Blog

  • 2026 Higher Education Digital Marketing Trends and Predictions

    2026 Higher Education Digital Marketing Trends and Predictions

    Hushed conversations about the budget, a shrinking applicant pool and that dreaded enrollment cliff are no longer whispers. The numbers are in and they tell a story you know all too well: the old way of doing things isn’t working any more.

    The traditional models are failing to keep pace with a new generation of students and a rapidly evolving job market. We’ve moved beyond the “enrollment cliff” as a future threat; it’s a present reality that is forcing institutions to fundamentally rethink their approach to marketing and enrollment.

    The old playbook of generic campaigns and static brochures is obsolete. In 2026, the game is no longer about reaching the most students but about connecting with the right students in the most authentic way possible. This new landscape is defined by data, driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and built on a foundation of radical transparency. It’s a world where the institutions that survive will be those willing to break away from the establishment and challenge the status quo.

    Explore the 2026 trends and predictions that are shaking up digital marketing for education industry, what it means for the next generation of enrollment and how institutions can position themselves to thrive in a new era of higher education.

    Shift to GEO/AEO and “Search Everywhere Optimization”

    With the rise of social search and AI Overviews, traditional Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is becoming insufficient. The new paradigm is “Search Everywhere Optimization.” This includes GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) to ensure your institution is favorably mentioned in AI-generated answers and AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) to appear in direct answers in AI Overviews as well as on platforms like TikTok, Reddit, Quora and voice assistants. By 2026, success will not be measured by a #1 ranking on a Google page, but by being the embedded answer wherever a student asks a question. 

    Conversational AI as the 24/7 Admissions Counselor

    AI is already strongly embedded in advertising platforms to capture student interest, but the next frontier is how institutions leverage AI in lead nurturing and admissions. As shown in EducationDynamics’ latest Engaging the Modern Learner Report, 60% of students use AI chatbots for college research, a significant jump from 49% just a year ago.  This will move beyond simple chatbots into sophisticated conversational AI that manages entire nurturing funnels, providing instant, personalized answers to complex questions about financial aid, credit transfers and program specifics via SMS and web chat. These AI assistants will be able to schedule campus tours, triage inquiries to the correct human counselor and provide 24/7 support, dramatically improving the prospective student experience and freeing up admissions teams to focus on high-intent, high-value interactions.

    Authentic Storytelling 

    Authentic user generated content will be a vital part of a brand’s storytelling as more students turn to social channels and short form video to research and validate individual brands. Brands will increasingly leverage content creators’ sphere of influence, leveraging short-form video to tell showcase their brand story.  This creates a massive opportunity for institutions to leverage user-generated content and partner with student-creators who can showcase the real, unpolished and relatable brand story. Think a “Day in the Life” series on TikTok or a student ambassador Q&A on Instagram Live—these genuine interactions build trust and connection in a way a static brochure never could.

    AI for Personalization

    AI picks up on individual user preferences and can serve ad creative that they are more likely to engage with due to better relevance. AI will use existing ad assets (images, videos, headlines, descriptions, etc.)  and landing page experiences to create unique and personalized ads. Landing page personalization will also emerge in 2026 as a way to increase relevance and conversion rate optimization. To be successful, advertisers need to provide a wide variety of existing assets and have a strong landing page experience. For example, if a prospective student has previously browsed your computer science program page, an AI-powered ad could then automatically show them a video testimonial from a current computer science student, rather than a generic campus tour video.

    Rise of Social for Search

    Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen students turning to social for search, we will continue to see this pattern and expect it to increase. Unlike a traditional search engine that provides a list of links, social platforms offer an immersive experience. Students can search for a university’s name and instantly see “day in the life” videos, unscripted dorm tours and Q&A sessions with real students. This content feels more genuine and trustworthy than a polished university-produced video. For them, a hashtag search is less about finding a fact and more about getting a feel for a school’s culture. Having an organic and paid presence on social channels will be vital for brands to be present where their audience is searching. 

    More Ads in AIOs/AI Mode

    To date, there have been very few instances of EDU ads within AI Overviews or AI Mode, but in 2026, we expect this to change dramatically. Google is actively integrating ads directly into its AI-generated summaries and institutions need to be prepared to take advantage of this new frontier for digital advertising for higher education.

    This shift is about more than just a new ad placement; it represents a fundamental change in how advertisers reach prospective students. Instead of relying solely on keywords, digital advertising for universities in AI Overviews are triggered by the full conversational context of a user’s query. This means an ad for your nursing program could appear not just on a search for “nursing school near me,” but also on a more exploratory query like “what are the best career paths in healthcare?” that generates an AI Overview response.

    To secure a presence in these valuable new placements, institutions will need to embrace Google’s AI-powered ad solutions. These include:

    • Broad Match:
      This uses Google’s AI to match your ads to a much wider range of relevant searches, including long-tail and conversational queries that are common in AI Overviews.
    • Performance Max:
      This campaign type leverages automation to find high-value conversions across all of Google’s channels, including Search, Display, YouTube and, increasingly, AI Overviews.
    • AI Max for Search (Beta):
      The newest iteration of Google’s AI-powered ad solutions, AI Max for Search is designed specifically to enhance creative relevance and expand reach within AI-driven search experiences.

    As AI-generated results take up more screen space, being present in these ad placements is crucial. This is a chance to get your brand in front of students at a new moment of discovery, where they are actively seeking complex, nuanced information. Shifting to these AI-powered tools is the key to ensuring your institution remains visible and competitive.

    First-Party Data is the Ultimate KPI

    As audience targeting and keywords continue to get broader, across paid search and paid social, properly training AI to find and optimize to the right user will be crucial to a campaign’s success. The best signal institutions can provide is through their own data. Institutions will need to prioritize regularly importing their 1st party data to fuel their audiences and bidding strategies. Bidding to outcomes will drive quality and as a result CPCs as a KPI will decrease in importance, especially as CPCs continue to increase. Instead, the focus should remain on the cost per outcome, such as cost per application and cost per enroll. Focusing on and optimizing to these ultimate KPIs will bypass front-end noise, ensure quality and prioritize outcomes that more closely correlate to business goals.

