social justice, but existing policy structures, funding mechanisms and an emphasis on market competition between higher education institutions and further education colleges weakens local partnerships and impedes the development of inclusive pathways into higher education. Further education and higher education share a civic mission to deliver skills and education which drives social mobility and economic growth. To fulfil this mission, institutions must shift from competing for students and funding, to collaborating meaningfully to widen participation and create an inclusive HE system.
Collaboration must extend beyond student recruitment strategies to include shared resources, further co-developed curricula and the integration of expertise between institutions. An example of this is the partnership between Loughborough University and Loughborough College, where both institutions work together to enhance provision rather than compete. This collaboration includes the sharing of facilities and staff expertise, ensuring delivery of high-quality education with clear progression routes, while successfully addressing regional skills needs.
However, to be sustainable and effective partnerships must be structured equitably. Each institution must be valued and respected for its unique strengths and share a clearly defined ambition for learners. True partnership requires trust, ensuring that both HE and FE partners collaborate as equals, aligned to their strengths.
Government policies must actively incentivise collaboration rather than perpetuate competition. This requires:
Further education colleges and higher education institutions have different but complementary knowledge and expertise. The government’s recent announcement to invest £600 million into construction training underscores its recognition that FE colleges are well placed to deliver high-quality technical education at scale. The plan to establish ten new technical excellence colleges builds on the success of institutes of technology, where FE institutions take the lead in delivering skills training, supported by higher education institutions and employers.By reinforcing the central role of FE colleges, the government is acknowledging their deep-rooted connections to local economies and their ability to respond flexibly to employer needs.
It is this strong employer engagement that is crucial to a responsive tertiary system. FECs excel in building industry connections and adapting swiftly to workforce demands. Integrating HE institutions into these partnerships expands progression routes, ensuring access to technical training and advanced/professional qualifications. This is particularly critical in sectors facing acute skills shortages, such as digital technology, green industries and STEM. Joint curriculum development between FE and HE, informed by employer needs, ensures that students acquire both theoretical knowledge and the practical skills required in their chosen fields.
Ensuring accessible education also requires more flexible, modular learning pathways, particularly for adult learners balancing study with work and family. Colleges and universities alike are seeing an increase in students struggling with mental health challenges, which can impact attendance and academic performance. More comprehensive wrap-around student support, together with flexible and locally delivered learning plus adaptable timetables, are already helping to improve student retention and achievement in many further education colleges.
However, rigid funding structures often restrict more flexible modular approaches to delivery. Effective funding adjustments are needed to support lifelong learning, allowing students to build qualifications, including sub degree provision progressively rather than committing learners to long-term study upfront.
While collaboration is the logical and necessary path forward, inequitable funding remains a real barrier. Universities receive significantly higher per-student funding than colleges, despite the crucial role colleges play in delivering higher-level skills. Addressing this financial imbalance is essential if colleges are to deliver, sustain and expand high-quality Level 4 and 5 provision, particularly in sectors critical to economic growth.
A more integrated tertiary system is needed, one that values the contributions of colleges, universities and other providers without unnecessary division. If done right, this will result in win/win for all students, employers and providers. This is not about merging the sectors but making collaboration the norm, underpinned by policy that prioritises partnership over competition and facilitates local, equitable access to high level skills and development.
Debbie McVitty’s recent article on evolution vs. transformation in higher education is highly relevant to thinking through the future for place-based partnerships. While some advocate radical change, others prefer an evolutionary approach that builds on existing strengths. In FE and HE collaboration, enhancing partnerships, refining policies and expanding successful local models is more practical. This would enable more cost-effective delivery of skills and knowledge, while ensuring resources are not wasted on competition for students. Given the financial strain so many providers are currently under, this would be hugely beneficial.
With genuine collaboration and more equitable funding, we can build a better-integrated, place-based higher education system that widens access and drives economic growth – advancing social mobility and regional prosperity.
by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025
On April 4, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and 14 other higher education associations on a letter to Department of State (DoS) Secretary Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem seeking additional information on the agencies’ policy and planned actions for international students and scholars.
The letter states that additional clarity is sought after reports that student visas are being revoked without additional information being shared with institutions where those students attend. According to the letter, such reports include messages to international students about their visas being revoked and requesting that they self-deport without providing additional information about the process to appeal such decisions. The letter argues that these actions hinder institutions’ ability to best advise their international students and scholars on what is happening.
In order to provide more clarity to institutions, the higher education associations request that DoS and DHS schedule a briefing with the impacted community to better understand the actions being taken by the agencies. The briefings could provide the opportunity to understand the administration’s actions in this space and to allow the higher education community to better understand how they can best help address issues of national security.
