Blog

  • 9 Proven Strategies for 2025

    9 Proven Strategies for 2025

    Reading Time: 12 minutes

    Steady lead generation for colleges and universities is what keeps enrollment strong. Without a consistent flow of qualified inquiries, even the best programs struggle to meet their targets. The challenge, however, is that prospective students now have more options than ever, online and on campus, at home and abroad. Competing for their attention requires more than just a few ads or a static website; it demands a thoughtful, multi-channel strategy that builds trust and delivers value.

    The good news is that digital marketing offers powerful tools to do just that. From content that tells your school’s story to SEO, social media engagement, targeted ads, and personalized email campaigns, every channel plays a role in capturing interest and moving students closer to enrollment. Add in technologies like CRM systems, chatbots, and virtual events, and institutions can create highly tailored experiences that convert browsers into applicants.

    This article explores nine proven strategies to boost lead generation for higher education in the current industry. We’ll highlight real-world examples, including case studies from HEM’s own work, and show how combining smart tactics with the right technology can help your institution attract, nurture, and convert more qualified student leads.

    Struggling with lead generation?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    1. Leverage Content Marketing to Attract and Engage Prospective Students

    Content marketing is one of the most reliable ways for higher education institutions to generate quality leads. By creating blog posts, videos, and downloadable guides that address real student questions, schools can attract organic traffic, build trust, and guide prospects through the enrollment funnel. Effective content also boosts SEO, keeping your institution visible when students search for programs or career paths.

    How can content marketing help universities generate more leads? Content marketing attracts prospective students by answering their questions and showcasing institutional strengths. Blogs, guides, and videos build trust, improve SEO visibility, and highlight success stories. This engagement draws high-intent visitors to program pages, where they can convert into inquiries or applications.

    Example: Discovery Community College’s official blog uses program-specific keywords in post titles to boost SEO. For example, one post is titled “3 Great Skills to Practice During Your Accounting and Finance Program,” directly incorporating the Accounting and Finance program name. This keyword-focused approach makes it far more likely that the content appears in search results when potential students are googling that training area. By optimizing blog content for high-intent queries, Discovery Community College increases its visibility to the right audience and draws in quality traffic (prospects already interested in those programs).

    HEM Image 2HEM Image 2

    Source: Discovery Community College

    Gated content like e-books or checklists can add another layer—prospects are more willing to share contact details if the resource provides clear value, such as a scholarship checklist or career outlook guide.

    2. Optimize Your Website for Search Engines (SEO)

    Even the best content won’t generate leads if students can’t find it. That’s why SEO is essential. Since most students begin their school search online, ranking on the first page of Google for program- and location-based keywords (“MBA programs in Canada,” “best nursing degree in Ontario”) is critical. The higher you rank, the more qualified traffic you attract.

    Effective SEO starts with understanding what prospective students are searching for and weaving those terms naturally into your program pages, blog posts, and FAQs. On-page basics, like strong titles, meta descriptions, mobile-friendly design, and fast load times, should work hand in hand with technical SEO and local optimization.

    How can universities leverage SEO to improve their lead generation efforts? SEO boosts visibility when students search for programs, scholarships, or career outcomes. By optimizing program pages, blogs, and local listings with relevant keywords, universities appear in top search results. This organic traffic delivers high-intent leads, students actively seeking education opportunities, directly into the recruitment funnel.

    Example: Partnering with HEM, Cumberland College invested in multilingual SEO, optimizing its website in both English and French. Within a year, organic traffic grew by 27.5%, and leads from SEO traffic surged by 386%. This data-driven strategy directly fueled a 20–35% increase in new enrollments, proving how powerful SEO can be for lead generation for higher education.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: Higher Education Marketing

    3. Optimize Your Website’s Landing Pages and Lead Capture Forms

    Attracting visitors is only half the battle; converting them into leads is what drives enrollment. Landing pages and inquiry forms are at the heart of conversion rate optimization (CRO) for higher education. With education landing pages averaging a 4.5% conversion rate, small improvements can mean a big jump in inquiries. To maximize results:

    • Mobile-first design: Students browse on their phones, so pages must load fast and display seamlessly.
    • Clear, concise copy: Use scannable headlines and bullet points to highlight benefits. 
    • Prominent CTA: Each page should push one clear action: “Request Info” or “Register Now,” with an eye-catching button.
    • Short forms: Ask only for essential info (name, email, program interest). Long forms create friction.
    • Trust signals: Add student testimonials, alumni outcomes, or accreditation badges to reassure visitors.

    Example: The Academy of Learning Career College’s landing pages highlight clear program benefits and unique selling points to persuade visitors. AOLCC outlines its proposition value on landing pages, essentially listing what students gain from the program, and expands on each point to hold interest. By foregrounding these program benefits, AOLCC’s pages effectively communicate value and encourage prospects to take the next step (e.g., request info or apply).

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: AOLCC

    4. Implement Chatbots and Live Chat for Instant Engagement

    Today’s prospective students expect instant answers when they land on a university website. Chatbots and live chat make that possible, engaging visitors the moment they arrive instead of waiting for them to stumble upon a form. A chatbot that greets with a simple “Do you have questions about admissions or programs?” lowers barriers, creates an immediate connection, and often captures leads that would otherwise leave without taking action.

    Configured well, education chatbots can handle common questions around deadlines, prerequisites, or housing 24/7. When a query requires a human touch, they can hand off to a live staff member or at least collect contact details for follow-up. This style of communication appeals especially to Gen Z, who spend significantly more time on messaging apps than older generations and respond well to the casual, conversational tone of chat.

    Example: Unity Environmental University launched an AI virtual agent named “Una” to assist prospective students in finding suitable programs and navigating the application process. According to Unity’s press release, Una is available 24/7 as a personalized guide, providing instant answers about admissions and even helping complete application steps.

    HEM Image 5HEM Image 5

    Source: Unity Environmental University

    From a practical standpoint, institutions can blend live and automated support depending on resources. Staff-led chat during business hours provides personal attention, while chatbots can cover after-hours. The key is visibility: a small but inviting chat icon, integrated with your CRM to capture leads automatically, turns your site into an “always-on” recruitment assistant. In higher education lead generation, that combination of accessibility, speed, and personalization is increasingly what sets strong digital strategies apart.

    5. Harness the Power of Social Media Platforms

    Social media remains one of the most powerful tools for lead generation for colleges. Prospective students spend hours daily on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, LinkedIn, and X. Making these spaces essential for reaching and engaging them. Each channel serves a slightly different role: Instagram and TikTok connect best with high school and undergraduate audiences, LinkedIn appeals to graduate and professional prospects, while Facebook often reaches parents and working adults.