    Ready to Break Free From the Old Playbook in the Higher Education Industry?

    The time for waiting is over. The institutions that will survive and thrive in this new era are those that abandon the outdated playbooks of the past and embrace a new, data-driven and authentic approach to enrollment.

    This is not a time for incremental change. It’s a time for bold, strategic action. By leveraging AI for personalization and operational efficiency, embracing authentic storytelling and prioritizing first-party data, you can build a recruitment strategy that not only attracts the right students but also proves the enduring value of your institution.

    Ready to transform your enrollment strategy and secure your institution’s future? EducationDynamics is the only partner with the expertise, technology and end-to-end solutions to help you not just adapt, but thrive. Contact us today to future-proof your institution.

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Through the Lens of Collins and Hoffer (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

    Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Through the Lens of Collins and Hoffer (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

    The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, offers a stark illustration of how violent acts against movement leaders can reconfigure political energy on U.S. campuses. Kirk was the leader of Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action (formerly Students for Trump), and Turning Point Faith. He was also the creator of the Professor Watchlist and the School Board Watchlist. 

    Far from diminishing conservative student mobilization, Kirk’s death appears to have amplified it—at least in the short term. Randall Collins’ sociology of interaction ritual chains and Eric Hoffer’s classic analysis of mass movements provide a useful lens for understanding both the surge and the likely limits of this moment.

    Collins’ Emotional Energy Framework Applied to Kirk’s Death

    Collins identifies four outcomes of successful ritual gatherings: group solidarity, emotional energy, sacred symbols, and moral righteousness. In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, conservative students and evangelical leaders have experienced all four in compressed, amplified form.

    Pastors quickly declared Kirk a “Christian martyr.” Rob McCoy invoked biblical precedent, while Jackson Lahmeyer described the murder as “spiritual in nature and an attack on the very institution of the church.” This religious framing elevates Kirk from activist to sacred symbol.

    The immediate response has been extraordinary. Turning Point USA claims more than 32,000 requests for new chapters in the 48 hours following his death. Collins would interpret this as emotional energy seeking new ritual outlets. In this sense, Kirk’s martyrdom has become not just a grievance but a generator of collective action.

    The memorial scheduled for September 21 at State Farm Stadium—with capacity for more than 60,000 and featuring Donald Trump—is set to be the largest ritual gathering in the history of conservative student politics. Collins would predict this to be a high-intensity moment of “collective effervescence,” the kind of event that extends emotional energy for months if not years.

    Hoffer’s Mass Movement Dynamics and Conservative Student Mobilization

    Hoffer’s The True Believer provides a complementary angle. He argued that mass movements thrive on frustration, doctrine, and the presence of either a leader or a transcendent cause. Kirk’s assassination intensified frustration while transforming him into a more powerful symbolic figure than he was in life.

    Student conservatives now have all three: grievance (left-wing violence), a sacred cause (free speech framed as religious duty), and a heroic narrative (following a martyred leader). In Hoffer’s words, martyrdom provides both “grievance and transcendent meaning.”

    The shift from Kirk as a living leader to Kirk as martyr reflects Hoffer’s principle of substitutability. Loyalty has already migrated from the man himself to the mythology of his sacrifice. College Republicans chairman William Donahue compared the killing to Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, framing it as a watershed for the movement.

    Sustainability and the Ritual Problem

    The paradox is that Kirk’s most important contribution—the high-energy confrontational rituals of his “Prove Me Wrong” campus debates—cannot be replicated without him. These events generated viral spectacle, solidified conservative identity, and created sacred moments of confrontation. They were, in Collins’ terms, engines of emotional energy.

    The September 21 memorial may provide a one-time boost, but Collins emphasizes that emotional energy must be renewed through repeated rituals. Without Kirk’s charisma and willingness to create confrontational spaces, conservative students risk energy dissipation. Already some students report greater enthusiasm for activism, while others express fear of being targeted themselves.

    The dilemma is clear: the rituals that generated the most energy (public confrontations) are the very ones most likely to invite violence. This tension may limit the sustainability of the movement’s current surge.

    The Profit Motive: Martyrdom as Marketplace

    Beyond the sociology of solidarity lies a material reality: martyrdom is also a business model. Conservative organizations are already converting Kirk’s death into a revenue stream. Within hours of the assassination, Turning Point USA launched fundraising appeals invoking Kirk’s “sacrifice,” while conservative merchandisers began selling commemorative t-shirts, hats, and wristbands emblazoned with slogans like “Martyr for Freedom” and “Charlie Lives.”

    Publishing houses are reportedly fast-tracking hagiographic biographies, while streaming platforms are negotiating for documentaries. Memorial events, livestreams, and “Martyrdom Tours” are being packaged as both spiritual rituals and ticketed spectacles. Kirk’s death, in other words, is generating not only emotional energy but also financial capital.

    This profit motive raises questions about the sincerity of the rhetoric surrounding Kirk’s martyrdom. While Collins and Hoffer help explain the emotional pull, the commodification of grief ensures that the “sacred symbol” is also a lucrative brand. Conservative student organizing may thus be sustained less by spontaneous devotion than by a well-financed industry of grievance, merchandise, and media spectacle.

    Indicators to Watch

    Several markers will reveal whether Kirk’s martyrdom produces lasting transformation or burns out in ritual dissipation:

    • Memorial impact: Attendance and intensity at the September 21 gathering will test whether Kirk’s death can generate lasting solidarity.

    • Chapter formation: The real test of Turning Point USA’s 32,000 claims will be functioning chapters in six months.

