Blog

  • Once, international students feared Beijing’s wrath. Now Trump is the threat.

    Once, international students feared Beijing’s wrath. Now Trump is the threat.

    This essay was originally published in The Los Angeles Times on May 28, 2025.

    American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.

    Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.

    Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands

    News

    After Trump demanded that Harvard make multiple changes to its leadership, admission, hiring and more, Harvard refused to bend the knee.


    Read More

    In a May 22 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning the university’s thousands of international students must transfer immediately or lose their legal status. Harvard can no longer enroll future international students either.

    Noem cited Harvard’s failure to hand over international student disciplinary records in response to a prior letter and, disturbingly, the Trump administration’s desire to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism” on campus. Among the most alarming demands in this latest missive was that Harvard supply all video of “any protest activity” by any international student within the last five years.

    Harvard immediately sued Noem and her department and other agencies, rightfully calling the revocation “a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” and within hours a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the revocation.

    “Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” Noem wrote on X about the punishment. And on Tuesday, the administration halted interviews for all new student visas.

    This is not how a free country treats its schools — or the international visitors who attend them.

    Noem’s warning will, no doubt, be heard loud and clear. That’s because universities — which depend on international students’ tuition dollars — have already had reason to worry that they will lose access to international students for displeasing censorial government officials.

    In 2010, Beijing revoked recognition of the University of Calgary’s accreditation in China, meaning Chinese students at the Canadian school suddenly risked paying for a degree worth little at home. The reason? The university’s granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama the year before. “We have offended our Chinese partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue,” a spokesperson said.

    Beijing restored recognition over a year later, but many Chinese students had already left. Damage done.

    Similarly, when UC San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as commencement speaker in 2017, punishment followed. The China Scholarship Council suspended funding for academics intending to study at UCSD, and an article in the state media outlet Global Times recommended that Chinese authorities “not recognize diplomas or degree certificates issued by the university.”

    This kind of direct punishment doesn’t happen very frequently. But the threat always exists, and it creates fear that administrators take into account when deciding how their universities operate.

    American universities now must fear that they will suffer this penalty too, but at an even greater scale: revocation of access not just to students from China, but all international students. That’s a huge potential loss. At Harvard, for example, international students make up a whopping 27% of total enrollment.

    FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration

    News

    Harvard vs. Trump isn’t just a headline, but a battle to decide whether the government can use funding to force ideological conformity. In this explainer, FIRE makes clear why not.


    Read More

    Whether they publicly acknowledge it or not, university leaders probably are considering whether they need to adjust their behavior to avoid seeing international student tuition funds dry up.

    Will our colleges and universities increase censorship and surveillance of international students? Avoid inviting commencement speakers disfavored by the Trump administration? Pressure academic departments against hiring any professors whose social media comments or areas of research will catch the eye of mercurial government officials?

    And, equally disturbing, will they be willing to admit that they are now making these calculations at all? Unlike direct punishments by the Trump administration or Beijing, this chilling effect is likely to be largely invisible.

    Harvard might be able to survive without international students’ tuition. But a vast number of other universities could not. The nation as a whole would feel their loss too: In the 2023-24 academic year, international students contributed a record-breaking $43.8 billion to the American economy.

    And these students — who have uprooted their lives for the promise of what American education offers — are the ones who will suffer the most, as they experience weeks or months of panic and upheaval while being used as pawns in this campaign to punish higher ed.

    If the Trump administration is seeking to root out “anti-Americanism,” it can begin by surveying its own behavior in recent months. Freedom of expression is one of our country’s most cherished values. Censorship, surveillance, and punishment of government critics do not belong here.

    Source link

  • Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    There’s a huge story going on right now in Australian higher education, one that hasn’t made many ripples outside the country yet, but really should have.

    In January of 2026, two of the country’s major universities will be merging. The old research intensive University of Adelaide, one of the country’s so-called sandstone — meaning prestigious — universities, will be joining with the newer post Dawkins i.e., created in the early 1990s, University of South Australia, which began its life as the South Australian Institute of Technology.