    What role do social media platforms play in lead generation for higher education institutions? Social media connects universities with prospects where they already spend time. Authentic posts, student takeovers, and targeted ads spark awareness, build community, and drive traffic to lead forms. Engagement nurtures interest over time, transforming casual followers into applicants and amplifying recruitment campaigns.

    To generate leads, institutions should focus on consistent posting, authentic storytelling, and quick responses to comments or direct messages. Content like student takeovers, alumni testimonials, and “day in the life” videos resonates strongly, helping prospects envision themselves at your school.

    Example: The University of Cambridge leverages authentic, student-led “Day in the Life” videos on its official channels (website, YouTube, TikTok) to showcase everyday student experiences. These videos are produced through the university’s own outlets, not third-party media, ensuring they are direct primary sources from Cambridge. For instance, Cambridge’s Faculty of Law features a “Day in the life of a Law student” video on its official site and YouTube, where “three first year Law students, Robbie, Katie and Scott, give us an insight into a typical day in their lives, using hand-held cameras”. In this video, the students themselves film their lectures, study sessions, and social activities, offering a genuine glimpse into daily life in Cambridge.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: University of Cambridge

    Done well, social media builds community, nurtures awareness, and funnels engaged viewers toward applications or info requests.

    6. Invest in Targeted Paid Advertising (SEM & Social Ads)

    While organic search and social media build long-term visibility, paid advertising can accelerate lead generation for colleges by reaching the right students at the right time. Search engine marketing (SEM), such as Google Ads, is especially valuable for competitive programs or new offerings that don’t yet rank organically. Targeting keywords like “online MBA in healthcare” ensures your ads appear when students are actively searching, capturing high-intent leads ready to convert.

    On social platforms, precise targeting by age, interests, location, or even undergraduate major allows you to reach audiences that align with your programs. Retargeting campaigns are equally powerful, reminding visitors who viewed your site or started an application to take the next step.

    Example: Stenberg College leveraged Google Ads to attract more qualified leads for its healthcare and nursing programs. HEM’s case study notes that Stenberg uses Google Ads as a “key marketing tool to recruit students,” and with HEM’s expertise, the college’s ads now generate both more leads and better-qualified leads for admissions. The partnership allowed Stenberg to optimize keywords, ad creatives, and targeting, resulting in improved ROI on their ad spend and a healthier enrollment pipeline.

    HEM Image 7HEM Image 7

    Source: Higher Education Marketing

    7. Nurture Leads With Email Marketing and Marketing Automation

    Capturing a lead is only the start. The real work begins with nurturing that interest into enrollment. Email marketing remains one of the most powerful tools in higher ed lead generation, delivering an estimated ROI of $36 for every $1 spent. Students also welcome it: surveys show nearly 70% prefer to hear from institutions via email.

    The key is relevance. Segment leads by program, stage in the decision journey, or demographics, and tailor messages accordingly. Personalization should go beyond using a first name. It should highlight specific programs, address common concerns, or share stories aligned with student interests. Mapping emails to the student journey also ensures prospects receive the right content at the right time, from early-stage guides to deadline reminders.

    Example: By developing email campaigns tailored to specific learner personas (“Emailing with Intention”), McMaster’s Continuing Ed achieved email engagement far above industry benchmarks. In fact, its automated drip emails earned about a 27.9% open rate, outperforming average open rates (~21.5%) for education emails. This persona-driven strategy was recognized with national marketing awards, underscoring how segmenting messaging to audience needs leads to more engaged prospects and higher conversion potential.

    HEM Image 8HEM Image 8

    Source: McMaster University

    8. Host Events and Leverage Virtual Engagement Opportunities

    Events remain one of the most effective lead generation tools in higher education because they let prospects experience your institution firsthand. In-person open houses, campus tours, and information sessions build emotional connections as students meet faculty, see facilities, and imagine themselves on campus. From a lead gen perspective, event registrations and check-ins capture valuable contact information, which can then be nurtured with timely follow-up emails or calls.

    Virtual events have expanded this reach even further. Online open houses, live webinars, and 360° virtual tours allow schools to engage international prospects and those unable to travel. The University of Bristol, for example, hosts a dedicated page for virtual campus and city tours, giving global audiences a way to explore on their own time.

    Example: Bristol has embraced virtual engagement to reach students globally. The university maintains a dedicated page for virtual events and tours, where prospects can take self-guided 360° campus tours and even explore the city online. During the pandemic, such virtual open days were crucial: over half of UK prospective students surveyed (59%) attended at least one virtual open day. By offering rich virtual events and tours, the University of Bristol kept students engaged during lockdowns and expanded its reach beyond those able to visit in person. This virtual strategy not only sustained interest through difficult times but continues to complement in-person events as a convenient lead generator.

    HEM Image 9HEM Image 9

    Source: Bristol University

    The most effective events, whether in-person or online, blend interactivity with personal connection. Live chats, Q&As, and student ambassador involvement ensure attendees feel engaged, while follow-up communications help convert that interest into applications.

    9. Utilize CRM Systems and Data Analytics to Refine Your Outreach

    Behind every strong lead generation program is a system that manages, tracks, and optimizes outreach. A Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platform, such as HubSpot, Slate, or HEM’s own Mautic CRM, centralizes prospect data, automates follow-ups, and makes it easier to measure performance. 

    Every new lead, whether from a form, ad, or event, flows into the CRM, where it can be segmented, scored, and assigned to counselors. Automated workflows ensure timely engagement: for example, sending a personalized welcome email immediately after an inquiry and triggering reminders if no action follows.

    Example: Michael Vincent Academy overhauled its recruitment process by adopting a customized CRM automation solution with HEM. Michael Vincent Academy automated key workflows using the CRM, which dramatically improved efficiency in managing inquiries. Staff could spend less time on manual follow-ups and more on building relationships with prospects. The result was a smoother funnel, inquiries were responded to promptly, and no prospective student fell through the cracks, ultimately leading to higher enrollment yields.

    HEM Image 10HEM Image 10

    Source: HEM

    Analytics make this even more powerful. By monitoring lead sources, campaign performance, and student behaviors, institutions can refine targeting and invest where returns are strongest. Business School Lausanne, for instance, leverages data insights to optimize international outreach and ensure global diversity in recruitment.

    In short, a data-driven CRM approach ensures no lead slips through the cracks and every prospect receives timely, personalized attention.