    • Leadership succession: Hoffer reminds us that movements need charismatic leaders. At present, Trump appears to be monopolizing the emotional energy, raising doubts about the rise of new student leaders.

    • Counter-mobilization: Collins’ conflict theory suggests left-wing backlash could shape whether conservative students double down or retreat.

    The Probable Trajectory

    For the next 6–18 months, conservative student mobilization is likely to grow. The movement now has the grievance, sacred symbolism, and transcendent narrative that both Collins and Hoffer identify as powerful motivators.

    But sustaining this surge will be difficult without Kirk’s unique talent for generating high-energy campus rituals. Unless new leaders emerge who can replicate or reimagine those ritual forms, the emotional energy of martyrdom may eventually dissipate.

    At the same time, the financial infrastructure now growing around Kirk’s death suggests the movement has a fallback strategy: keep the martyrdom alive as long as it remains profitable. In this way, Kirk’s assassination may prove to be not just a sociological event but also a business opportunity—one that reveals the convergence of politics, religion, and profit in contemporary conservative student life.

    Source link

  • The Shrinking Research University Business Model

    The Shrinking Research University Business Model

    For most of the past 30 or so years, big Canadian universities have all been working off more or less the same business model: find areas where you can make big profits and use those profits to make yourself more research-intensive.

    That’s it. That’s the whole model.

    International students? Big profit centres. Professional programs? You better believe those are money-makers. Undergraduate studies – well, they might not make that much money in toto but holy moly first-year students are taken advantage of quite hideously to subsidize other activities, most notably research-intensity.

    Just to be clear, when I talk about “research-intensity”, I am not really talking about laboratories or physical infrastructure. I am talking about the entire financial superstructure that allows profs to teach 2 courses per semester and to be paid at rates which are comparable to those at (generally better-funded) large public research universities in the US. It’s about compensation, staffing complements, the whole shebang – everything that allows our institutions to compete internationally for research talent. Governments don’t pay enough, directly, for institutions to do that. So, universities have found ways to offer new products, or re-arrange the products they offer, in such a way as to support these goals of competitive hiring.

    Small universities do not have quite the same imperatives with respect to research, but this business model affects them nonetheless. To the extent that they wish to compete for staff with the research-intensive institutions, they have to pay higher salaries as well. Maybe the most extreme outcome of that arms race occurred at Laurentian, whose financial collapse was at least in part due to the university implicitly trying to align itself to U15 universities’ pay scales rather than, say, the pay scale at Lakehead (unions, which like to write ambitious pay “comparables” into institutional collective agreements, are obviously also a factor here).

    Anyways, the issue is that for one reason or another, governments have been chipping away at these various sources of profit that have been used to cross-subsidize research-intensity. The situation with international students is an obvious one, but this is happening in other ways too. Professional master’s degrees are not generating the returns they used to as private universities, both foreign and domestic, begin to compete, particularly in the business sector. (A non-trivial part of the reason that Queen’s found itself in financial difficulty last year was because its business school didn’t turn a profit for the first time in years. I don’t know the ins and outs of this, but I would be surprised if Northeastern’s aggressive push into Toronto wasn’t eating some of its executive education business). 

    Provincial governments – some of them, anyway – are also setting up colleges to compete with universities in a number of areas for undergraduate students. In Ontario, that has been going on for 20-25 years, but in other places like Nova Scotia it is just beginning. Some on the university side complain about these programs, primarily in polytechnics, being preferred by government because they are “cheap”, but they rarely get into specifics about quality. One reason college programs are often better on a per-dollar measure? The colleges aren’t building in a surplus to pay for research-intensity – this is precisely what allows them to do revolutionary things like not stuffing 300 first-year students in a single classroom.  

    In brief then: the feds have taken away a huge source of cross-subsidy. Provinces, to varying degrees (most prominently in Ontario), have been introducing competition to chip-away at other sources of surplus that allowed universities to cross-subsidize research intensity. Together, these two processes are putting the long-standing business model of big Canadian universities at risk.

    The whole issue of cross-subsidization raises two policy questions which are not often discussed in polite company – in Canada, at least. The first has to do with cross-subsidization and whether it is the correct policy or not. I suspect there is a strong majority among higher education’s interested public that think it probably is a good policy; we just don’t know for sure because the policy emerged, as so many Canadian policies do, through a process of extreme passive-aggressiveness. Institutions were mad at governments for not directly funding what they wanted to do, so they went off and did their own thing. Governments, grateful not to be harassed for money, said nothing, which institutions took for approval whereas in fact it was just (temporary) non-disapproval. 

    (I should add here – precisely because of all the passive-aggressiveness – it is not 100% clear to me the extent to which provincial governments understand the implications of introducing competition. When they allow new private or college degree programs, they likely think “we are improving options for students” not “I wonder how this might degrade the ability of institutions to conduct research”. And, of course, the reason they don’t think that is precisely because Canadians achieve everything through passive-aggression rather than open policy debates which might illuminate choices and trade-offs. Yay, us.)

    The second policy question – which we really never ever raise – is whether or not research-intensity, as it is practiced in Canadian universities, is worth subsidizing in the first place. I know, you’re all reading that in shock and horror because what is a university if it is not about research? Well, that’s a pretty partial view, and historically, a pretty recent one.  Even among the U15, there are several institutions whose commitment to being big research enterprises is less than 40 years old. And, of course, we already have plenty of universities (e.g. the Maple League) where research simply isn’t a focus – what’s to say the current balance of research-intensive to non-research-intensive universities is the correct one?

    Now add the following thought: if the country clearly doesn’t think that university research matters because the knowledge economy doesn’t matter and we should all be out there hewing wood and drawing water, and if the federal government not only chops the budget 2024 promises on research but then also cuts deeply into existing budgets, what compelling policy reason is there to keep arranging our universities the way we do?  Why not get off the cross-subsidization treadmill and think of ways of spending money on actually improving undergraduate education (which the sector always claims to be doing, but isn’t much, really).