    The new institution, Adelaide University, will be a behemoth of a multiversity, among the five largest institutions in the country. I’m fairly certain I’m right in saying this is the largest merger ever of two anglophone universities. But there are a lot of questions about how this is gonna work out. How will the new institution manage to maintain two separate missions? One is a research institution and one is an access institution. How can two very distinct cultures be bridged? And also, how do you create a distinct curricular or pedagogical identity for a new institution?

    With me today is David Lloyd. He’s the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia, and until the merger happens, also the Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Adelaide, and as you probably guessed, he’s one of the architects of the merger.

    In the course of this interview, we cover a range of issues such as what are the benefits of mergers? Why these two institutions? Why now? And how on earth do you possibly make a merger of this scale actually work? I can’t do any of this justice in an intro, so let’s just turn it over to David.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.33 | Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): David, why merge these two institutions—and why now? What made this the right moment to bring these two very different institutions together?

    David Lloyd (DL): I guess sometimes we joke and say there’s never going to be a better time. I’m not sure there ever is a perfect time. In this case, it’s not our first attempt. Ever since UniSA was established in 1991, people have questioned why another university was needed in South Australia.

    Right now, though, the political landscape is aligned in support of this. There’s institutional ambition on both sides of the ledger—coming from different motivations, but ultimately converging. You’ve got leaders who’ve known each other for a long time, strong financial positions in both institutions, and a shared history—we came very close before. We nearly merged in 2012. We nearly did it again in 2018. So in some ways, it’s like—third time lucky.

    AU: What do you gain together that you don’t already have apart? What’s the advantage here?

    DL: One of the biggest advantages is scale. Australian universities are large organizations. UniSA has about 40,000 students and Adelaide has about 30,000. So combined, you’re looking at 70,000 students—which makes it a $2.1 billion enterprise. It’s a big operation. Now, big isn’t automatically better, but it does mean you’re more financially robust and resilient.

    At that scale, the student mix is also important—about 75% domestic and 25% international on day one. That gives you a really strong foundation, making the institution more shockproof in the face of events like the pandemic or future geopolitical disruptions. You get a very robust organization.

    And then, if you think about how you can leverage the cash flow of a $2.1 billion enterprise into applications and resources—it throws off a lot more than each institution could alone. That gives you a real capacity for investment.

    AU: You said this isn’t your first go at this, right? That this is actually at least the second time, that I know of, that this has been considered. So take us back. Presumably, at some point after 1991, as UniSA grew from being an old technical institution into what it is now, there would have been various moments when people said, “Hey, there are gains to be had from a merger.” Over this long period—20 or 30 years—what were the big turning points? When did the light go off and people say, “Aha, we should definitely do this”?

    DL: I think it goes back to the origins of the institution in the 1990s. When the policy came through under the Hawke Labor government—John Dawkins was the Minister for Education at the time—the creation of new institutions was happening across the country.

    In that formative period, you had faculties and activities from what had been an Institute of Technology and a College of Advanced Education. There was a bit of a shop-around approach—people were saying, “Well, these parts could go to University X, or those parts could go to University Y, or we could put them together and create something new.” And in South Australia, that led to the creation of a new university.

    So you went from a town with two institutions—the old, established sandstone University of Adelaide, and Flinders University, a 1950s construct—to suddenly having this new kid on the block in 1991. And it quickly became a real challenger to the other two. It grabbed a large share of the domestic market and drove the participation agenda. The national driver at the time was to increase tertiary attainment, and suddenly, a lot of people who’d never gone to university had access.

    Then you fast forward to 2012. There was a desire at that time—between the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide—to pursue a merger. It didn’t go through, for all sorts of reasons. I think mostly small, local considerations. Peter Høj—who’s now my co–Vice Chancellor at the new Adelaide University—was the Vice Chancellor of UniSA back then. He left to run the University of Queensland.

