Blog

Challenging climate hypocrisy in higher education learning and teaching
By Dr Adrian Gonzalez (@AGonzalez05) Senior Lecturer in Sustainability and Director of Learning and Teaching, Department of Environment and Geography at the University of York.

Climate hypocrisy in Higher Education

The climate crisis and global attempts at strengthening the sustainable and low-carbon transition is arguably the most critical issue we face and there is clear evidence to show strong Higher Education (HE) support for this twin approach. However, HE, particularly in the Global North, faces increasing scrutiny and critique over its implementation of the sustainability agenda. This has led to accusations of greenwashing, in which universities (willingly or perhaps erroneously) overmarket and/or underdeliver their sustainability policies, and climate hypocrisy, where an internationalist agenda frames student recruitment (the drive towards overseas markets), research activities and partnerships. For example, in UK tertiary education (further education and higher education), the largest sources of travel emissions are student flights, but there has been limited focus on the emissions stemming from learning and teaching, particularly fieldtrips, which this post is keen to reflect on.

Destination long haul; Higher Education residential undergraduate student fieldtrips

Outdoor education, particularly fieldtrips, offer a wide array of learner benefits and can be integral to different undergraduate programmes such as Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), archaeology, history and classics. However, the competitive UK higher education market has helped generate an internationalisation of undergraduate fieldtrips which are now used as a critical marketing tool to attract prospective students, who as ‘consumers’, are increasingly keen on knowing where these trips go to inform applications. For example, a brief internet search of UK GEES departments shows undergraduate trips heading to exotic locations such as the Amazonia region, Colombia (BSc Environmental Science), Bahamas (BSc Ocean Science and Marine Conservation) and Malawi (BA Human Geography).

Climate hypocrisy is evident here; students are studying programmes that acknowledge and grapple with the climate crisis and the need for transformational structural changes, yet at the same time will be enrolled on degrees that facilitate long-haul international learning opportunities without significant acknowledgement or reflection of the environmental impacts. Whilst there is no reliable publicly available data on the level of carbon emissions generated by GEES and other subject fieldtrips in UK higher education, I can give an indication by drawing on a case study of the department I work in.

Department of Environment and Geography, University of York

The department runs a wide variety of one-day and residential fieldtrips across its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. It is the undergraduate residential trips that, owing to their design, have particularly significant carbon emissions and were made the focus of the subsequent investigation. Until 2022-2023, the department ran several residential fieldtrips that encompassed both UK and overseas destinations for its four undergraduate programmes (BSc Environmental Science; BSc Physical Geography and Environment; BSc Environment, Economics and Ecology; BA Human Geography and Environment).

I used the University of York’s carbon calculator, which draws upon the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs greenhouse conversion factors to calculate the carbon emissions stemming from travel and accommodation and the offsetting requirements. The table below shows the residential fieldtrips and carbon emissions from travel (including coach and flights where relevant) and accommodation on a per-person and 50-person basis. For four 50-person trips, this generated 108,521.85 kg CO2e (or 109 metric tonnes rounded up), equating to a carbon offsetting cost of £3,437.97 for the Department on an annual basis.

Table 1: Department of Environment and Geography, University of York fieldtrips up to 2022-2023

What does this total figure equate to? A good comparison is the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), an international non-profit that focuses on environment and development challenges and employs 170 staff working across several international regional centres. At the time of these fieldtrips operating, SEI’s 2020 annual report indicated that its air travel emissions were almost 550 metric tonnes CO2e (in 2019). So these department fieldtrips made up the equivalent of almost 20% of the total air travel emissions of a major international research organisation.

Conclusion: a call to action

These figures indicate the scale of the socio-environmental impacts caused and the urgent need for UK higher education learning and teaching operations, particularly in GEES given the subject areas, to be seen as ‘walking the talk.’ There have been recent efforts to address this issue through the work of the RGS-IBG who have developed a list of voluntary principles to guide geography fieldwork, including the adoption of ‘sustainable fieldtrips’ which acknowledge the need to recognise and justify the resulting carbon impacts. Whilst it is positive to see 31 institutions signed up, this is less than half of the UK GEES departments and does not incorporate any wider disciplinary commitments.

This article raises a call to action for all learned institutions and UK HE departments operating residential fieldtrips to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles and operations. Without system-wide change, climate hypocrisy remains unchallenged in UK higher education learning and teaching.

To support academic staff and departments, several steps towards sustainable fieldtrips can be taken:
- Conduct a carbon audit of fieldtrips to ascertain the impacts as undertaken at the Department of Environment of Environment and Geography, University of York;
- Using this data, consider revising long-haul fieldtrip locations to relevant localised destinations that can be reached through low carbon (i.e. no flights) transport;
- Publish the carbon costs on the department or university website to support wider debate and discussion of sustainable fieldtrips;
- Implementing sustainable fieldtrips can lead to multiple Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) benefits, particularly around accessibility and inclusivity. Use this opportunity to review and seek to strengthen the EDI agenda.
- Disseminate best practice guidance through research and conference outputs;
- Lobby learned institutions to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles that align with those adopted by the RGS-IBG;
Through these steps, UK higher education can begin to create a more holistic, robust and transparent sustainability and decarbonisation agenda.