    I am not, of course, advocating this as a course of policy. But given the way both the politics of research universities and the economics of their business models are heading, we might need to start discussing this stuff. Maybe even openly, for a change.

    Source link

  • Should Elites Get Bailed Out Again?

    Should Elites Get Bailed Out Again?

    In 1929, when the stock market crashed, millions of Americans were plunged into unemployment, hunger, and despair. Yet the elites of Wall Street—whose reckless speculation fueled the disaster—often landed softly. By 1933, as the Great Depression deepened, nearly a quarter of the U.S. workforce was unemployed, thousands of banks had failed, and working families bore the brunt of the collapse. Ordinary people endured soup lines, Dust Bowl migration, and generational poverty. The government of Franklin D. Roosevelt eventually stepped in with reforms and safeguards like the FDIC and Glass-Steagall, but not before working-class Americans had paid the heaviest price.

    Fast forward to 2008, when the global financial system once again teetered on collapse. This time, instead of letting the failures run their course, the U.S. government rushed to bail out Wall Street banks, auto manufacturers, and other corporate giants deemed “too big to fail.” Banks survived, CEOs kept their bonuses, and investors were shielded. Meanwhile, millions of working-class families lost their homes, jobs, and savings. Student loan borrowers, particularly those from working-class and minority backgrounds, never got a bailout. Adjunct faculty, contract workers, and gig laborers were left to navigate economic insecurity without systemic relief.

    The pandemic brought the same story in a new form. Corporate bailouts, Federal Reserve interventions, and stimulus packages stabilized markets far more effectively than they stabilized households. Wall Street bounced back faster than Main Street. By 2021, the wealth of America’s billionaires had surged by more than $1.8 trillion, while ordinary workers struggled with eviction threats, childcare crises, and medical debt.

    But the stakes are even higher today. U.S. elites are not only repeating past mistakes—they are doubling down on mass speculation across crypto, real estate, and equity markets. The rise and collapse of speculative cryptocurrencies revealed how wealth can be created and destroyed almost overnight, with everyday investors bearing the losses while venture capitalists and insiders cashed out early. Real estate speculation has driven housing prices beyond the reach of millions of working families, fueling homelessness and displacement. Equity markets, inflated by cheap debt and stock buybacks, have become disconnected from the real economy, rewarding executives while leaving workers behind.

    This speculative frenzy is not just an economic issue—it is an environmental one. Fossil fuel corporations and their financiers continue to reap profits from industries that accelerate climate change, deforestation, and resource depletion. The destruction of ecosystems, the intensification of climate disasters, and the burden of environmental cleanup all fall disproportionately on working-class and marginalized communities. Yet when markets wobble, it is these same polluting elites who position themselves first in line for government protection.

    The Federal Reserve has played a decisive role in this cycle. By keeping interest rates artificially low for years, it fueled debt-driven speculation in housing, equities, and corporate borrowing. When inflation spiked, the Fed shifted gears, raising rates at the fastest pace in decades. This brought pain to households through higher mortgage costs, rising credit card balances, and job insecurity—but banks and investment firms continued to receive lifelines through emergency lending facilities. The Fed’s interventions have too often prioritized elite stability over working-class survival.

    Political leadership has compounded the problem. Under Donald Trump, deregulation accelerated, with key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act rolled back in 2018. Banks gained greater leeway to take risks, and oversight of mid-sized institutions weakened—a decision that later contributed to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. Trump’s tax cuts overwhelmingly favored corporations and the wealthy, further concentrating wealth at the top while leaving the federal government less able to respond to future crises. Even today, Trump and his allies signal that, if returned to power, they would pressure the Fed to prioritize markets over workers and strip down remaining regulatory guardrails.

    The logic of endless bailouts assumes that the survival of elites ensures the survival of the economy. But history proves otherwise. Whether in 1929, 2008, or 2020, the repeated subsidization of corporations and financial elites entrenches inequality, fuels reckless risk-taking, and leaves working families with the bill. The banks, crypto funds, and private equity firms that profit most during boom times rarely share their gains, yet they demand protection in busts.

    And the problem is no longer just domestic—it is geopolitical. While U.S. elites depend on bailouts, rival powers are recalibrating. China is building alternative banking systems through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia, sanctioned by the West, is tightening its economic ties with China and other non-Western states. India and Brazil, key players in the BRICS bloc, are exploring alternatives to U.S. dollar dominance. If the U.S. continues to subsidize private failure with public money, it risks undermining its own global credibility and ceding economic leadership to rivals.

    National security is directly tied to economic and environmental stability. A U.S. that repeatedly bails out elites while leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable erodes trust not only at home but abroad. Allies may question American leadership, while adversaries see opportunity in its fragility. If the U.S. financial system is perceived as permanently rigged—propping up elites while disempowering its workforce—it will accelerate the shift of global influence toward China, Russia, India, and Brazil.

    Perhaps it’s time to let the system fail—not in the sense of mass suffering for ordinary people, but in the sense of refusing to cushion elites from the consequences of their own decisions. If banks gamble recklessly, let them face bankruptcy. If private equity firms strip-mine industries, let them collapse under their own weight. If universities chase speculative growth with predatory lending and overpriced credentials, let them answer for it in the courts of law and public opinion.

    Failure, though painful, can also be cleansing. Without bailouts, institutions would be forced to reckon with structural flaws instead of papering them over. Alternatives could emerge: community-based credit unions, worker-owned cooperatives, public higher education funded for the public good rather than private profit, and serious investment in green energy and sustainable development.

    The real question is not whether elites deserve another bailout. The real question is whether the United States can afford to keep subsidizing them while undermining its working class, its environment, and its national security. For too long, workers, students, and families have shouldered the costs of elite failure. The survival of the U.S. economy—and its place in the world—may depend not on saving elites, but on building something stronger and fairer in their place.