    Integrating the 9 Strategies Into a Cohesive Lead Generation Plan

    Effective lead generation in higher education isn’t driven by one silver bullet; it’s the outcome of multiple strategies working together. Content fuels SEO, SEO drives visitors to optimized landing pages, social media and paid ads amplify your reach, while email and CRM workflows nurture prospects into applicants. Layered on top, data and analytics help refine every stage, creating a cycle of attraction, engagement, and conversion that grows stronger over time.

    Real-world outcomes show the power of this integrated approach. Webster University Geneva reported a 30% surge in enrollments through digital marketing and timely follow-ups, while Cumberland College doubled its lead flow by combining SEO content with paid ads and social engagement. Even more targeted initiatives, like Queen Anne’s School’s multi-platform ad campaigns or McMaster University’s persona-based email drips, prove that each tactic can meaningfully contribute to the bigger picture when executed strategically.

    Think of your role as designing a system that balances creativity with data. Keep testing new formats, from TikTok challenges to interactive quizzes, while staying agile to shifts like AI tools or evolving privacy rules. Above all, keep the student experience front and center: personalization, authenticity, and responsiveness are what today’s learners value most.

    By applying the nine strategies outlined in this guide, your institution can not only attract more qualified leads but also convert them into enrolled students in a sustainable, scalable way. Lead generation may be challenging, but with a student-first mindset and a data-informed strategy, you’ll build a steady pipeline of future students ready to join your community.

    Struggling with lead generation?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: How can content marketing help universities generate more leads?
    Answer: Content marketing attracts prospective students by answering their questions and showcasing institutional strengths. Blogs, guides, and videos build trust, improve SEO visibility, and highlight success stories. This engagement draws high-intent visitors to program pages, where they can convert into inquiries or applications.

    Question: What role do social media platforms play in lead generation for higher education institutions?
    Answer: Social media connects universities with prospects where they already spend time. Authentic posts, student takeovers, and targeted ads spark awareness, build community, and drive traffic to lead forms. Engagement nurtures interest over time, transforming casual followers into applicants and amplifying recruitment campaigns.

    Question: How can universities leverage SEO to improve their lead generation efforts?
    Answer: SEO boosts visibility when students search for programs, scholarships, or career outcomes. By optimizing program pages, blogs, and local listings with relevant keywords, universities appear in top search results. This organic traffic delivers high-intent leads, students actively seeking education opportunities, directly into the recruitment funnel.

    Source link

  • Why Data Is Higher Education’s Most Overlooked Competitive Advantage

    Why Data Is Higher Education’s Most Overlooked Competitive Advantage

    Every conversation I have with higher ed leaders seems to start in the same place: competition is tougher than ever. Enrollment pressures, shifting demographics, rising expectations from students — it’s a lot. And in the middle of it all, I see so many institutions sitting on a resource that could help them compete more effectively: their own data.

    The truth is, higher ed doesn’t have a data shortage. Colleges and universities already collect enormous amounts of information across their systems. The challenge is knowing how to put it to work in ways that actually move the needle. Too often, that data stays trapped in silos, reduced to static reports, or only pulled out for compliance.

    The difference isn’t the data itself — it’s how you use it.

    Students expect personalization

    Think about how personalized the world around us has become. From the playlists that show up in your music app to the recommendations in your shopping cart, people expect experiences that feel unique and relevant. Students are no different.

    A high schooler exploring a summer program and a mid-career professional considering a certificate have very different motivations. Yet both expect a journey that recognizes their goals and helps them take the next right step.

    That’s where higher ed data becomes a real advantage. When institutions use it strategically, they can anticipate student needs, personalize outreach, and build relationships that feel relevant, timely, and supportive rather than transactional.

    How scattered data becomes a living, actionable picture

    Here’s the challenge: most colleges are juggling a patchwork of CRMs, SIS, LMS, and marketing platforms that don’t really talk to each other. Each contains valuable data, but without a way to connect them, the view of the student is incomplete.

    This is where the concept of a digital twin comes in. Imagine having a single, dynamic model that reflects each student’s real journey — from first click to graduation. A digital twin takes fragmented data from across systems and turns it into a living, actionable picture.

    During a recent conversation with a prospective partner, our team walked through this idea in action. We demonstrated how a digital twin could anticipate critical student moments, unify siloed systems, and make engagement more intentional. The “aha” moment came when leaders realized it wasn’t about another dashboard, but about creating a foundation that turns information into action.

    With that kind of visibility, institutions can do things like:

    • Spot at-risk students before they disengage.
    • Give advisors and faculty the insights to offer timely support.
    • See what’s really driving enrollment outcomes.
    • Run “what if” scenarios to guide strategy and resources.

    That kind of transformation doesn’t just look good on paper — it delivers measurable outcomes.

    Real results from using data differently

    I’ve seen what happens when institutions make this shift.

    I recall one university partner that had been struggling with years of declining graduate enrollment. By unifying their data and creating a clear view across the funnel, they grew spring enrollment by 20% in a single term while re-engaging 120 stop-out students.

    Another school was questioning the ROI of their marketing spend. Once they integrated campaign data with enrollment outcomes and student sentiment, they were able to adjust quickly. The result? A 30% increase in online applications and a 46% reduction in cost-per-deposit.

    These stories aren’t about magic formulas. They’re about what’s possible when institutions stop letting data sit unused and instead create a digital twin that brings the student journey to life.

    Rethinking the role of data

    Too often, data is seen and treated as a back-office function.  That approach is a liability. I believe higher ed data must be treated as a core part of strategy, student engagement, and institutional health.

    If you’re wondering where to start, ask yourself:

    • Do we have a clear view of the entire student journey, or are we piecing it together manually?
    • Are our engagement efforts personalized, or are they one-size-fits-all?
    • Can we make real-time decisions, or are we relying on outdated reports?
    • Do our teams have the insights they need to act at the right moment?

    If the answer to any of these is “No,” it’s time to rethink your approach to data.

    Looking ahead

    I’ve spent more than a decade working alongside higher ed leaders, and one thing I know is this: data alone isn’t the advantage. What matters is how you use it to serve students and strengthen your institution.

    The colleges and universities that will lead the next era of higher education won’t be the ones with the biggest datasets. They’ll be the ones that create a connected, holistic view of each student — able to anticipate needs, personalize engagement, and act with precision. They’ll be the ones treating data as the engine of innovation, not just a byproduct of operations.

    Are you ready to take advantage of your data?

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Is international strife the norm?

    Is international strife the norm?

    A war that couldn’t be stopped

    When Russia invaded Ukraine, hopes for action by “the international community” were dashed within days when the UN General Assembly failed to pass a resolution demanding the immediate withdrawal of invasion forces: five countries voted against it and 35 others abstained.