However, these actions cannot happen in isolation or nullify wider critical discussions around the UK HE sustainability agenda. One of the most significant discussion points is the impact of international students studying in the UK, a country which is the second most popular study destination in the world. Whilst these students provide significant economic benefits to the UK economy (£41.9 billion between 2021/22) and are vital to the UK higher education business model (one in six universities get over a third of their total income from overseas students), the carbon footprint far surpasses the UK higher education fieldtrip contribution. A 2023 report from 21 UK further education and higher education providers concluded that student flights accounted for 2.2 metric tonnes of CO2e or 12% of total emissions, whilst globally, student mobility is estimated to generate at least 14 megatones of Co2e per year (14 million metric tonnes). It is clear therefore that in the UK context, there is an urgent need for a robust policy debate on UK higher education funding and student mobility, otherwise the sector’s decarbonisation agenda will remain only partially addressed through sustainable fieldtrips.
Source link
January 3, 2025
Top 5 Strategies to Enhance Cloud Security in Higher Education

The transition to cloud computing has revolutionized higher education by enabling enhanced collaboration, scalability, and flexibility. On the other hand, the cloud’s ability to improve data security is a substantial advantage that is often overlooked. Securing a cloud environment necessitates a proactive approach, rather than solely implementing cloud-based technologies. Here We have collated the top are five strategies to optimize cloud security in higher education:

Cloud security in higher education: Importance of data protection for HEIs

Higher education institutions have a great deal of sensitive student and institutional data to handle, hence data security and cloud security in higher education is a top issue. Safeguarding sensitive data depends on strong adherence to laws including FERPA and GDPR, therefore guaranteeing ethical usage, limited access, and safe storage. According to surveys, giving transparency and strong data protection a top priority and opting for solutions to protecting student data in the cloud not only helps to prevent breaches but also fosters staff and student confidence, hence improving engagement and institutional reputation.

5 Clever Strategies for Secure Cloud Adoption in Universities

1. Emphasize control rather than location

The belief that on-premises data storage is intrinsically more secure may be deceptive. Although server rooms appear concrete, they remain susceptible to breaches, natural calamities, and maintenance issues. Cloud solutions offer superior security features, like powerful firewalls, automatic backups across many sites, and multi-site processing to reduce risks and enhance recovery efficiency. Institutions may be confident that their data is secured by superior infrastructure.

2. Adopt the paradigm of shared responsibility.

Cloud security is not the responsibility of a single individual; it requires collaboration. The vendor is able to manage hardware maintenance, patching, and enhancements in physical infrastructure security by collaborating with a reliable cloud provider. This enables your internal IT staff to concentrate on strategic data governance, institutional policies, and user access control. By coordinating activities, academic institutions can enhance their security and facilitate more effective departmental decision-making.

3. Employ sophisticated security features

Cloud platforms offer a diverse array of integrated security features, including identity management systems, multifactor authentication (MFA), and advanced encryption. These features guarantee that only authorized individuals can access sensitive information. Moreover, cloud providers consistently enhance their security protocols to address emerging attacks, enabling your organization to remain proactive against potential hazards.

4. Make scaling easier without putting security at risk

Higher education needs are changing quickly, and old IT systems often can’t keep up. But the cloud lets you grow without sacrificing protection. Institutions can increase or decrease storage space, processing power, and entry controls without affecting the security of academic institutions and their data. For instance, access can be tailored to each role, so administrators, faculty, and students will only see data that is important to them.

5. Invite everyone to be conscious of cloud security in higher education

Usually, people are the weakest component in data security. As you migrate to the cloud, for instance, teach your employees and children about best practices include using secure passwords, turning on multifactor authentication, and identifying phishing efforts. Successful usage of the security features of the cloud reduces user error-related risks by means of informed communities.

Cloud technology in campus management – Creatrix Campus higher education cloud suite

The move to cloud technology in higher education is more than just a trend; it’s a huge chance to make data safer. Despite early concerns, institutions that follow these criteria can fully utilize the cloud’s data protection capabilities.

Higher education institutions can adapt to this new reality with Creatrix Campus’s robust, secure cloud-based technologies. Can you commit to data security? Secure cloud solutions for academic institutions may help your institution.Get in touch for details.

Source link

January 3, 2025
How to Recruit Undergraduate Students Who Persist
Key Takeaways:
- Today’s undergraduate enrollment and recruitment strategies should be data informed and personalized, prioritizing quality over quantity.
- “Flipping the funnel” shifts the focus from mass marketing to building meaningful, tailored connections with students, ensuring better matches and higher retention rates.
- Student personas and data analytics enable institutions to craft targeted messaging that resonates with individual student goals.
- Liaison’s tools empower colleges to use predictive analytics, real-time engagement, and tailored outreach to attract and retain students who are well-suited to their programs.
For today’s higher education institutions, attracting the right students is more important than reaching a high volume of applicants. Traditional enrollment models that rely on casting a wide net and filtering through broad pools of applicants are no longer enough. Colleges and universities must instead adopt data-informed, personalized strategies that focus on quality over quantity.

Liaison’s suite of advanced tools makes this possible, offering data-focused insights, real-time engagement capabilities, and tailored outreach options. This approach not only streamlines recruitment but also ensures a stronger match between students and their chosen programs, leading to higher yield and retention rates and ultimately providing a more fulfilling educational journey.

Flipping the Funnel: Moving From Volume to Value

Historically, institutions have used a “funnel” approach to undergraduate admissions and recruitment, beginning with a large pool of prospective students and narrowing the field. But with today’s intensified competition, this model is proving less effective. Rather than expanding the top of the funnel by acquiring more student names, “flipping the funnel” is a strategic approach that begins with the end goal in mind: enrolling and retaining the students who will thrive at your institution.