    Sources:

    • Congressional Budget Office, The 2008 Financial Crisis and Federal Response

    • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bank Failures During the Great Depression

    • Institute for Policy Studies, Billionaire Wealth Surge During COVID-19

    • Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy and Emergency Lending Facilities

    • Brookings Institution, Bailouts and Moral Hazard

    • BRICS Policy Center, Alternative Financial Governance Structures

    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report

    • National Association of Realtors, Housing Affordability Data

    • Public Law 115-174, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (2018)

    Source link

  • Academic Leaders Under Pressure: What Provosts Are Saying

    Academic Leaders Under Pressure: What Provosts Are Saying

    Provosts remain committed to their institutions’ academic mission but face growing pressures that make the job more reactive than strategic, according to Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers with Hanover Research, out today. While 91 percent of respondents say they’re glad to have pursued administrative work, only 29 percent report consistently having the resources to implement initiatives. 

    Other findings further reveal how leaders are responding to a shifting landscape within and outside higher education: Nearly a third of institutions represented have begun updating curricula to prepare students for artificial intelligence in the workplace, and more than half of provosts report declines in federal funding under the second Trump administration. Some 47 percent cite a “strategic compliance” approach to this new policy environment and 41 percent a “wait and see” approach. Many institutions are also trying out new ways to support research funding.

    On Wednesday, Oct. 22, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will host a free live webcast on the findings with expert panelists who will share their reasons for optimism in higher education in 2025, along with their concerns about the sector and being a campus leader. Register for that here.

    Even amid these challenges, provosts’ confidence in academic quality remains high. Seventy-nine percent rate their institution’s academic health as good or excellent, and 87 percent say their college’s innovative programs are serving students well. Yet, a majority of provosts note uneven support across disciplines and limited resources for certain student populations, namely those with disabilities. Some doubts about scaling online education for quality are also present.

    Download the full survey report, produced with support from Coursedog, Honorlock and Watermark, here.

    Mental health and well-being are other pressing concerns: Most provosts say their campus has responded effectively to the student mental health crisis, but fewer see overall student health improving. Community college leaders, in particular, highlight food and housing insecurity as a top challenge.

    Read more about what provosts have to say about campus speech and other topics—including the federal policy environment and artificial intelligence, here and here.

    Source link

  • More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    For some students, enrolling in college can feel like a gamble due to the high cost and lack of a clear career at the end of the program. But a growing number of colleges and universities are guaranteeing students will land a job or graduate program slot within months of graduation.

    Bethel University in St. Paul is the latest to make such a promise; Bethel’s Career Commitment provides students in the College of Arts & Sciences with additional assistance if they are still unemployed or not enrolled in graduate school six months after graduation—including by offering a tuition-free spot in a graduate-level Bethel course or a staff job at the university. 

    The trend indicates a growing awareness among institutions of their responsibility to provide students with career-development opportunities, as well as their recognition that a lack of institutional support can impact the college’s perceived value.

    State of play: Nationally, institutions of higher education are struggling to demonstrate value to the public, including prospective students, parents and lawmakers. Much of the trepidation comes from a lack of transparency regarding colleges’ high cost of attendance and the mountain of student loan debt Americans hold, as well as high unemployment and underemployment rates among graduates.

    A recent survey by Tyton Partners found that among students who believe college is worth the cost, 95 percent think higher education is preparing them well for jobs and careers.

    In general, students give fair ratings to the work campuses are currently doing to prepare them for their professional lives. A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that the plurality of students rate their institution’s efforts in career development as “average” (34 percent), 44.6 percent combined consider their college “good” or “excellent,” and 18 percent said poor or below average.

    Today’s college students are also eyeing a competitive job market during an economic downturn, as well as pressures from evolving technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, that threaten entry-level roles.

    Embedding career development throughout the curriculum or as a graduation requirement is becoming more common, encouraging students to think about life after college earlier and in more meaningful ways so they aren’t caught unprepared when senior spring rolls around.

    Previous research shows that students engaged in career development are more likely to secure a job; a 2022 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that students who engaged with their career center received more job offers than their peers who didn’t. But some structural barriers can hinder students’ ability to participate in career activities, including off-campus work, caregiving responsibilities or lack of awareness of services. Internships are also increasingly competitive, leaving some students behind.

    How it works: A key piece of the Bethel Career Commitment is that students must undertake significant measures to advance their own career before the university will open additional doors of support.

    Students must complete four “phases” of career preparation prior to graduation to be eligible for a spot in Bethel’s career commitment plan. The elements include creating a Handshake profile, meeting with a career-development coach and participating in an internship. And after they earn their degree, students must meet with a career coach monthly and apply for at least 20 jobs per month to complete the final phase.

    In addition, students must have a minimum 3.0 GPA, be in good financial standing with the university and be willing to relocate.

    For students who don’t meet all the eligibility requirements, the university provides postgraduation career support in the form of coaching, Bethel University president Ross Allen told Inside Higher Ed.

    “Today, 99 percent of Bethel graduates are employed or in graduate school within a year, so we expect a small number of graduates will need the additional postgraduation support,” Allen said.

    He anticipates that graduate-level credits will often be “the most helpful next step vocationally,” but the university may offer short-term employment opportunities to students based on staffing needs, Allen said.

    A national picture: Other institutions, including Thomas College in Maine, Davenport University in Michigan, Curry College in Massachusetts and the University of Tulsa, guarantee their graduates employment, also on the condition that students participate in career development while enrolled.

    At Davenport, for example, students in select majors who earn a 3.0 GPA, complete an internship or experiential learning opportunity, and participate in extracurricular activities are supported by the DU Employment Guarantee. The plan allows students to enroll in 48 additional credits tuition-free in a graduate, undergraduate or professional program at the university, as well as participate in career coaching and recruitment efforts.