    They included two of the five countries that have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Any of those five countries can veto any joint measure even if the entire rest of the world is in favour.

    But even as the UN failed to intervene in the Ukraine conflict in the role of “the international community” as it was perceived by many during the Cold War, a group of countries — led by the United States but including NATO and the European Union — have since supported Ukraine with billions worth of weapons and economic aid.

    On an anniversary of the civil war in Syria, meanwhile, the advocacy group Amnesty International blamed “the international community’s catastrophic failure to act” for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in that conflict. It was Russian air power that turned the tide of war in favour of President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

    Assad might be a pariah in the West. But he was embraced by the Arab League in May. That’s a 22-member organization of nations in North Africa, West Asia and parts of East Africa. It had expelled Syria in 2011 for cracking down on anti-government protestors with a brutality so savage it was shocking even to an organisation with a poor record of concern for human rights.

    If the United Nations is powerless because it can’t reach unanimity of its members and if Russia and its allies have different world views than the member nations of NATO and these views differ from the concerns of the members of the Arab League, what “international community” is there?

    Democracy battles tyranny.

    As for the shared vision for a better world visualized by Annan: is it becoming dimmer or brighter?

    There is reason for pessimism. Around the world, democracy is in decline and authoritarian leaders, such as Syria’s Assad and Russia’s Putin, are literally getting away with murder.

    Freedom House, a Washington-based non-governmental organisation that keeps track of global freedom and peace, says in its latest report that global freedom has declined for 17 consecutive years.

    The United States was once considered a model for others to follow. But Donald Trump, in his four years as president, has encouraged authoritarian leaders. After he lost the presidential election in 2020, he attempted to halt the peaceful transfer of power.

    Trump loathed international agreements and pulled the United States out of the International Criminal Court, the UN Human Rights Council, the global compact on migration and the Paris Climate Accords.

    Every country in the world has signed the Paris agreement, making it one of the few actions that can be ascribed to the entire international community. Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, signed the paperwork to bring the United States back into the Paris agreement on his first day in office.

    Can regional organisations come together?

    As far as the more routine use of the phrase is concerned, Richard Haas, long-time president of the New York-based think tank Council on Foreign Relations until he retired in June, once described the dilemma in unusually blunt terms:

    “The problem is that no international community exists,” he said. “It would require that there be widespread agreement on what needs to be done and a readiness to do it. Banning the term would mean that people and governments assume a greater responsibility for what takes place in the world.”

    In some ways governments are assuming greater responsibility, if not as one giant international bloc than by an alphabet soup of sub-groups. There is the G-7, an informal bloc of wealthy democracies (the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan). There is the G-20 of 19 countries and the European Union. There is ASEAN, the Association of 10 South East Asian Nations. There is the OAS, the Organization of American States. Finally, there is the African Union which brings together 55 countries across that continent.

    In theory, they could work towards agreement on what needs to be done to make the world a safe, secure and prosperous place.

    Much of their emphasis tends to be on economic matters, none more than BRICS, an acronym coined by Goldman Sachs banker Jim O’Neill for a grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Moves are underway to widen that group and turn it into a counterweight to the industrialized West.

    Could all those groups, working on parallel tracks, result in a true international community? Perhaps the next generation of politicians and citizen activists will succeed where their elders failed.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Can you think of a way to replace the phrase “the international community”?

    2. Do you consider your own country part of it?

    3. Can you think of cases where engaged citizens changed their governments’ policies?

     

    Source link

  • The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 3: ISED

    The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 3: ISED

    Monday, we looked at the country’s overall financial situation (dire), and yesterday we looked at how cuts of a magnitude of 15% might affect key programs like the Canada Education Savings Program and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program. Today, we’re going to look at how a 15% cut might affect the Government of Canada’s research subsidies, which in the main are run through the Ministry of innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). 

    (I will be speaking about “the tri-councils” as a single funding line; I am aware that the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) is funded through Health Canada but for this exercise it is easier just to lump them together).

    Let’s start by acknowledging that ISED is a sprawling mess of a department with small programs with very little political protection littered all over the place. I wouldn’t bet the farm on the $12 million “Futurpreneur Canada” making it out of this budget round alive. I also doubt the Universal Broadband Fund is going to continue at $900 million per year. Computers for Schools (sounded great in the 90s, less so now) and Computers for Schools Interns would also be on my endangered list. I suspect that the various regional development funds might be in for an outsized hit as well. All of which is to say that it is possible that the research enterprise – that is, the tri-Councils, the National Research Council (NRC), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and all those organizations that get part or all their money through the Strategic Science Fund – might not get hit with a 15% cut. It’s quite possible all these other areas might take an outsized hit and allow the actual science stuff to get off with a lighter cut.

    That said, remember this key point: the budget exercise is not about cutting 15% of funding from where it should theoretically be in three years’ time (the government has a fiscal framework that extends out four or five years). It is about cutting expenditures from a 2024-25 baseline. That means that to get through any previously planned increase in spending, the cuts to existing programs must be more than 15%. 

    This matters for two reasons. First, it is because the government runs its subsidies to electric vehicles manufacturers through ISED. Those subsidies were worth $39M in 2024-25; they were planned to cost $2.1 billion this year and $4.2 billion in 2027-28 (i.e. it’s about half the department’s direct budget spend come two years from now, and about a third of total sci/tech spend if you include the tri-councils). To accommodate that increase while following the letter of the budget reduction request would basically mean requiring the entire department to shut down. That’s probably not happening (though one presumes that Carney’s announcement last week releasing Canadian auto manufacturers from their 20% EV sales target in 2026 might also lead to a reduction in EV subsidies to manufacturers). 

    Second, remember budget 2024? The one where the Liberals promised $1.8 billion in new spending on research and the whole sector cheered with relief? Yeah, well only $75 million went into the budget framework for 2024-25; 87% of that 1.8 billion is backloaded until after spring 2026. So, basically none of it is protected, and it’s all at risk. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if they just cancelled the whole thing. And then, on top of that, we must worry about what happens to existing programs, and whether they take a 15% hit.

    CIHR transfers about $1.2 billion to Canadian post-secondary institutes each year, while the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) transfers about $1 billion, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) transfers about $440 million (although a fair bit of that last one includes combined tri-council projects which administratively run through SSHRC, including – if I am not mistaken – funding for the Canada First Research Excellence Fund). CFI is another $550 million a year or so. NRC is about $1.7 billion per year. The Strategic Science Fund is another $900 million or so, closer to a billion if you include base funding for Genome Canada. Canada Research Chairs are another $300 million. Call it $6.2 billion in total. Required savings to get to a 15% cut is therefore just under $1 billion.