Flipping the funnel shifts the focus from raw numbers to meaningful connections. Instead of mass marketing, this approach encourages institutions to recruit based on the distinct needs, goals, and interests of each student cohort. Just as each program or field has unique strengths, each student brings unique aspirations and potential. This customized outreach means that a prospective engineering student, for instance, might receive information about hands-on lab opportunities, while a fine arts student sees highlights of campus studios and faculty profiles. Liaison’s Enrollment Marketing and CRM solutions facilitate this tailored approach, allowing schools to reach specific audiences on digital platforms with messages that resonate with individual student interests.

Building Student Personas to Enhance Targeting

Understanding how to recruit undergraduate studentswho are likely to succeed and remain engaged throughout their academic journey requires a clear understanding of those students. Creating detailed student personas—representations of ideal applicants based on real data—lets institutions tailor their outreach with pinpoint accuracy. For example, Liaison’s CRM solutions facilitate this process by analyzing key data points such as academic background, geographic location, and behavioral insights, helping teams identify the students most likely to flourish and stay enrolled.

With clear student personas in mind, institutions can deliver customized messaging that aligns with students’ priorities. For example, a prospective first-generation student may be most interested in affordability and support services, while a STEM-oriented applicant might respond better to information about research facilities and career pathways. Crafting communications based on these personas enhances engagement and strengthens student bonds from the beginning. By sending recruitment messages that truly speak to students’ goals, institutions foster a sense of belonging, which in turn improves retention and satisfaction rates.

Utilizing Data Analytics for Personalized Interactions

Data analytics has become an essential tool for individualizing outreach to connect with the right students with the right message at the right time. Real-time data enables institutions to track student responses, identify prospective students’ preferences, and adapt strategies based on what works best. Liaison’s AI solutions are designed for this agile approach, allowing institutions to monitor interactions and adjust their recruitment efforts dynamically throughout the enrollment cycle.

With predictive and prescriptive analytics, schools can employ advanced tactics like retargeting, which reconnects with students who may have previously shown interest but haven’t yet committed. By capturing students’ attention during “micro-moments” as they browse social media or search online, institutions can stay relevant and timely in their communications. This data-informed approach—using Liaison’s Enrollment Marketing and digital services—increases enrollment numbers and forms trust with students by providing content that aligns with their journeys. The result? Stronger engagement and a greater likelihood of success.

Transforming Enrollment With Data-Informed Precision

In higher education, student recruitment requires a thoughtful, data-centered approach that emphasizes quality over quantity and personalization over generalization. By leveraging tools like Liaison’s Enrollment Marketing, TargetX, Outcomes, Search, and Othot, institutions can move beyond traditional methods and create recruitment strategies that attract students who are well-suited to their programs. By creating tailored recruitment strategies aligned to student cohort needs, you inspire students with a stronger sense of belonging and deeper engagement throughout the enrollment cycle. That, in turn, drives long-term success on your campus.

To discover how Liaison’s technology solutions can transform your recruitment practices, reach out to us today. Our team is ready to help you implement data-backed, individualized outreach strategies that benefit your institution and future students alike. Contact us for a demo or a consultation to see how Liaison’s tools can elevate your enrollment efforts!

About the Author

Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.
Source link
January 2, 2025
Looking back at HEPI’s most controversial reports – including an unexpected one from 2024

HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, starts 2025 by looking back at some HEPI controversies from the last decade.

New Year’s Day marked the first day of my twelfth year at HEPI. Over that time, I’ve had a hand in publishing (and writing) over 200 reports. None has stoked controversy for the sake of it, but neither have we shied away from publishing things that people feel need to be said even if they might be deemed by some to be controversial.

Fortunately, just four (that’s under 2%) of these pieces have flared into major rows. That’s about one report every three years or so on average, which doesn’t feel too bad a record for think-tank land. If we were in the business of stoking controversy for the sake of it, then it would be fair to say we are not very good at it.

Most people understand the role of think tanks is to make people think, whether they agree with them or not. Indeed, HEPI was founded as an offshoot of HEFCE in the early 2000s because it was felt there were things that should be said but which an official arms-length body could not easily say, with the overarching goal of speeding up the policymaking process

Some reports we were initially a little nervous about putting out have been accepted at face value without getting anyone too hot under the collar. (A recent one of this ilk looked at the experience of trans and non-binary students.) But more intriguingly, those HEPI reports that have been deemed controversial have not generally been the ones I thought in advance would be.

And each one is now seared on my mind.

A UKIP Licence

The first of these, published back in 2015, proposed a National Licence to give everyone with a UK Internet Protocol address access at no upfront charge to past and present academic research. The associated backend costs were designed to be covered by government payments to publishers.

FE lecturers and some health professionals welcomed the idea wholeheartedly, as they tended to think better access to the latest and past research would help them do their jobs. However, the more headbanger-ish element of the open-access world thought it outrageous that free access might be limited, at least initially, only to those in the UK. They also disliked the fact that publishers would continue to receive material payments.

As you would have needed a UK IP address to benefit from the National Licence and as the UK Independence Party was then riding high, the critics amusingly caricatured the paper as a ‘UKIP’ idea. Less amusingly, one academic called for it to be withdrawn, only to rescind this when it was suggested that this might be illiberal – before changing his mind once more and calling again for a ban.

The paper is still available but the National Licence idea has not made any progress and the major challenge of poor access to academic output for those without institutional log-ins (including policymakers, not to mention think-tank staff…) remains.