CUPA-HR will share any updates from these agencies related to the international student and scholar news and requests set forth in this letter.
by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025
On March 28, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations in filing an amicus brief in Pavia v. NCAA, which challenges the association’s eligibility rules with respect to the five-year time limits for student-athletes. The brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Pavia filed the lawsuit against the NCAA in November 2024, claiming that the NCAA’s ability to limit eligibility for previous junior college transfers by counting their competition years in junior college towards the number of years they are eligible to compete in NCAA sports restrains labor market forces and thus violates antitrust laws. A federal district court judge agreed on the merits of Pavia’s arguments and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules and allowing Pavia only to play an additional season. The judge argued that the ability for student-athletes to earn money through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals thus makes the NCAA’s eligibility rules “commercial,” meaning the rules themselves would not survive antitrust scrutiny. The NCAA appealed this ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case awaits further litigation.
The brief, filed by ACE, CUPA-HR, and five other higher education associations, argues that all eligibility rules set by the NCAA, including the five-year time limitations challenged in this case, aim to ensure “the primacy of the educational context for the student-athlete experience.” The brief argues that the preliminary injunction placed by the district court threatens to “shift the formulation and enforcement of the NCAA’s eligibility rules from educators and athletics administrators to federal courts” as any student-athlete disqualified by an eligibility rule could request a court to file an injunction and argue that the eligibility rule restricts their ability to pursue NIL deals. This would ultimately result in a patchwork of waivers granted by judges nationwide, undermining the national system of enforcement already in place through athletic associations like the NCAA and cementing federal judges as the unofficial court of appeals for the NCAA.
CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this court case.
To the editor:
I’m sympathetic to the overall thrust of Steven Mintz’s argument in Inside Higher Ed, “Writing in the Age of AI Suspicion” (April 2, 2025). AI-detection programs are unreliable. To the degree that instructors rely on AI detection, they contribute to the erosion of trust between instructors and students—not a good thing. And because AI “detection” works by assessing things like the smoothness or “fluency” in writing, they implicitly invert our values: We are tempted to have higher regard for less structured or coherent writing, since it strikes us as more authentic.
Mintz’s article is potentially misleading, however. He repeatedly testifies that in testing the detection software, his and other non-AI-produced writing yielded certain scores as “percent AI generated.” For instance, he writes, “27.5 percent of a January 2019 piece … was deemed likely to contain AI-generated text.” Although the software Mintz used for this exercise (ZeroGPT) does claim to identify “how much” of the writing it flags as AI-generated, many other AI detectors (e.g., chatgptzero) indicate rather the degree of probability that the writing as a whole was written by AI. Both types of data are imperfect and problematic, but they communicate different things.
Again, Mintz’s argument is useful. But if conscientious instructors are going to take a stand against technologies on empirical or principled grounds, they will do well to demonstrate appreciation for the nuances of the various tools.
Disinviting a professor from a panel on academic freedom for exercising her academic freedom is, to put it mildly, a bad look. That’s why FIRE is glad to report the Universities of Wisconsin system backed off such an ill-advised course of action.
The Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue will host a discussion on academic freedom at a faculty retreat next month with UW-Milwaukee professor Rachel Buff, the former head of the UW-Milwaukee chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and FIRE’s Director of Campus Rights Advocacy Lindsie Rank.
But last week, UW officials privately demanded that Buff be disinvited. Their reason? Buff’s criticisms of Israel and advocacy for the Palestinian cause, as well as her involvement in the encampment protest on campus last May.
On Friday, FIRE wrote UW system President Jay O. Rothman to demand that the UW system reverse its decision. As we told the university:
While the University of Wisconsin system does exercise some authority over WICCD’s activities, it should wield that authority in ways that maximize the atmosphere for academic freedom for its faculty and may not do so in ways that compromise that freedom. By demanding Buff’s disinvitation because of her political speech, UW sends a deeply chilling message to WICCD’s leadership and to UW faculty as a whole.
On Monday, UW responded by affirming its commitment to academic freedom and confirming that the retreat will proceed as originally planned, clearing the way for Buff to speak at the panel.
“It is appropriate to review an individual’s adherence to both the First Amendment and time, place and manner restrictions when determining who to contract and pay to speak at a private professional development conference,” wrote UW Vice President for University Relations Chris Patton. “It was this type of review that I requested be performed.”
WICCD is a subunit of the Universities of Wisconsin system intended to promote viewpoint diversity, free inquiry, and academic freedom, both within UW schools and society at large. In its public releases, UW has crowed that WICCD “seeks to enhance democracy through civil dialogue in a robust marketplace of ideas.”
We give the system credit for backing off and getting its priorities straight, allowing WICCD to fulfill its commendable mission.
Graduate enrollment is more competitive than ever. As an admissions leader, you’re not just striving to hit enrollment targets––you’re also navigating the complex needs of prospects who are balancing careers, families, and other responsibilities. It’s no small task.