    Where to start?

    Ask most researchers at universities what they would prefer, and the answer is likely that they would eliminate everything except the tri-council funding. Ditch CFI, significantly cut NRC, definitely obliterate the Strategic Science Fund – anything, anything, anything but touch tri-Council grants. I understand the preference, but as I noted last week, this is a monumentally detrimental position for the sector to take. Yes, basic research and the existing grant system are the basis of the existing tenure and promotion system, and as such is naturally dear to those in the system, but almost no one in Ottawa thinks that’s what these systems are for. If we’re going to keep research funding afloat, it’s probably going to be through more spending on things like the Strategic Science Fund.

    I have very little insight into the state of official Ottawa’s current thinking on the relative value of these various programs, but I could imagine three basic scenarios that get us to $1 billion in savings.

    Option 1 is a straight 15% cut across the board. Take out $400 million or so from the granting councils, $80 million from CFI, $250 million from NRC, cut the Strategic Science Fund and Genome Canada to the tune of $150 million or so, and lose about 350 Canada Research Chairs. 

    Option 2 would be the spare the professors approach. Now, you probably can’t spare them entirely, because they are such a big proportion of the overall expenditure, but if you jacked up the cuts to CFI, NRC and Strategic Science to say 25%, you could hold the losses to CRCs and the tri-councils to under $100M. I think this is unlikely, but it is a possible scenario.

    Option 3 would be the hammer the tri-councils approach. Because, as I said, I don’t think they are particularly well-liked at Finance/PMO. This is close to the inverse of option 2; zero cuts to NRC and Strategic Science, keep the CFI cut at 15% and take the rest of the necessary money out of the tri-councils. That would mean a cut of about $800 million or about 30% to council funding.

    And remember, all of this is on top of walking back the measures announced in the 2024 Budget. Ugly doesn’t even begin to cover it.

    To be clear: I suspect it is unlikely that the research area will get a cut of 15%, in part because officials will feel bad about doing serious damage to existing budgets after, I suspect, already taking away the Budget 2024 measures. If I had to guess, I would say that the department will probably come down hardest on regional development subsidies. Nevertheless, the scenarios above are possible even if not probable. Universities should start thinking about what they might mean and how they might cope. 

    Source link

  • Prioritizing behavior as essential learning

    Prioritizing behavior as essential learning

    Key points:

    In classrooms across the country, students are mastering their ABCs, solving equations, and diving into science. But one essential life skill–behavior–is not in the lesson plan. For too long, educators have assumed that children arrive at school knowing how to regulate emotions, resolve conflict, and interact respectfully. The reality: Behavior–like math or reading–must be taught, practiced, and supported.

    Today’s students face a mounting crisis. Many are still grappling with anxiety, disconnection, and emotional strain following the isolation and disruption of the COVID pandemic. And it’s growing more serious.

    Teachers aren’t immune. They, too, are managing stress and emotional overload–while shouldering scripted curricula, rising expectations, and fewer opportunities for meaningful engagement and critical thinking. As these forces collide, disruptive behavior is now the leading cause of job-related stress and a top reason why 78 percent of teachers have considered leaving the profession.

    Further complicating matters is social media and device usage. Students and adults alike have become deeply reliant on screens. Social media and online socialization–where interactions are often anonymous and less accountable–have contributed to a breakdown in conflict resolution, empathy, and recognition of nonverbal cues. Widespread attachment to cell phones has significantly disrupted students’ ability to regulate emotions and engage in healthy, face-to-face interactions. Teachers, too, are frequently on their phones, modeling device-dependent behaviors that can shape classroom dynamics.

    It’s clear: students can’t be expected to know what they haven’t been taught. And teachers can’t teach behavior without real tools and support. While districts have taken well-intentioned steps to help teachers address behavior, many initiatives rely on one-off training without cohesive, long-term strategies. Real progress demands more–a districtwide commitment to consistent, caring practices that unify educators, students, and families.

    A holistic framework: School, student, family

    Lasting change requires a whole-child, whole-school, whole-family approach. When everyone in the community is aligned, behavior shifts from a discipline issue to a core component of learning, transforming classrooms into safe, supportive environments where students thrive and teachers rediscover joy in their work. And when these practices are reinforced at home, the impact multiplies.

    To help students learn appropriate behavior, teachers need practical tools rather than abstract theories. Professional development, tiered supports, targeted interventions, and strategies to build student confidence are critical. So is measuring impact to ensure efforts evolve and endure.

    Some districts are leading the way, embracing data-driven practices, evidence-based strategies, and accessible digital resources. And the results speak for themselves. Here are two examples of successful implementations.

    Evidence-based behavior training and mentorship yields 24 percent drop in infractions within weeks

    With more than 19,000 racially diverse students across 24 schools east of Atlanta, Newton County Schools prioritized embedded practices and collaborative coaching over rigid compliance. Newly hired teachers received stipends to complete curated, interactive behavior training before the school year began. They then expanded on these lessons during orientation with district staff, deepening their understanding.

    Once the school year started, each new teacher was partnered with a mentor who provided behavior and academic guidance, along with regular classroom feedback. District climate specialists also offered further support to all teachers to build robust professional learning communities.

    The impact was almost immediate. Within the first two weeks of school, disciplinary infractions fell by 24 percent compared to the previous year–evidence that providing the right tools, complemented by layered support and practical coaching, can yield swift, sustainable results.

    Pairing shoulder coaching with real-time data to strengthen teacher readiness

    With more than 300,000 students in over 5,300 schools spanning urban to rural communities, Clark County School District in Las Vegas is one of the largest and most diverse in the nation.

    Recognizing that many day-to-day challenges faced by new teachers aren’t fully addressed in college training, the district introduced “shoulder coaching.” This mentorship model pairs incoming teachers with seasoned colleagues for real-time guidance on implementing successful strategies from day one.

    This hands-on approach incorporates videos, structured learning sessions, and continuous data collection, creating a dynamic feedback loop that helps teachers navigate classroom challenges proactively. Rather than relying solely on reactive discipline, educators are equipped with adaptable strategies that reflect lived classroom realities. The district also uses real-time data and teacher input to evolve its behavior support model, ensuring educators are not only trained, but truly prepared.

    By aligning lessons with the school performance plan, Clark County School District was able to decrease suspensions by 11 percent and discretionary exclusions by 17 percent.  

    Starting a new chapter in the classroom

    Behavior isn’t a side lesson–it’s foundational to learning. When we move beyond discipline and make behavior a part of daily instruction, the ripple effects are profound. Classrooms become more conducive to learning. Students and families develop life-long tools. And teachers are happier in their jobs, reducing the churn that has grown post-pandemic.