Boys to Men

The second controversial piece – produced in 2016 – was on the education of boys, who fall far behind girls in our education system. This, sadly, also remains a big problem that no government has gripped (though it’s not too late for the current Government to do so). Our paper was condemned, for example by the then leadership of the National Union of Students (NUS), for emphasising sex rather than class.

At the time, I said the report seemed to have been treated like an embarrassing relative who sits in the corner at family gatherings spouting politically incorrect nonsense.

In response to such condemnation, we pointed out that it is possible to be worried about more than one issue at a time and that, as disadvantaged girls tend to do a little better than disadvantaged boys, sex seems one important factor to consider alongside all the others when assessing outcomes.

The challenges in this area are perhaps a little better understood these days than they were a few years ago – thanks to excellent work from people like Richard Reeves, a Brit who is now the President of the American Institute for Boys and Men and who has written an whole book on the topic and who recently spoke at a really good Bright Blue event on the issue). So when we return to the topic, as we would like to do early in 2025, perhaps it will be less fraught.

Grammar schools for all

The third row was predictable. It occurred six years ago, on the back of a HEPI piece by the right-of-centre policy wonk Iain Mansfield. He defended grammar schools and their impressive record in getting BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) pupils into the most selective universities, such as the University of Cambridge.

This paper (like the one on the National Licence) appeared in HEPI’s Debate Paper series, which is more polemical in its approach than HEPI’s other papers, for we knew it might stoke a row. Yet after publication of Iain’s paper, which had gone through our regular peer-review process as with all full-length HEPI papers, one well-respected expert in the sociology of education working at a Russell Group university declared HEPI should ‘disband’.

However, most of the opposition to Iain’s paper was classier. Unlike other – more ideological – think tanks, we invariably encourage people who disagree with something we have published to write for us too. So we encouraged the critics to gather together under two Oxford academics to produce a strong HEPI paper of their own that responded to Iain’s work in the form of a series of essays.

In their respective pieces, Iain and his critics were largely focusing on different issues – Iain looked mainly at access to selective higher education on leaving grammar school and the collection of essays concentrated mainly on how grammar school systems tend to work against the interests of those who are shut out from them. While the debate was angry in parts, it was properly evidence based and therefore very illuminating.

As someone who lives in part of the country where nearly all children still take the 11+, I found the discussion usefully educational and took something from both sides. Iain as the initial protagonist and someone who thrives on intellectual debate certainly welcomed it.

Helping postgraduate parents

The row in 2024, in contrast, came as a complete surprise. It was prompted by a HEPI Policy Note on the lack of childcare support for parents who are early career researchers.

The paper, written for HEPI by the GW4 group of universities in England and Wales, was based on the personal testimonies of postgraduate parents. It argued that postgraduate parents should become entitled to the same support that is available to undergraduate parents:

the current approach does not provide the right incentives to support social mobility through education. Extending the current undergraduate Childcare Grant to postgraduate students would seem a logical first step to support the most economically disadvantaged.

The paper also explained that the authors knew their proposals would not solve all the problems faced by postgraduate parents:

While GW4 acknowledges that this would not be a panacea for all postgraduates, extending the support to those with the greatest need would be a welcome first step to ensure parity of policy.

So the authors also floated going further:

A future step such as expanding the 30 free hours, so that childcare does not continue to be a barrier to the reskilling and career progression opportunities that postgraduate studies can provide, is worthy of consideration if the ambitions of the R&D People and Culture Strategy are to be delivered.

This seemed a relatively uncontroversial conclusion, not least because it was in tune with HEPI’s earlier uncontested work pointing out how postgraduate researchers often fall through the gap between student support and employee benefits. Moreover, all our other work on improving the lives of early career researchers had been widely welcomed; in 2024 alone, this included a collection of essays with the British Academy and a study of the career progression of Black early-career academics with the Society of Black Academics and GatenbySanderson.

So we assumed that, if only we could secure engagement with its contents, then the HEPI / GW4 Policy Note calling for modest improvements in the support for postgraduate parents in England would also land on fertile soil. Yet the outcry from a small number of those who read it and who thought it did not go far enough was extraordinary.

Playing the ball not the person

The process for putting a paper of this sort together takes months and, during this time, we had lots of fascinating conversations about whether the proposals should be bolder, whether or not we should argue that England should simply and immediately copy the generous arrangements in Wales (even though Wales is better funded thanks to the Barnett formula) and which arm of the state should have responsibility for childcare support for postgraduates. The wording about better short-term arrangements only being a ‘first step’ reflected these discussions.

Although the Policy Note was not my work, I used my social media channels to help publicise it and so drew much of the ire from academics on X / Twitter. Initially, I was asked why we wanted to block people from ‘feeding our families’. Later, and after I had pointed out this criticism seemed not to be based on a close reading of the actual paper, I was called ‘unhinged’ and accused of ‘misogyny’ and ‘everyday sexism’. One message about the report was tagged with ‘VAWG’, which I learnt stands for ‘violence against women and girls’. Remember, our paper proposed introducing – not restricting or abolishing – childcare support for postgraduate parents, and with a focus (initially) on the poorest ones most in need.

Anyone serious about helping postgraduates should surely avoid the sort of attack that only serves to deter people from becoming involved in policymaking in the first place. At HEPI, we will always have the back of anyone who writes for us (irrespective of whether individual members of HEPI staff personally agree with them or not), but people are still bound to be put off if they find their peers prefer to play the person not the ball the minute they arrive on the pitch.