    And I was recruited to lead UniSA after that particular push toward merger had fizzled. So I came into an institution that had thought about merging, had moved somewhat in that direction, but ultimately hadn’t done it.

    Then in 2018, the same kinds of conversations came up again. These things tend to resurface when there’s a leadership change. When a Vice Chancellor leaves, people say, “Well, we could hire a new one—or we could merge the universities.” It’s a very simple framing, but it does come up.

    In 2018, that cycle happened again. We went quite far down the road exploring a merger. There was a public process. But in the end, UniSA withdrew. We said no, and we said no because of the business case. What was being articulated at that time didn’t look like something that would take the goals and ambitions of the institution to where we believed it needed to be—especially not given the overhead that would come with creating a new university.

    So things settled down again—until we got to the conditions we talked about earlier, the ones that make this moment feel like the right one.

    AU: Let me just ask you—based on what you’ve described, why, from the University of South Australia’s perspective, is Adelaide the right merger partner? Why not Flinders?

    DL: Yeah, yeah, that’s a really good point. I can tell you that in the various machinations over the years—and I’ve been here now for 13 years—there have definitely been times when I thought, you could actually end up with quite a different landscape in South Australia. UniSA and Flinders could have come together to create a kind of younger, more modern university that would have competed in the domestic market against the older, more established University of Adelaide. That would’ve created a local differentiator.

    But the combination that actually came about—and the reason we are where we are today—has a lot to do with a key political shift. In 2021, while still in opposition, the now state government released a policy position saying that, if elected, they would establish a merger commission to examine the merits of a combination—with a view to making it happen. It was a very clear and determinative policy.

    They believed a merger had been a missed opportunity in the past and were committed to a process that would determine the next steps. That put universities in an interesting position. You had the prospect of an external body telling you, “You have to merge—and here’s who you’re going to merge with.” That creates a real risk of losing institutional autonomy and control.

    What stood out in that policy position, though, was the stated ambition to create a university that could rank sustainably in the global top 100. If you look at different combinations, a UniSA–Flinders merger wouldn’t get you there—at least not without a significant uplift in investment. But a UniSA–University of Adelaide merger could. And so that becomes one of the key factors shaping the path we chose.

    AU: There’s one other country that’s really moved in this direction, specifically with the goal of getting institutions into the global top 100, and that’s France. Right? You’ve seen a lot of that in places like Lyon and Paris. Did you spend much time looking at the dos and don’ts from the French experience—or from any other international mergers?

    DL: We did spend some time on that. There’s quite a bit of jurisdictional variability when it comes to amalgamating institutions. The example we really studied, with a kind of weather eye on how to do this properly, was the creation of the University of Manchester.

    But that was quite a while ago now. When we looked at the French experience, what stood out was that their approach often seemed to involve putting a veneer of amalgamation over existing institutions and then dropping a kind of cash bundle on top to make the veneer hold together. So it’s less the creation of a single institution and more the creation of an amalgamated system. From our perspective, this is a non-trivial exercise. We didn’t want to just have an umbrella that said, “This is a merged university.” We wanted to create a new university.

    And from UniSA’s side, the conditions for entering the process were very clear: we would create a new institution—with its own mission, its own purpose—its own values, and all of those things. That’s not really what the French model does. But one interesting lesson from the French approach was that if you apply that veneer—and if you’re something like Paris-Saclay—you can be considered a young university again, which is an intriguing outcome. The Sorbonne, for example, is now viewed as a young university again.

    That was an interesting insight into how these things are perceived. So for us, the goal was to do this really well—to create an integrated, new institution. That way, we’d have the benefits of a young university, with all the pedigree and legacy behind us too.

    AU: David, I assume—though I’m not sure exactly what process you used—there was some kind of letter of intent or memorandum of understanding that said, “We’re going to do this, and we’re serious.” How does the planning process unfold from there? Once you’ve done the initial feasibility and assured each other you’re acting in good faith, how do you move through the bottlenecks of institutional governance, stakeholder engagement, and all those kinds of things? How do you get to the finish line?