    The evidence is clear. School districts that invest in proactive, strategic behavior supports are building the kind of environments where students flourish and educators choose to stay. The next chapter in education depends on making behavior essential. Let’s teach it with the same care and intentionality we bring to every other subject–and give every learner the chance to succeed.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Higher Education and Climate Change: Choppy Waters Ahead

    Higher Education Inquirer : Higher Education and Climate Change: Choppy Waters Ahead

    For years, Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has documented how the climate crisis intersects with higher education. The evidence shows universities caught between their public claims of sustainability and the realities of financial pressures, risky expansion, and—in some cases—climate denial.

    Bryan Alexander’s Universities on Fire offers a framework for understanding how climate change will affect colleges and universities. He describes scenarios where institutions face not only physical damage from storms, floods, and wildfires, but also declining enrollments, strained budgets, and reputational harm if they continue business as usual.

    HEI’s reporting on Stockton University illustrates this problem. Its Atlantic City campus was celebrated as a forward-looking project, but the site is highly vulnerable to sea-level rise. Projections show more than two feet of water by 2050 and as much as five feet by 2100. Despite this, the university has continued to invest in the property, a decision that raises questions about long-term planning and responsibility.

    The problems are not only physical. HEI has reported on “science-based climate change denial,” where the language of research and inquiry is used to delay or undermine action. This type of denial allows institutions to appear rigorous while, in practice, legitimizing doubt and obstructing necessary changes.

    Even the digital infrastructure of higher education is implicated. Data centers and cloud computing require enormous amounts of water for cooling, a fact made more urgent in drought-stricken regions. HEI has suggested that universities confront their digital footprints by auditing storage, deleting unnecessary data, and questioning whether unlimited cloud use is consistent with sustainability goals.

    The federal safety net is also shrinking. FEMA cuts have reduced disaster relief funding at a time when climate-driven storms and floods are growing more severe. Colleges and universities that once relied on federal recovery dollars are now being forced to absorb more of the financial burden themselves—whether through state appropriations, private insurance, or higher tuition. In practice, this means students and working families will bear much of the cost of rebuilding.

    Meanwhile, contradictions continue to pile up. Camp Mystic, a corporate retreat space that hosts gatherings for university-affiliated leaders, has become a symbol of institutional hypocrisy: universities stage climate conferences and sustainability summits while maintaining financial and cultural ties to industries and donors accelerating the crisis. These contradictions erode trust in higher education’s role as a credible leader on climate.

    Climate disruption does not occur in isolation. HEI’s essay Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming…Again examined how higher education is entangled with a debt-driven economy vulnerable to collapse. With more than $1.7 trillion in student loans, heavy reliance on speculative finance, and partnerships with debt-financed ventures, universities are already positioned on fragile ground. Climate change adds another layer of instability to institutions already at risk.

    Taken together, these trends describe a sector moving into uncertain waters. Rising seas threaten campuses directly. Digital networks consume scarce resources. FEMA funding is shrinking. Denial masquerades as academic debate. Debt burdens and speculative finance amplify risks. Universities that continue to expand without accounting for these realities may find themselves not only unprepared but complicit in the crisis.

    HEI will continue to investigate these issues, tracking which institutions adapt responsibly and which remain locked in denial and contradiction.

    Sources and Further Reading

    Source link

  • Tribal Colleges Boost the Economy

    Tribal Colleges Boost the Economy

    Tribal colleges and universities are known to play an outsize role in educating and employing members of their local tribal communities. But they also offer major returns to taxpayers and the economy at large, according to a new economic impact study by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium and Lightcast.

    The study, released on Tuesday, drew on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau and institutional reports from the 2022–23 academic year at all 34 tribal colleges and universities across the country.

    It found that associate degree graduates from tribal colleges earned, on average, $9,400 more per year than those with just a high school diploma. Students earned $7.50 in future returns for every dollar invested in their tribal college education, an annual return of 27.2 percent.

    Meanwhile, alumni of tribal institutions contributed $3.8 billion to the U.S. economy through the higher wages they earned, the increased output of the businesses that employed them and the money students and their employers spent. Tribal college alumni also supported 40,732 jobs nationwide, particularly in industries such as health care and social assistance, retail, and professional and technical services.

    For every federal dollar invested in tribal colleges, the institutions return $1.60 in tax revenue through the increased tax payments of their alumni and alumni’s employers. According to the study, the colleges generate a total of $785.6 million in additional tax revenue and save taxpayers $96.8 million because of higher education’s benefits to alumni, including improved health, fewer interactions with the justice system and less reliance on income-assistance programs.

    “Tribal Colleges and Universities are powerful engines for opportunity, growth, and stability, not just for Native people, but for everyone,” Ahniwake Rose, president of AIHEC, said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “The evidence is clear: Supporting Tribal higher education is not only the right thing to do, it is one of the smartest investments this country can make.”

    Source link

  • Florida State Center Focuses on Greek Life Wellness

    Florida State Center Focuses on Greek Life Wellness

    Florida State University is home to over 50 fraternity and sorority chapters, with total Greek membership over 6,800—about 23 percent of the undergraduate population. Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL) students are generally representative of the student population’s demographics, but they’re more likely to persist, graduate and land a job after graduation compared to their peers.

    A new center on campus seeks to ensure that Greek organizations promote holistic student development, in part by partnering with student leaders and providing for-credit leadership classes.

    What’s the need: Past grievances with FSL organizations on campus prompted the development of the center to prevent hazing and other harmful practices often associated with Greek life. In 2017, FSU banned all fraternities and sororities following the death of a fraternity pledge. The ban was lifted in 2018 with provisions.

    “The challenge we had was to solve [misconduct] as almost a student success issue, and [we] try to focus on how do we help our students be way more successful, focusing in on their leadership and their wellness and holistic student experience,” said Freddy Juarez, FSU’s director of strategic initiatives and fraternity and sorority life.

    Now, to maintain good standing, Greek organizations must meet a variety of standards, including that members fulfill mandatory volunteer hours and sustain minimum GPAs. The university also maintains a publicly available scorecard on campus chapters to provide transparency into FSL activities, including philanthropic efforts and past disciplinary charges.

    The Center for Fraternity and Sorority Organizational Wellness launched in fall 2024 as an extension of these efforts, with the goal of identifying best practices in the field.

    “What are those markers that we can identify early on so that we can intervene with the right intervention that will stop them from going down that path of not being a ‘well’ organization?” Juarez said. “We’re trying to figure out what are all these components and pieces as we start to bring on national research agendas.”