Put simply, not everyone is able to respond to attacks in the wonderful way that the Cambridge academic Dr Ally Louks has been doing so effectively in recent weeks. Perhaps we could all learn something useful from her.

Policymaking is hard…

Successful policymaking is hard. It relies on lots of people putting their heads above the parapet to light a better way. HEPI wants to encourage debate across the whole range of higher education policy issues, but that needs a conducive environment in which to flourish. If we really are serious about producing a better environment for postgraduate students – and as our work consistently shows, HEPI certainly is – then we need a constant stream of new ideas, persuasive papers and open debate.

At HEPI, we remain committed to encouraging a positive environment and, as a think tank publishing 35+ reports a year plus a daily blog, we rely on sourcing lots of good content, ideally from those at the coalface – and irrespective of whether they have written for policymakers before.

So just as we have encouraged those who want to go further than we proposed in the GW4 / HEPI report on postgraduate parents to write an alternative piece for us (currently without success), we also encourage others to make it their New Year’s Resolution to write for HEPI. If you are even mildly tempted, our Instructions for Bloggers can be found here and our Instructions for Authors are here.

Source link

January 2, 2025
The Decline of the US Empire (Richard Wolff)

Source link

January 2, 2025
Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Drops Union Bid

The Dartmouth College men’s basketball team is dropping its historic bid to form a union, months after voting to do so.

The decision, announced Tuesday, comes as Republicans are poised to take control of the National Labor Relations Board, which could affect who is allowed to unionize on college campuses. A regional office of the board cleared the way earlier this year for the players to vote on the petition, ruling that the student-athletes were employees and thus allowed to unionize.

Dartmouth disagreed with that opinion and refused to bargain with the team until the five-member NLRB ruled on the issue. Currently, the five-member panel has two vacancies, so incoming President Donald Trump could quickly reshape the board. In withdrawing the petition, the Service Employees International Union, Local 560, which represents the players, decided not to gamble with the new board and potentially risk a negative opinion.

“By filing a request to withdraw our petition today, we seek to preserve the precedent set by this exceptional group of young people on the men’s varsity basketball team,” local president Chris Peck said in a statement to the Associated Press. “They have pushed the conversation on employment and collective bargaining in college sports forward and made history by being classified as employees, winning their union election 13-2, and becoming the first certified bargaining unit of college athletes in the country.”

The Dartmouth team union threatened to upend college sports and added more urgency to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s efforts to settle the question of whether student athletes are employees who can collectively bargain. The NCAA has lobbied Congress to pass a law affirming that college athletes aren’t employees. The incoming Congress seems likely to grant that request.

Source link

December 31, 2024
How to Create an Education Marketing Plan for 2025

Reading Time: 9 minutes

It’s 2025! Now is the perfect time to reevaluate your strategies and set a fresh, bold new vision for your institution’s success. This year, education marketing will continue to evolve rapidly, and staying ahead means adapting to the latest trends, technologies, and audience expectations. Keeping this in mind as you follow the 4 stages of the marketing planning process will help you boost your school’s digital marketing campaign results.

What are the 4 stages of the marketing planning process? Follow these steps: Analyze, plan, implement, and control. The advice we’re sharing today is applicable during each of these phases.

As a school marketer or administrator, you have the opportunity to refresh your education marketing plan, making it more dynamic, personalized, and impactful. This guide will walk you through actionable steps to rethink your approach and leverage the tools that will define success in 2025. Let’s get started!

Struggling with enrollment?

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

Evaluating 2024’s Performance to Shape 2025 Goals

How do you create a marketing plan for education? Any successful education marketing plan involves a data-driven evaluation of the previous year’s performance, an analysis of current digital marketing trends, and a targeted investigation into what your particular audience needs.

To start your school’s reimagined marketing plan, conduct an honest evaluation of the previous year’s performance. Begin by reviewing their analytics from 2024, identifying what strategies brought the most engagement, where the most valuable leads originated, and what channels seemed underutilized. Metrics such as lead-to-enrollment conversion rates, social media engagement trends, and website traffic sources can illuminate what strategies resonated most effectively with prospective students and parents.

To make this evaluation productive, a methodical approach should be applied. Your team can organize findings by categorizing successful campaigns, unexpected successes, and areas where they fell short. This allows you to use data to guide your decisions. This data-driven assessment will form a solid foundation for crafting strategies that are both visionary and practical in 2025.

Source: HEM

Example: Digital marketing audits such as the one we completed for one of our clients are an excellent way to reflect on last year’s performance and enter the new year with a data-informed plan. Our digital marketing audits include traffic insights, keyword rankings, and personalized suggestions for optimizing your school site. This provides a solid starting point to creating a marketing plan that drives results.

Do you need support as you create a new digital marketing plan for your school? Reach out to see how our digital marketing services can help.

Reimagine How You Engage with Prospective Students

In 2025, your audience expects you to meet them where they are. To stay relevant, you need to embrace a digital-first strategy that prioritizes engagement over promotion. Emerging technologies like augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) can bring your campus to life for prospective students, offering immersive experiences that go beyond static images or videos.

Source: University of Western University

Example: This AR campus tour, complete with 360º images, audio guidance, and detailed written descriptions of your campus as Western has done is a convenient, immersive way to share your school with prospects. Take full advantage of new technology when creating an education marketing plan. Though not as revolutionary as AR and VR, social media is another tool you should never neglect when creating a school marketing campaign.