    DL: Um, great tenacity—I think that’s key. Peter and I started this as an informal conversation back in 2021, and we’re planning to open the doors of the new university on the first Monday of 2026—January 5th. So it’s a long road from informal talks to delivering a functional, operational, competitive institution.

    On the plus side, we had very strong intent from the state government to enable this. In our system, it’s the state government that legislates the creation of universities. But then you also have to negotiate with the federal government to be recognized as an Australian university—

    AU: And funded.

    DL: Exactly. So, at the local level, we could establish a corporate body, but we still needed legislation to pass through the house. It was much more complex than just signing an MOU.

    We actually had to draft legislation and, mechanistically, we created a new corporate entity—a new university—that sits alongside the two existing ones. So when I’m co–Vice Chancellor of the new Adelaide University, I’m still the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia. These are independent and autonomous institutions—one of which is actively creating the other, even while the original continues to exist legislatively. It’s quite an unusual construct.

    On the federal side, this goes back to why now. The current federal government—a Labor government—has a strong agenda around widening participation. When we approached them and said, “We’re going to have the largest population of domestic Australian students of any institution in the country,” that positioned us as a sovereign educator. We’re delivering an equity and participation agenda at a scale no other Australian university can match. That naturally leads to a conversation about: how do they help us set it up?

    AU: As I understand it, you’ve got some kind of transition council. I’m not sure if that’s a joint council for both institutions, or if each has its own. How does that work? Who’s on that council making the nitty-gritty decisions? And how do you make sure everything stays on track?

    DL: That goes back to the legislation. Adelaide University was formally established in legislation in March 2024. That legislation created a council—capital “C”—with the word “transition” in front of it, which gives you a sense of its purpose.

    The composition of that council was agreed upon by the two institutions, determining how to populate the board of this new university from the existing boards of UniSA and the University of Adelaide. It was set up as a 50/50 split between the two, with UniSA having the right to appoint the chancellor of the new university. That was one of the key elements in the background negotiations—like why it’s called Adelaide University and not the University of South Australia.

    In fact, the act establishing the new university is based on the University of South Australia Act, and UniSA retained the right to appoint the transition chancellor.

    But functionally, this council operates as a fully independent university council, completely autonomous from the two existing institutions. Everyone who joined the council had to step off their former boards and now acts solely in the interest of the new institution, as required by law.

    What the council does is provide a governance framework for the executive to work within. It approves the strategy, but it’s the executive team—originally Peter and myself, along with a team drawn from both universities—that brings forward the decisions.

    Now, we’ve started appointing deputy vice chancellors who are employees of the new Adelaide University. We’ve brought forward a strategy that actually originated in the business case—a white paper—that both universities had independently agreed was in their best interests.

    If you go back to 2022, we were asking: What will we create? What should it look like? Why are we doing this? How much will it cost? We built a strong business case and rationale. That was then translated into a strategy for the new institution—one that doesn’t just cover the start in 2024, but runs all the way through to 2030. That’s when we aim to have a fully established, steady-state university of scale, delivering everything we set out to achieve: a purposeful, excellent institution.

    AU: One thing that’s really struck me about this process—watching it from 8,000 miles away—is how remarkably smooth it seems to have been. Mergers often stir up a lot of turbulence, especially with alumni communities. And while I don’t know the geography of Adelaide very well, I imagine there can be tensions if one part of town gains certain things and another part doesn’t.

    Then there’s the fact that your two institutions have different origins, stories, and areas of specialization—but still quite a bit of overlap in terms of departments and programs. That’s usually where the real head-butting happens: getting people to play nicely together. But you seem to have managed that really well. What’s the secret to a smooth merger?