Our recent collaboration with UPCEA confirmed something many of us already suspected: Timely, meaningful communication is the key to standing out in a crowded market.
To dig deeper, we enlisted Kate Monteiro, associate director of communication strategy at Collegis Education, to share her perspective on why prompt, responsive interactions matter. Her insights reveal how intentional communication builds trust and drives results.
“Plans and interests can change as quickly as they develop,” Monteiro explains. “Capitalizing on a prospective student’s excitement early can help you keep their momentum going — and dramatically improve their likelihood of enrolling.”
From that very first touchpoint, graduate students are evaluating your institution. Are you responsive? Are you supportive? These early interactions set the tone for how they perceive your school will engage with them once they are enrolled – and this can make or break their decision. Here’s why they matter so much:
Your first interaction says a lot. A quick, thoughtful response shows students that their time and interest matter. “Quick responses instill confidence,” Monteiro shares. “They signal that your institution is organized, efficient, and genuinely cares—all of which are qualities students associate with the experience they’ll have if they enroll.”
Navigating graduate admissions can be overwhelming, especially for students juggling applications to multiple institutions. A delayed response could be viewed as a red flag by students who feel overlooked or unworthy of attention.
On the flip side, timely and helpful communication reassures students that they’re a priority. That sense of trust could be the difference between a completed application and a missed opportunity.
“Students notice when there’s a lack of responsiveness,” Monteiro cautions. “If their early experiences are stressful or unclear, they’ll assume that’s what they can expect moving forward.”
Consistency is key. A reliable, nurturing communication strategy not only establishes trust but encourages forward momentum toward enrollment.
If you’re wondering just how much communication matters, numbers tell the story. A 2023 Ruffalo Noel Levitz study found that 65% of enrolled students identified personalized attention as a critical factor in choosing their school.
And when it comes to how students want to connect, the data from our survey with UPCEA confirms that email is the clear favorite for all stages. Email was reported as preferred by 47% of students for initial inquiries, 67% for follow-ups, 74% when approaching application, and 69% for application decision notifications.
“Email provides a professional yet low-pressure way to engage,” Monteiro adds. “It’s also something students can reference later, which helps minimize miscommunication or misunderstanding.”
This data emphasizes a key takeaway: Schools that respond quickly and deliberately, particularly through the channels students prefer, are the most likely to earn trust and secure enrollments.
A thoughtful approach to communication doesn’t just make a good impression—it sets your team up for long-term success. Here are five strategies to help you get there:
Without a clear communication plan, students can easily fall through the cracks. Monteiro often sees institutions struggle here: “A lot of schools don’t have an outlined communication plan or fail to hold their staff accountable to it. By having a clear and structured plan, you ensure students receive the outreach they need at the right time.”
Your outreach plan should have a strategic mix of emails, calls, and texts, with pre-written templates, clear timelines, and designated responsibilities outlined for your team. This ensures consistent, proactive communication with prospective students throughout the funnel.
Technology is your ally in timely communication, but its effectiveness depends on the strength of your data foundation. CRM systems, AI chatbots, and automated workflows streamline outreach while keeping things personal—provided your data is accurate and well-organized.
Automated emails can deliver the communication students prefer, and chatbots can address frequently asked questions 24/7, ensuring students get quick answers—even outside standard business hours. However, without a solid data infrastructure, these tools may fall short. While not a replacement for human connection, they can provide efficient support when and where students need it most—if your data house is in order.
Admissions, marketing, and academic teams all play a role in student outreach. Monteiro highlights the disconnect she often sees: “Each team assumes the other is responsible. But ultimately, prospective students are everyone’s responsibility.”
Breaking down silos between teams ensures consistent messaging and a seamless student experience.
Data can reveal what’s working in your current graduate recruitment strategies—and what isn’t. For example, if students are engaging more with email than phone calls, it might be time to shift your focus toward crafting compelling email campaigns. Data can also provide insights into how long students typically take to move through the admissions funnel, allowing teams to optimize communication frequency, timing, and format.
Quick responses powered by automation are essential, but it’s the personal touch that leaves a lasting impression. Pairing automated emails with personalized follow-ups—whether by phone, text, or email—ensures your outreach feels both efficient and authentic.
Improving communication isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s a need-to-have for institutions looking to thrive in today’s competitive graduate market. With a structured plan, the right tools, and data-driven insights, you can build trust and guide more students to enrollment.
“Our Collegis Enrollment Specialists hear it all the time from the students at our partner institutions: The level of support and responsiveness is what ultimately compels them to move forward.”
– Kate Monteiro, Associate Director of Communication Strategy
To learn more about how Collegis Education can help enhance your graduate recruitment strategies, explore our Enrollment and Recruitment Services page. For more actionable insights on engaging and enrolling graduate students, request your copy of the report below.
Get the latest on graduate student enrollment trends. Download the full report now.