Social media is where the most authentic connections happen, especially on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. But the key to standing out in 2025 will be authenticity. Think about how you can use short-form videos to showcase real student experiences, faculty achievements, or day-in-the-life snapshots. Consider hosting live Q&A sessions or interactive events to foster direct engagement. The more you humanize your institution, the stronger the connection you’ll create with your audience.

Leverage Artificial Intelligence for Smarter Marketing

Artificial intelligence (AI) has moved beyond being a buzzword—it’s now a vital part of successful marketing. This year, take advantage of AI to transform how you interact with prospective students. Predictive analytics, powered by AI, can help you understand student behavior and target your campaigns with unprecedented precision. You can predict the types of students most likely to enroll, what they care about, and how they prefer to engage with your school.

Chatbots are another way AI can streamline your communication. Today’s chatbots don’t just answer basic questions—they guide prospective students through complex processes like application submission or program selection. You can also use AI to personalize your outreach efforts, crafting content tailored to each prospect’s unique interests and behaviors. AI provides efficiency and more; it helps you create an experience that feels relevant and meaningful.

Make Accessibility and Inclusivity a Priority

Your prospective students come from diverse backgrounds and circumstances, and they expect your marketing to reflect that. In 2025, it’s more important than ever to create campaigns that are accessible to everyone. Take a close look at your website and digital content. Is it optimized for screen readers? Does it work seamlessly on mobile devices? These small adjustments can make a big difference in how inclusive your institution feels to prospective students.

Inclusivity also means speaking to the values your audience cares about. Highlighting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on your campus can help students see themselves as part of your community. International students, in particular, will appreciate content that acknowledges their unique needs, whether it’s visa support, language resources, or cultural events. By showing that you’re committed to creating an inclusive environment, you’ll build trust and strengthen your brand.

Source: Syracuse University | Instagram

Example: Here, Syracuse University demonstrates its commitment to diversity and inclusion with a dedicated office for championing these principles. On its Instagram page dedicated to its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Syracuse University provides updates on how it fosters acceptance and respect in meaningful, action-oriented ways.

Adapt Your SEO Strategy for the Future of Search

Search engine optimization (SEO) is evolving, and your strategy needs to keep pace. In 2025, the way people search for information is increasingly conversational. With voice search growing in popularity, you need to focus on optimizing for natural language queries. Prospective students are asking questions like, “What’s the best school for me in New York?” or “How can I study abroad in Italy?” Tailoring your content to match these queries will make it easier for them to find you.

Video SEO is also a critical area to watch. Platforms like YouTube and TikTok are now major search engines for younger audiences. By creating engaging video content and optimizing it with descriptive titles, tags, and captions, you can expand your reach significantly. Don’t forget to prioritize user experience—your website should load quickly, look great on mobile, and provide intuitive navigation.

Source: TikTok

Example: As you create your 2025 SEO strategy, don’t underestimate the importance of video SEO on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube. Your young prospects are searching for information about schools in an easy-to-digest, engaging format. This means that video platforms the perfect place for you to make your first impression on them.

Stay Ahead with Innovative Advertising Strategies

If paid advertising is part of your student recruitment strategy, now is the time to rethink how you’re using it. Interactive ads—featuring live polls, quizzes, or even augmented reality filters—can capture attention and drive engagement. Streaming platforms and connected TV are also gaining traction as advertising spaces, giving you new ways to reach prospective students and their families.

Retargeting campaigns will be even smarter in 2025, thanks to AI. Imagine delivering ads that dynamically adjust based on a prospective student’s previous interactions with your website or social media. These personalized ads feel more relevant, increasing the chances of conversion. At the same time, new privacy regulations mean you’ll need to adopt ethical, transparent practices when handling user data. Building trust with your audience will be just as important as getting their attention.

Use Data to Continuously Improve

Marketing isn’t static—it’s an ongoing process of learning and refining. This year, make data-driven decision-making the backbone of your strategy. Use your analytics tools to track key metrics like website traffic, social media engagement, and lead conversions. What’s working? What’s falling flat? By identifying education marketing trends and adjusting your approach in real time, you can ensure that your efforts are always aligned with your goals.

Predictive analytics can help you go even further by forecasting future trends and identifying areas for growth. For example, if your data shows that a specific program is generating high interest but low conversions, you can adjust your messaging to address potential concerns. The more you rely on insights, the more effective your campaigns will be.

Source: Google Analytics

Example: In 2025, analytics tools will continue to be essential for making informed decisions about your school’s digital marketing strategy. As you can see in the example above, Google Analytics provides information about traffic volume and sources, audience demographics, and user behavior for your site.

Showcase Your Brand’s Values Through Partnerships

Students in 2025 want more than just a degree—they want to join a community that aligns with their values. Highlighting your partnerships with industry leaders, alumni, and global institutions can help reinforce your school’s credibility and reach. Think about how you can collaborate with partners to launch new initiatives, co-host events, or create content that appeals to your target audience.

For international students, partnerships with schools abroad or study-abroad programs can be particularly compelling. Promoting these opportunities shows that you’re forward-thinking and globally minded, which can resonate with students looking for diverse and enriching experiences.

Source: Instagram | Ivy Campus USA

Example: Partnerships are a highly effective way to demonstrate your institution’s commitment to continuous academic enrichment for students. Here, Ivy Campus USA announces a partnership with Artal International Preparatory School that offers young students unique skills. Try forging partnerships that can provide valuable and unique learning opportunities for your prospects.