    FSL students are also embedded throughout campus as tour guides, student government members and orientation leaders, so providing them with leadership training has far-reaching effects on the campus culture, Juarez said.

    How it works: The center engages FSL organizations in a variety of ways. Juarez and Brittany Devies, director of the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Wellness, meet with chapter leaders regularly to discuss governance, risk management, recruitment and new member education, among other topics.

    “We’re doing training and helping them navigate these complex issues, because these students are managing multimillion-dollar budgets and facilities that cost multimillion dollars. Our largest chapter is 320 members; that is a lot to manage,” Juarez said.

    The center also houses a 12-credit leadership studies certificate exclusively for FSL members in the Anne Spencer Daves College of Education, Health and Human Sciences, which is taught by FSL staff members.

    The courses focus on leadership contexts broadly but also provide developmental opportunities for students interested in being leaders in their Greek organization. Some of the courses also fulfill general elective and graduation requirements, aiding in degree completion.

    Approximately 50 students are currently enrolled in the certificate program; next semester they hope to increase that number to 200, Devies said. “Our students are seeing the direct impacts of that on career readiness,” Devies said, referencing another goal of the center.

    Staff also consult other institutions on the lessons they learned from revamping FSL requirements over the past few years, including the importance of data collection and how to partner with chapter leaders.

    What’s next: FSU doesn’t have one definition of organizational wellness, Juarez said, but the university is conducting research on positive outcomes from FSL organizations to understand how they can aid in students’ career outcomes, graduation and persistence rates.

    “We believe that our organizations could be vehicles that are instrumental in student success,” Juarez said. “We’re seeing that with early numbers if you compare our fraternity and sorority students to our non–fraternity or sorority students.”

    Positive career outcomes for members have become a top priority at FSU, so establishing stronger partnerships with the campus career center is a growing focus. FSL added a new staff member specifically to liaise with career services.

    FSL is also creating a six-week study abroad experience for students in the leadership certificate program based in Florence, Italy, to help them apply leadership principles beyond the campus environment, Devies said.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • On AI, We Reap What We Sow (opinion)

    On AI, We Reap What We Sow (opinion)

    I teach a first-year seminar. We call the course Education and the Good Life. The goal of the class is to engage students in a 15-week conversation. We talk about how they can make the most of their courses and our campus, with an eye toward the question of how the college experience can create an approach toward the world that lasts their whole life. In that spirit, last fall, I gave students an example of how I spend my time.

    In class, I shared a set of drafts of a poem that appeared in my most recent collection. One by one, I projected versions of the poem onto a screen. I drew attention to the red ink slashing through unwanted words. I pointed out how I added, struck, added, struck and then re-added a comma. I boasted about my careful use of my favorite punctuation mark—the delightfully overlong em dash. In the end, I shared all 32 drafts of the poem, from conception to published work. When I stopped, a student in the front row quipped, “That doesn’t seem efficient.” In response, I quoted Annie Dillard—“How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives”—and I talked about the concept of “craft.” I suggested that a committed craftsperson produces work, but that in important ways, and for the reason Dillard suggests, the work also produces them. In the end, the time we spend on our projects makes us who we are.

    I asked the class to think about the time they give to writing assignments. I encouraged them to think about the minutes and the hours that they carve out of their schedules to read and then to write. I told them, “These are investments, not just in the creation of something to turn in on a deadline, but rather, investments in your humanity.” I explained, “When you give yourself time to use your faculties, you end up changing the dimensions of your mind.” I said, “You’re changing yourself.” Then I mused about how a college graduate is a certain kind of person, and how the process of earning a degree is largely a process of becoming.

    My students are smart. They understand social conventions. They know how to act, so they humored me. They nodded their heads, even though I detected facial expressions formed with a noticeable twist of “maybe that is how it worked in your generation.” Without saying the words, they made a point. History matters.

    In addition to my work on campus, I serve as a member of the Higher Learning Commission’s peer-review corps. Once or twice a year for the past 22 years, I have studied and visited colleges for the sake of ensuring the quality of their operations. When I joined the corps, in the early 2000s, the HLC held a leadership role in the nationwide assessment movement. The assessment of what students submit as their work, and by proxy what they know and what they can do, had become the benchmark by which we judge our institutions and accredit them. Because the question of whom students become during an education is harder to answer, and because the methods to answer such questions are out of necessity qualitative, we left those concerns aside while we moved, as a country, toward documenting the easily measurable, but narrowly defined, cognitive outcomes of the college experience.

    In the early 2000s, the heightened focus on the assessment of learning outcomes dovetailed with what were then advances in technology. Web-based platforms, still described as “learning management systems,” made it possible to assess students’ abilities at a distance, anytime, anywhere and under nearly any circumstance. The new, single-minded focus on the cognitive outcomes of higher education burgeoned alongside efforts to legitimize the new online institutions that had removed time in place as a component of schooling. In effect, our message was that we take stock of our success by measuring the end product of education, as opposed to the process of becoming educated. Students are smart. They quietly noted our priorities.

    Enter AI. Today we live in an era in which students can feed a prompt into an automated prose generator and, in seconds, have a viable draft of a writing assignment. What are they supposed to think? We’ve spent three decades acting like outcomes assessments are the only things we value. As for questions about how or where or with whom people engage in the process of becoming educated, our general approach has been, “These are not things that we like to know about.”

    Consider our focus on outcomes in another sphere of human development: athletics. Assume for a moment that you are a cyclist. I am confident that technocrats will soon create a bot capable of riding a bicycle. On a day when life presents you with too much to do, and you can’t find time to ride, would it seem reasonable to send a bot out in your stead? I hope that sounds absurd. During most of the time that we give to athletics, the outcome is not the point. In cycling, on most days, the point is not that a bicycle was ridden. The point is that you rode a bicycle.

    The craft of writing and the art of performing music share a set of similarities. Both demand engagement, practice and the exercise of creativity. The difference is that writing practices, outside of occasional public readings, tend to unfold in solitude, whereas a musical performance is, by nature, a social event. Imagine yourself as a student of the violin. At the end of the semester, during your final recital, would it seem reasonable to bring in a Bluetooth speaker, cue up a music streaming service to a song that you’ve been practicing and hit the play button? Of course not. The point is not that a song was played in the recital hall. The point is that you played the song.

    In the era of AI, student disengagement looms like a fog on our campuses, from libraries to studios and laboratories. Our best data on undergraduate engagement suggests that members of Generation Z are reading less. When pressed with assignments that require deep thought, time on task and earnestness, students tend to see technology as a means to maximize efficiency. Should we blame them? We spent years building systems and assessments designed to sidestep questions about the nature of the process students move through on the way to earning degrees.