    At Curry College, students who opt into the Curry Commitment receive assistance with federal student loans for up to 12 months. They are also given a paid internship or a tuition waiver for six credits of graduate studies at the institution. To be eligible, a student must participate in career advising, workshops and résumé development; earn at least a 2.8 GPA; and graduate within four years.

    None of these institutions differentiates among the types of job a student may secure—making no distinction between a part-time role or one that doesn’t require a bachelor’s degree—leaving some questions about the underemployment of college graduates.

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

    Source link

  • Berkeley Releases 160 Names, Complies With U.S. Investigation

    Berkeley Releases 160 Names, Complies With U.S. Investigation

    The names of faculty, students and staff were contained in documents related to a federal investigation on alleged campus antisemitism.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    The University of California, Berkeley, told about 160 faculty, staff and students on Sept. 4 that their names appeared in documents officials gave to the Trump administration, which is investigating the university’s response to reports of campus antisemitism, The New York Times reported. 

    According to Berkeley, the 160 names provided to the Education Department in compliance with the investigation include people accused of or affected by antisemitic incidents, as well as those who filed complaints about antisemitism on campus.

    Berkeley is one of numerous higher education institutions the Trump administration is investigating for alleged antisemitism, including the University of California, Los Angeles. The UC system is also weighing Trump’s demands that UCLA pay the government a $1.2 billion settlement to restore $584 million in frozen federal research funding.  

    Berkeley’s decision to hand over the 160 names comes two months after House Republicans grilled Berkeley’s chancellor, Rich Lyons, and two other university leaders at a hearing about their alleged failures to protect Jewish students from discrimination and harassment. At the hearing, Lyons said the university has an “obligation to protect our community from discrimination and harassment” and uphold the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

    While some alumni criticized Berkeley’s compliance with the Trump administration’s investigation, the UC system said in a statement to the Times that it’s “committed to protecting the privacy of our students, faculty, and staff to the greatest extent possible, while fulfilling its legal obligations.”

    Source link

  • It’s Censorship, Not Cancel Culture

    It’s Censorship, Not Cancel Culture

    “We are in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle.”

    This is the declaration of Adam Goldstein, vice president of strategic initiatives for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, writing at the organization’s website.

    In the piece, dated Sept. 12, he chronicles almost three dozen incidents of individuals being sanctioned, suspended or terminated for public remarks following the tragic killing of Charlie Kirk.

    The vast majority of these incidents concern schools, colleges and universities. The examples exhibit a pattern of public outrage, which gets the attention of a public official, who then calls for sanction, followed by the sanction being administered by another public entity.

    As a typical example, Tennessee senator Marsha Blackburn called for the firing of a Cumberland University professor on Sept. 11, the day after Kirk’s death. On Sept. 12, the professor was dismissed, along with a member of the university staff.

    Goldstein says that this is a cycle of “the cancel culture machine. It goes like this: A tragedy happens. Someone reacts by celebrating that tragedy for whatever reason. Then the social media mob comes to demand this person be fired, expelled, or otherwise punished for their views.”

    I’m appreciative of Goldstein’s work to compile, publicize and criticize these actions, but I have an important point of disagreement. Most of these are not incidents of cancel culture.

    It’s censorship.

    The problem is not about “social media mobs” making demands, but on the public officials in power following through and punishing those views.

    Whatever anyone thinks about people saying things on social media, all of it (providing it doesn’t run afoul of the law) is a form of protected speech. Some may decry the effect of that speech, but this doesn’t make it not speech. Charlie Kirk’s Professor Watchlist was a documented vector of threats and harassment directed toward college faculty, but the website itself is too is an example of speech, even when the website called for professors to be fired.

    The public discussion about these issues has been unfortunately muddled for years, including by FIRE president Greg Lukianoff, who, along with his Coddling the American Mind co-author Jonathan Haidt, invented a psychological pathology they called “safetyism” in order to delegitimize student speech they believed to be “illiberal.”

    The “cancel culture” narrative had much the same effect, by categorizing contentious speech where people were advocating for particular outcomes—without having the power to directly enact those outcomes—as something akin to censorship. Whatever one thinks of the phenomenon as a whole or individual examples of it, it was never censorship.

    United States senators calling for firings and then college presidents complying is straight-up censorship.

    These distinctions very much matter in this moment, because it is clear that numerous government officials are interested in using the response to Kirk’s death as a pretext to crack down on speech they don’t approve of. The United States State Department is “warning” immigrants not to “mock” Kirk’s death.

    Legal remedies to illegal firings are also no longer guaranteed in a system where politicians are willing to use the weight of their office to crush dissent. At Clemson, one employee was fired and two faculty members were removed from teaching duties after complaints originating with the Clemson College Republicans surfaced. The South Carolina attorney general, Republican Alan Wilson, issued an opinion holding Clemson harmless if it fired the employees claiming, without evidence, the speech was tantamount to threats.

    Other state legislators overtly threatened the school’s state funding should officials fail to act.

    Coercion, intimidation.

    Representative Clay Higgins declared that he is “going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

    The same Clay Higgins sponsored the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act in 2023, in which he said, “The American people have the right to speak their truths, and federal bureaucrats should not be dictating what is or isn’t true. We must continue to uphold the First Amendment as our founding fathers intended.”

    In 2021, Blackburn, who called for the firing the Cumberland University professor, introduced an anti–cancel culture resolution, declaring, “Cancel culture is a barrier to a free marketplace of ideas and remains antithetical to the preservation and perpetuation of global democracy.”

    It is tempting to nail Blackburn and Higgins as hypocrites, but again, this mistakes the underlying aim of the larger political project for surface-level features. Blackburn and Higgins were against “cancel culture” because they did not approve of the potential consequences for speech with which they agreed. They are now calling for sanctions against speech and speakers with which they disagree. In both cases, they are using their power to promote speech of which they approve and discount that of which they don’t approve.