Anticipate What Students Will Want in 2025

The next generation of students expects your institution to care about issues that affect them directly such as mental health, career development, and sustainability. Incorporating these priorities into your marketing campaigns can help you stand out. Highlight your mental health resources, career placement rates, and green initiatives. Transparency is key—students and their families want clear, honest information about tuition costs, scholarships, and program outcomes.

By anticipating their needs and addressing them upfront, you can create a marketing plan that not only attracts attention but builds trust.

Create a Seamless Multi-Channel Experience

Your audience moves seamlessly between platforms, and they expect your marketing to do the same. Whether someone is exploring your website, scrolling through Instagram, or attending a virtual open house, they should encounter consistent messaging and visuals that reinforce your brand. In 2025, it’s critical to ensure that all your channels work together to provide a unified experience.

Real-time engagement will also be a game-changer. Live events—like virtual Q&A sessions or webinars—offer opportunities to connect directly with prospective students and answer their questions. By creating these interactive moments, you can leave a lasting impression and strengthen their connection to your school.

By embracing new technologies, prioritizing inclusivity, and building campaigns that reflect the values of modern students, you can create a strategy that resonates deeply and drives real results. The new year is your opportunity to reimagine what’s possible, and with the right approach, you’ll not only meet your goals but exceed them.

We’re here to help!

Struggling with enrollment?

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

FAQ

What are the 4 stages of the marketing planning process?

Follow these steps: Analyze, plan, implement, and control.

How do you create a marketing plan for education?

Any successful education marketing plan involves a data-driven evaluation of the previous year’s performance, an analysis of current digital marketing trends, and a targeted investigation into what your particular audience needs.

Source link

December 31, 2024
Industrious Efforts

The consultation on the Industrial Strategy Green Paper closed at the end of November. Phil Ward, Director of the Eastern Arc research consortium (which comprises the universities of East Anglia, Essex, Kent and Sussex), welcomes the intentions of the Strategy, but questions some of the details.

Since the last Industrial Strategy was launched in 2017 we have had a dozen strategies and policies seeking to steer the economy and encourage growth. Many of these have had strong research and development elements to them, including the R&D Roadmap (2020), the Plan for Growth (2021), the Integrated Review (2021), the Levelling Up White Paper (2022), and the Science and Technology Framework (2023).

Given this, do we really need another strategy? For the Government, the answer is clear: it wants to put flesh on the bones of its central mission (to ‘secure the highest sustained growth in the G7’), but also to draw a line under the snowdrift of strategies that defined the last seven years.

The resulting green paper is a serious piece of work by a Government that wants to be judged on its seriousness. The authors have clearly done their homework. This is a sensible framework of growth with eight unsurprising ‘growth-driving sectors’ at its heart.

Having said that, there are some surprising omissions and concerning inclusions.

The first omission is an explicit commitment to working with universities in developing and implementing the strategy. Yes, it praises (five times) the UK’s first-class, world-class and global universities, but it doesn’t go as far as to name the sector as stakeholders with whom it will develop the strategy, despite listing others on 10 separate occasions.

It is a small thing, and possibly an oversight – I’ve certainly talked to academics who have been involved in conversations with the authors – but in mentioning business, unions, mayors and experts, it is surprising that universities do not explicitly appear.

Universities are essential to the success of the Industrial Strategy; they contribute more than £265bn to the UK economy, £63bn of which is around research and knowledge exchange, and are a key part of the R&D supply chain, through their symbiotic relationship with commercial research, and their provision of a pipeline of talent to the eight growth sectors.

Other omissions are less surprising. There is a Nelsonian determination not to look at or recognise the positives of the strategies penned under the last Government. It would have been good to at least have acknowledged and ideally built upon the work that was previously undertaken, which provided a lodestar for businesses and universities gearing up to meet the nation’s needs.

It also feels like a trick is being missed: for instance, in proposing a statutory Industrial Strategy Council – a very positive move – there is no reference to the work done by the former (non-statutory) ISC that was captained by Andy Haldane and existed between 2018-21. In dismissing previous strategies as ‘too short-lived’, there is a danger of adding to the churn.

Where the Strategy did adhere to a familiar trope was in framing the greater south east (GSE) as both a poster child and bete noire for regional success. This is too broad a view of a complex region that contains both productivity hotspots and areas of significant and entrenched deprivation. One hides the other: the M4 corridor and the Golden Triangle mask the deprivation of its coastal communities, many of which are in the top 20 in terms of indices of multiple deprivation, and one of which (Jaywick in Essex) is the most deprived in the country. There is a need for a more nuanced and granular understanding of need and potential, and recognising that in parts of the GSE there is as much need for Government investment as elsewhere in the country.

The most concerning inclusion, however, is an explicit commitment to devolve ‘significant powers’ to mayoral combined authorities (MCAs), ‘giving them the tools they need to grow their sectoral clusters and improve the local business environment through ambitious Local Growth Plans.’

MCAs cover less than half the population, and none in the Eastern Arc region. What will happen to those of us outside of MCAs, including universities? Jim McMahon, the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, is keen to push on ‘determined devolution’, and there is an expectation that the Devolution White Paper, which was due to be published at the end of November but has been pushed back to the end of the year, will include measures to set out a new, more directive framework to speed up devolution deals.

McMahon has been quoted as saying that the Government intends to create ‘foundational combined authorities’ as a precursor to regions moving to MCAs. But what will this mean in practice? The Centre for Cities has concerns that this will create ‘confused’ geographies, and risk adding to bureaucracy rather than removing it. MCAs were intended to meet the specific needs of urban geographies, and are not necessarily appropriate for those regions whose populations are a mix of urban and rural.