    DL: Well, part of it is that this is our third attempt—so maybe it’s third time lucky. As I said earlier, this isn’t our first rodeo. This has been considered before, so there was a certain inevitability in the way we presented it this time. There was a clear policy position, enabling legislation, and strong support from the government behind us.

    But that only takes you so far. You can’t just rely on top-down directives. People can still dig in their heels. If the message had been, “We’re doing this because we were told to,” we could’ve faced a lot of turbulence.

    Instead, what we had were two universities that went through their own internal processes—through their academic boards, their senates—and independently concluded that creating this new institution was in their best interest, and in the best interest of the state. So both came to the table willingly, but from different perspectives.

    Each institution had a view of what it would give up—and what it would become. This is really a baton pass from both organizations to something new.

    And when we looked at the mechanics of creating that new institution, we didn’t take a “lift and shift” approach. We didn’t just bundle together the activities of both universities under a single umbrella. We committed to building a new structure. We committed to delivering a new curriculum. We agreed to design everything—program content included—through a forward-looking Adelaide University lens, rather than from the perspective of UniSA’s past or Adelaide’s past.

    And what was remarkable—and maybe a bit fortuitous—was the way our people responded. Let’s say we brought together two marketing faculties. We told them, “We want you to design a new curriculum that takes the best of both.” And instead of any sense of loss or resistance, what we got was strong academic alignment in shaping that new product.

    We did that across the board—wherever we had overlapping programs: two business degrees, two law degrees, two science degrees. The faculty teams who had once been institutional competitors came together and asked, “If we start with a blank piece of paper—not with the past—what would the ideal program look like?”

    And that approach has been incredibly unifying. Thousands of academics have gone through that process already, and many more will continue to do so between now and 2030.

    AU: You’re talking about new programs here. What’s striking, again from a distance, is the early commitment to pedagogy—a move away from the traditional lecture system. As I understand it, the institution committed to moving away from in-person lectures. Have I got that right? Is that the plan?

    DL: I love having these conversations—especially when the 8,000-kilometer view is, “You guys aren’t going to have lectures anymore.”

    AU: That’s why we’re having this conversation, David!

    DL: Exactly. And we had a similar conversation in Beijing when we were on stage launching the new brand. Journalists there were asking the same thing. But no, we are not getting rid of lectures.

    What we are getting rid of is the idea that students just sit in a room while someone talks at them for an hour, and then leave—as if knowledge has magically transferred from the person at the podium to the students in the seats. Instead, we’re aiming for much richer, more engaging classroom experiences.

    These will still be face-to-face, but students will come prepared. The foundational content—the pre-reading, the prerequisite material—will be delivered online. We’ll expect students to engage with that before attending the in-person component, whether it’s a workshop, tutorial, or some other interactive format.

    And that core online content is being designed so it can also stand alone. If you’re not physically in South Australia, you’ll still be able to engage with the material from anywhere—across the country or internationally.

    AU: So, it’s flipped classrooms at scale?

    DL: Yes. Exactly.

    AU: That’s a significant pedagogical shift. It’s not something you’d typically get from individual departmental committees. Was there wide buy-in for that? Because even when you frame it as flipped classrooms rather than online classes, it still feels like a big change for academics across a wide range of disciplines.

    DL: Yeah, and I think in a post-COVID era, that shift is more understandable. The pandemic showed us all that you can go online—and do it either really well or really poorly. But if you do it well, students can have a great experience.

    We’ve anchored all of our structural decisions through the lens of student experience and student success. And the evidence we have shows that, when done right, students actually report better experiences with these kinds of blended or flipped models than they do with traditional, lecture-heavy formats.

    If you go back to one of UniSA’s strengths: in 2018, we created a division called UniSA Online. Higher education bodies now say we’re number one in Australia for online education—and top ten globally. That means we already had a strong engine for content creation and pedagogical design.

    Now we’re layering that into an institution with the generational pedigree and academic reputation that the University of Adelaide brings. So together, the new Adelaide University will have a really compelling mix.