    Through our actions, preferences and even accreditation, we built a set of values that suggest the finish line is what matters. We tend to see the route that we take to arrive there as irrelevant. Every campus I have ever visited staffs an office dedicated to the measurement of cognitive learning outcomes. I have yet to find a similar office aimed at understanding the quality, character or broad-ranging impact of the processes that students engage in during the course of an education.

    I would say it’s past time that we started to give the process of becoming educated our attention. But in at least some quarters, we have long-standing and holistic studies of the college experience. In 1991, Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini wrote the first of what became a three-volume set, published at roughly 10-year intervals: How College Affects Students. Alongside a chapter on verbal, quantitative and subject matter competence, each edition of the book contains sections on psycho-social change, attitudes and values, and moral development. We should see the AI era as providing us with a reason, and an opportunity, to expand our interests to include an analysis of the broadly formative processes involved in education, as opposed to focusing solely on narrow sets of outcomes. Fortunately, if we find the will to turn our curiosity toward questions about the quality of the time that we ask students to invest in their education, or the kinds of people that college graduates become, there is a well-developed body of literature waiting to guide our efforts.

    My first-year seminar includes an end-of-the-semester Saturday retreat. A local museum hosts the event. We take a tour in the morning, then students give presentations throughout the afternoon. The day represents more than just another class meeting. It’s a celebration. We make it a potluck, and the table we use features an impressive array of dishes: snacks, desserts, salads and crocks full of chili and soup.

    This past year, at the end of the day, I stood at the table with three students as we were preparing to leave. I happened to point out that half of the contributions brought to the potluck were handmade. The others were store-bought. The handmade dishes were nearly gone, while the efficiently prepared, mass-produced cookies and salads still sat in their plastic containers.

    One of the students said, “Hmm.” Then she added, “It’s not just ingredients on a table.” She went on, “How is something made? Who makes it? What kind of time do they spend?” She said, “That stuff matters.”

    I smiled and told her I agreed.

    Chad Hanson serves as a member of the faculty in sociology and religion at Casper College in Wyoming.

    Source link

  • The first multi-university group arrives

    The first multi-university group arrives

    The University of Greenwich and the University of Kent have this morning announced the intention to form a multi-university group.

    The aim is for the London and South East University Group – as it’s provisionally to be known, though this will be subject to consultation – to be established in time for the 2026–27 academic year.

    The plan on the student-facing side is for each university’s identity to be preserved – with applications, and degree awards, kept separate – behind the scenes, the “super-university” (as the press release puts it) will have a unified governing body, academic board, and executive team, and a single vice chancellor: Greenwich’s Jane Harrington. Staff at both universities are expected to transfer across to the newly merged university – legally, there will be one entity, but the two “brands” will still exist as trading arms.

    Merger by numbers

    Going by 2023–24 student numbers, the new “super-university” would have 46,885 registered students (29,695 at Greenwich, 17,190 at Kent), around the same size as the University of Manchester. It would employ 2,550 academic staff (currently 1,245 at Greenwich, 1,305 at Kent), roughly equivalent in size to Manchester Metropolitan University.

    It would offer, based on the current UCAS database, an astonishing 442 full time undergraduate courses (281 at Greenwich, 171 at Kent) – 70  more than the University of Manchester. A glance across portfolios sees some interesting congruences. Kent has a medical school, Greenwich has a nursing school and a teacher training offer. Both are strong in law, computer science, business, engineering, and psychology. Greenwich has more of an offer in the arts and tourism, Kent in the hard sciences.

    [full screen]

    The University of Kent has an established reputation for research in social policy and social work, and in law – although the largest single concentration of research active staff is in business and management studies. Greenwich also has a research concentration in business, but overall it has a less strong research portfolio.

    Financially speaking, we’re talking about a “super-university” with nearly £598m of income (Greenwich £329m, Kent £268m): that’s a little less than Newcastle University. Expenditure of £569m (Greenwich £302m, Kent £266m) is in the University of Warwick ballpark.

    While there have been a number of recent higher education mergers – ARU with Writtle, and City St George’s, in particular – the size and scale, along with the much-anticipated deployment of a multi-university model for the first time, mark this news as something of a watershed moment for the English sector.

    Universities UK’s efficiency and transformation taskforce has been for some time highlighting the sector’s interest in something comparable to multi-academy trust structures in schools – while also noting the “relatively limited experience” that the sector possesses in navigating such arrangements. This is about to change – the two universities’ description of the intended union as “a blueprint for other institutions to follow” is likely prescient.

    Two become one

    We might also note here that such a model is by no means limited to only two universities operating under one umbrella. The conversations behind the scenes over the last couple of years have been for groups spanning multiple universities and it’s not hard to see how others in the region might want to – or somehow be compelled to – join this group once it’s up and running. Starting with two, however, is a logical choice given the scale and complexity of that exercise alone. The government will be watching closely and hoping it works, so that they can propose the model elsewhere, particularly if it staves off the risk of institutional failure. Local politicians will also be watching closely as a potentially massive new institution emerges, which could have far-reaching local consequences for better and worse.

    One of the eye-catching aspects of today’s announcement is that of leadership – it has already been settled that there is to be one vice chancellor, one board and one senior team. Most mergers and collaborations in HE in recent times have failed before they have even started because of disagreement about which person should sit in the big chair. Being able to embrace this merger process free of that thorny question gives the exercise a much greater chance of success from the outset.

    Of course, collaboration between the University of Greenwich and the University of Kent is not new. Since 2004 the two universities have jointly run the Medway School of Pharmacy in Chatham Dockyard, a joint endeavour that has grown into a multi-disciplinary campus shared between the Greenwich, Kent, and Canterbury Christ Church University. These two decades of practical experience will be an invaluable resource to draw on as these plans move closer to implementation.

    Just the beginning?

    Aside from the potential for other institutions to join the group, the announcement is clearly the start of a long-term process. Despite staff and students coming together into the newly merged university, student pathways and decision-making processes will inevitably be tied to the old institutions and subject areas – and this is difficult to change midstream. If the merger is successful, then these identities could eventually end up disappearing or at least moving to the background, as natural opportunities for integration and efficiencies are sought to be realised by the board and leadership team.

    Such talk will no doubt be unsettling for staff at both Kent and Greenwich, who will wonder for how long their jobs will be needed, particularly where they have a like-for-like counterpart on the other side. The consultations about their futures will need to be thorough and sensitive.

    And enormous questions of REF submissions, TEF awards, data, DAPs and more will now also need to be worked through.

    For now we watch as a new institution takes shape.

    Source link