Even if this framework is successful, it will take time. For now, how will universities and the 50 percent of the population outside of MCAs be affected, and how should they work to influence and implement the Strategy? As the Devolution Bill makes its way through Parliament, will a two-tier approach emerge?

There is much to like in the IS Green Paper, but its success will rely on ironing out some of these details. I hope that the consultation, which closed at the end of November, will be a serious step in informing this process, and that the resulting white paper will offer a clear, equitable and inclusive way forward, with universities — regardless of their geography — acknowledged and accepted to be a key part of the process, as regional agents for positive change.

Get our updates via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

The post Industrious Efforts appeared first on HEPI.

Source link

December 31, 2024
Biden administration finalizes distance ed, TRIO rules

The Biden administration’s regulations changing how colleges are held accountable and adding new requirements for institutions to access federal financial aid are now in place, though legal challenges loom.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post/Getty Images

Colleges will have to submit to the federal government new data on their distance education programs under a batch of new rules the Biden administration finalized Monday.

The rules, which will take effect July 1, 2026, will likely be the president’s last package of new regulations for colleges and universities before Trump takes office Jan. 20.

The new regulations carry out Biden’s plan to increase federal oversight of online programs, but the final version doesn’t go as far as the president initially intended After receiving significant pushback from online education lobbyists, the Education Department conceded, backing off a plan to disallow asynchronous options for clock-hour courses or require colleges to take attendance in online classes.

The package does, however, still include rules that require colleges to report more data on enrollment in distance education classes, which include those offered online or via correspondence. Higher ed institutions won’t have to begin submitting the data until July 1, 2027.

“Online learning can reach more students and sometimes at a lower cost to students, but what we know about the outcomes of online education compared to traditional in-person instruction is woefully inadequate,” Under Secretary James Kvaal said in the release. “The new reporting in this final rule will help the department and the public better assess student outcomes at online programs and help students make informed choices.”

The final rule also included technical changes to federal college prep programs known as TRIO. But the department decided not to move forward with a plan to open eligibility to some TRIO programs to undocumented students—a long-sought goal of some TRIO directors and advocates, as well as higher education associations.

Distance Education

But one of the most controversial parts of the rule for colleges and universities was whether Biden would decide to end any asynchronous options for students in online clock-hour programs, which are typically short-term workforce training programs that lead to a certificate.

A Trump-era rule allowed asynchronous learning activities—such as watching a prerecorded video—to count toward the required number of credits in short-term clock-hour programs. But the department said in its proposal that because of the hand-on nature of many clock-hour programs, the change often results in a “substandard education” that “puts students and taxpayers at risk.”

Hundreds of professors and higher education groups disagreed. Some, particularly those representing for-profit programs, argued in public comments that the proposal exceeded the department’s authority and would burden institutions. Others said the new rules reflected an antiquated mindset about college modality, arguing that disallowing asynchronous options could limit access for students who benefit from the flexibility that online education provides.

While the department decided not to end asynchronous distance ed programs, the agency intends to keep a close eye on the courses.

“The department refined these final rules based upon extensive public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking published over the summer,” department officials said in a news release. “However, we remind institutions that asynchronous clock hours cannot be used for homework and that there must be robust verification of regular and substantive interaction with an instructor.”

No Expanded TRIO

Although the decision not to expand eligibility for TRIO has fewer implications for colleges, the move is a blow for the TRIO directors and immigration equity advocates who have been working for years to open up the program.

Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, told Inside Higher Ed that nearly 100,000 undocumented students graduate from high school each year, many of whom could benefit from TRIO services.

But Republicans opposed the idea. Six GOP members of Congress, including Virginia Foxx, a North Carolinian and former chair of the House education committee, blasted the concept in a letter to Secretary Miguel Cardona in August.

“The proposed expansion is a blatant attempt to provide additional taxpayer-funded services to those not seeking citizenship in the name of reducing ‘burden.’ The department’s proposed expansion will stretch funding thin and risk those currently eligible for TRIO,” they wrote.

Some college administrators and TRIO directors in red states are worried about the potential political backlash Biden’s new regulation could cause for their programs.

“The fighter in me thinks that this is a tough time to go to battle and have an unforced error or a target on our backs and [on] TRIO, given the contentious nature of immigration policy right now,” Geoffrey Garner, a TRIO program director from Oregon, said in at January 2024 advisory committee meeting. “We just think right now is not the best time for this proposal, as much as it breaks my heart to say that out loud.”

That advisory committee ended up backing the changes to expand some TRIO programs to undocumented students.

Education Department officials said its decision wasn’t due to political tensions. Rather, they said the proposal “was too narrow … in scope of additional populations to be served.”

Under the department’s proposed rule, high school students who aren’t citizens or permanent residents could qualify for Upward Bound, Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers but not Student Support Services or the McNair Scholars Program.

“An expansion of student eligibility under only certain TRIO programs would create confusion, as many grantees administer grants under more than one TRIO program,” officials wrote in the final rule. “Eligibility for only certain TRIO programs would increase administrative burden by requiring grantees to deny similarly situated noncitizens from participating under certain TRIO programs, but not others.”

Source link

December 30, 2024
Republicans Continue Their Crusade Against CRT And DEI Initiatives (Forbes Breaking News)

Higher Education Inquirer : Republicans Continue Their Crusade Against CRT And DEI Initiatives (Forbes Breaking News)

Republicans Continue Their Crusade Against CRT And DEI Initiatives (Forbes Breaking News)

Source link

December 30, 2024