    The major difference is that instruments of the state are acting on these calls to sanction, suspend and fire people.

    Like I said, censorship.

    The only thing that’s changed is the locus of power and a presidential administration that is more than willing to use the instruments of the state to intimidate and silence the opposition.

    This isn’t cancel culture; it’s authoritarianism.

    As I say, I’m appreciative of FIRE’s attention to these incidents, but the facts of what’s going on show the limits of trying to adjudicate freedoms—including academic freedom—entirely through the lens of free speech. If we’re going to preserve our freedoms, I think it’s important that, at the very least, we use the most accurate descriptive language we can.

    FIRE’s Goldstein is wrong. We aren’t in the “cancel culture” part of the cycle.

    We’re in the retaliation, censorship, coercion, authoritarianism part of the cycle, and the wheels are turning ever faster.

    Source link

  • Return of the expert – HEPI

    Return of the expert – HEPI

    • Professor Nishan Canagarajah, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leicester, argues it is time for universities to engage their political muscles and shift the narrative.
    • Professor Canagarajah will join a panel at the Labour Party Conference on ‘What can universities do for you? How “civic universities” are supporting their communities’ on Monday, 29 September 2025 – further details are at https://www.tickettailor.com/events/universityofleicesterpublicaffairs.

    An ideological challenge

    ‘Universities are part of a “crumbling public realm”’.  Keir Starmer’s declaration in Brighton last year provided a clarion call for the need to invest in the sector which he argued, like other public services such as the NHS and prisons, had suffered a legacy of chronic underinvestment.

    But what is also intrinsic in Starmer’s observation is that universities are losing their place in society. We have lost our voice – drowned out by arguments over the value of a degree, immigration and foreign students, tuition fees and ‘wokeness’. Universities are not seen as being relevant and their wider societal value is often misunderstood. In all the noise around earning a degree – often reduced to a transaction where costs and benefits are weighed – the deeper purpose is frequently lost. 

    It was famously said by Michael Gove that ‘the people of this country have had enough of experts’ – but perhaps now the time has come for experts in universities to re-enter the stage.

    UK universities have always been a cornerstone of national progress. From pioneering life-changing research to nurturing the next generation of leaders, our institutions are woven into the fabric of our society and communities. Now more than ever, we have an opportunity to step forward with confidence to help tackle the pressing, economic, social and health challenges we are facing.

    It is time for a new narrative as we engage our political muscles and demonstrate universities are vital to shaping a brighter future for Britain. 

    From wokeness to winner – how to change the narrative

    Four years ago, the Daily Mail headline screamed ‘The University of Woke’ in describing Leicester’s efforts to widen its curriculum. In 2025, Leicester became the Daily Mail University of the Year, described as ‘a model university for the 21st century’ and was shortlisted for both Times Higher Education University of the Year and The Times and Sunday Times University of the Year. 

    There are lessons to be learnt from Leicester’s journey from pariah to exemplar:

    1. Do not be afraid to do the right thing: Despite the media onslaught, Leicester persevered with its agenda to break down barriers and develop a non-elitist curriculum. Now the University is heralded as a model of inclusivity.
    2. Be bold-stand above the parapet: Universities do not need to shout louder – they need to be heard more. We must regain the ground we have lost historically under attack of being too politically liberal, lacking ideological diversity and over free speech.
    3. Show relevance to society: The disconnect between universities and the public must be tackled. Leicester has joined forces with others to become a part of communities, to engage with them and open its facilities. Our impacts are being brought to the attention not only of the public, but to key stakeholders and to politicians.  It is about regaining political and public trust. It is why we are here in Liverpool for the Labour Party Conference.
    4. Rediscover our confidence: From IVF to DNA profiling, the World Wide Web to AI, UK universities have shaped the modern world. At Leicester, we proudly celebrate Sir Alec Jeffreys’s discovery of genetic fingerprinting—not just for its scientific brilliance, but for its enduring inspiration. These discoveries connect with the public. But beyond the headlines are thousands of quieter innovations – new research and policy insights, business support, school outreach, and community partnerships – that improve lives every day. It’s time to shine a light on these contributions and celebrate the sector’s role in building a better Britain.

    More than degrees 

    Universities are not just places of learning – they are engines of innovation, inclusion, and economic growth. Consider the impact: 

    • We contribute over £115 billion to the UK economy annually and support 815,000 jobs. 
    • International students bring a net benefit of £37.4 billion to the UK, enriching our campuses and communities. 
    • Every £1 of public investment in universities yields £14 in economic return. 
    • We train the doctors, nurses, teachers, and public servants who keep our country running. 
    • Our research leads to cleaner energy, smarter cities, and healthier lives. 

    These contributions are felt in every region, every sector, and every household.  

    A paradox 

    Yet today, we face a paradox: a nation that benefits immensely from its universities but often questions their value. The sector is buffeted by direct and indirect policy headwinds – from immigration restrictions and post-study visa curbs to fragmented regional R&D funding and the prospect of an international levy – which according to a new report from the Centre for Cities, Town and gown: The role of universities in city economies will have a greater impact in Leicester than anywhere else in the UK. 

    The result of this paradox? An untapped potential that we must address head-on. 

    With the Labour Government more than a year into its term, we have an opportunity to put universities back at the heart of our national conversation – as a positive force for change. But we can’t expect others to make the case for us while we sit back silently and nod sagely. We must roll up our sleeves and demonstrate how we can serve Government priorities.

    A solution

    With Labour’s five missions – economic growth, opportunity, NHS renewal, clean energy, and safer streets – universities are uniquely placed to help deliver real change. We are not a cost to be managed, but a partner to empower the country. 

    At Leicester, for example, our Space Park Leicester significantly contributes to the UK government’s priorities for economic growth and clean energy by fostering a collaborative hub for the space sector and leveraging satellite data for environmental solutions. The £100m facility is an innovation hotbed for driving job creation, inward investment and working with industry to develop new technologies which support clean energy transition.

    With respect to NHS renewal, we partner with the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust to deliver world-class clinical innovations in areas such as diabetes, ethnic health and respiratory diseases, and secure real change in the city and beyond. We are also diversifying the medical workforce through a ground-breaking Medicine with Foundation Year programme designed as a widening-participation route to attract students from underrepresented backgrounds who have the potential to succeed in medicine.

    We are creating opportunities for school-aged children from disadvantaged backgrounds through our IntoUniversity Centre, which supports young people to improve academic attainment, raise aspirations and progress into higher education or other career paths. While helping to ensure safer streets through a strong partnership with police, community engagement and research projects, including the creation of the Policing Academic Centre of Excellence which uses the latest advances in science and technology to solve strategic and operational policing challenges.

    Every university in the UK has a similar story to tell with their own impactful examples that help shape a brighter future.

    That’s why the University of Leicester, along with university colleagues from across the sector, will be attending this year’s party conferences, to engage constructively with policymakers, share ideas, and build alliances. We believe in collaboration, not confrontation – and in the power of shared purpose.

    In a future that is increasingly knowledge intensive and in which our global success will be predicated on our use of technology, AI and big data, universities are central to the UK’s ambitions and future success. It is time for the return of the expert – time for universities to step forward, shape the debate, participate in the national conversation and ensure that universities can continue to drive progress in the way that we have for many centuries. 

    Source link

  • We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    The first words I uttered after successfully defending my dissertation were, “Wow, what a ride. From Head Start to Ph.D.!” Saying them reminded me where it all began: sitting cross-legged with a picture book at the Westside Head Start Center, just a few blocks from my childhood home in Jackson, Mississippi. 

    I don’t remember every detail from those early years, but I remember the feeling: I was happy at Head Start. I remember the books, the music, the joy. That five-minute bus ride from our house to the Westside Center turned out to be the shortest distance between potential and achievement. 

    And my story is not unique. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children — kids whose names we may never know, though our futures depend on them — walk through Head Start’s doors. Like me, they find structure, literacy, curiosity and belonging.  

    For many families, Head Start is the first place outside the home where a child’s potential is nurtured and celebrated. Yet, this program that builds futures and strengthens families is now under threat, and it’s imperative that we protect it. 

    Years later, while training for high school cross-country meets, I’d run past the park next to the center and pause, flooded with memories. Head Start laid the foundation for everything that followed. It gave me structure, sparked my curiosity and built my early literacy skills. It even fed my short-lived obsession with chocolate milk.  

    More than that, Head Start made me feel seen and valued. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    There’s a clear, unbroken line between the early lessons I learned at Head Start and the doctoral dissertation I defended decades later. Head Start didn’t just teach me my ABCs — it taught me that learning could be joyful, that I was capable and that I belonged in a classroom.  

    That belief carried me through elementary school, Yale and George Washington University and to a Ph.D. in public policy and public administration. Now, as part of my research at the Urban Institute, I’m working to expand access to high-quality early learning, because I know firsthand what a difference it makes.  

    Research backs up what my story shows: Investments in Head Start and high-quality early childhood education change lives by improving health and educational achievement in later years, and benefit the economy. Yet today there is growing skepticism about the value of Head Start, reflecting an ongoing reluctance to give early childhood education the respect it deserves.  

    If Head Start funding is cut, thousands of children — especially from communities like mine in Jackson, where families worked hard but opportunities were limited — could lose access to a program that helps level the playing field. These are the children of young parents and single parents, of working families who may not have many other options but still dare to dream big for their kids.  

    And that is why I am worried. Funding for Head Start has been under threat. Although President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would maintain Head Start funding at its current $12.3 billion, Project 2025, the influential conservative policy document, calls for eliminating the program. The administration recently announced that Head Start would no longer enroll undocumented children, which a group of Democratic attorneys general say will force some programs to close.  

    Related: Head Start is in turmoil 

    I feel compelled to speak out because, for our family, Head Start wasn’t just a preschool — it was the beginning of everything. For me, it meant a future I never could have imagined. For my mother, Head Start meant peace of mind — knowing her son was in a nurturing, educational environment during the critical developmental years. My mother, Nicole, brought character, heart and an unwavering belief in my potential — and Head Start helped carry that forward. 

    My mother was just 18 when she enrolled me in Head Start. “A young mother with big dreams and limited resources,” she recounted to me recently, adding that she had “showed up to an open house with a baby in my arms and hope in my heart.” 

    Soon afterward, Mrs. Helen Robinson, who was in charge of the Head Start in Jackson, entered our lives. She visited our home regularly, bringing books, activities and reassurance. A little yellow school bus picked me up each morning. 

    Head Start didn’t just support me, though. It also supported my mother and gave her tips and confidence. She took me to the library regularly and made sure I was always surrounded by books and learning materials that would challenge and inspire me. 

    It helped my mother and countless others like her gain insight into child development, early learning and what it means to advocate for their children’s future.  

    Twenty-five years after those early mornings when I climbed onto the Head Start bus, we both still think about how different our lives might have been without that opportunity. Head Start stood beside us, and that support changed our lives. 

    As we debate national priorities, we must ask ourselves: Can we afford to dismantle a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns? 

    My family provides living proof of Head Start’s power.  

    This isn’t just our story. It is the story of millions of others and could be the story of millions more if we choose to protect and invest in what works. 

    Travis Reginal holds a doctorate in public policy and public administration and is a graduate of the Head Start program, Yale University and George Washington University. He is a former Urban Institute researcher. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about the Head Start funding was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link