    And to be clear—it’s not a wholesale replacement of everything that came before. The academic content is still owned by the faculty. What’s changed is how that content is curated and presented in the online environment. That curation is handled institutionally, but the ownership remains firmly with the academics.

    AU: We’re a little more than seven months away from opening day. I have two questions: what are you most looking forward to in all of this? And what do you think the global implications are—what lessons might institutions outside Australia take from this?

    DL: Yeah. The first part—this has been nearly a five-year journey for me, getting this institution to the point of opening. On a personal level, my daughter is just finishing a diploma with the University of South Australia. She’s about to start her degree in the next few weeks, entering mid-year. So she’ll begin at UniSA just as it officially ends—and she’ll graduate from Adelaide University in, hopefully, three years’ time.

    So I have a very real hope that we’ve managed to build an institution that will empower her, her peers, our colleagues, and future learners—to be successful, to find meaningful employment, and to have a great experience along the way. That’s not the reason we did all this, of course, but when I look at the outcomes we aimed for, I want to see that we’ve hit the metrics we set.

    It’s a very ambitious strategy. But we’ve had the financial resources and a long runway to plan—something only a whole-of-institution change like this could make possible.

    Personally, I’m really looking forward to 2030. That’s when I want to look back and assess whether we’ve achieved what we set out to do. Not necessarily from inside the organization—Peter and I won’t be the Vice Chancellors next year. We’ve made a conscious decision to hand over to a new leader who will carry this strategy forward.

    But I want to see how they reach those milestones based on the breadcrumbs and trail we’ve laid down. And in the next few months, we’ll see the inaugural rankings for this institution as we move into its first year of operation. I’m quietly confident we’ll meet our targets.

    And I’ll admit—part of me is looking forward to proving the doubters wrong. The ones who said, “You can’t do this. You’ll go backwards. It’s dilution.” I want them to be left eating humble pie. Glen Davis—the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, now working in the Prime Minister’s department—once said to me, “Good luck as you attempt the impossible.” And if we pull this off, that’s where the real satisfaction will come from.

    AU: And from an international perspective—what should others learn from this?

    DL: I think what we’re demonstrating is that there are two ways to approach a merger. You can put up an umbrella, apply a veneer, and say, “Here’s a system.” Or you can take a planned, deliberate, mindful approach—what I wouldn’t call a leap of faith, but an investment in doing it properly.

    And that means proper integration. Proper consideration of what it means to deliver a new organization—not just on paper, but in culture, structure, and purpose. If you do that, you can create something that really is more than the sum of its parts.

    I think we’re showing what’s possible.

    AU: DL, thank you so much for being with us today.

    DL: Pleasure. Thanks, Alex.

    AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week, when our guest will once again be Brendan Cantwell from Michigan State University. You may remember him from last fall’s episode, when he suggested—based on a close reading of Project 2025—that a second Trump administration might shift from a culture war posture to one of active sabotage and destruction of the higher education sector. We’ll see whether he can resist saying, “I told you so.” Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • The politics of representation

    The politics of representation

    When I searched for Sarah McBride’s name on March 12, the first thing I saw was a story about a member of the U.S. Congress calling her “Mr. McBride” in an official hearing.

    Ms. McBride is the first congressional representative in United States history to be openly transgender.

    Since 18 November 2024, when McBride was elected to Congress, I’ve seen dozens of articles in which the only thing in question is her gender identity. It’s funny that Republicans in the U.S. Congress have made such a fuss over McBride’s gender, while McBride – the only congressperson representing the state of Delaware – has done nothing of the sort.

    For someone so polarised and one-dimensional by the media, McBride seems intent on collaboration.

    Delawareans have been overwhelmingly supportive of McBride. A University of Delaware poll, which recorded the pre-election numbers, had McBride at 52% of the vote, while her opponent, John Whalen, received 30%. Sarah McBride ended up with a 58% return, which could be considered a landslide.

    This starkly contrasted primaries across the country, with many states flipping Republican, that had gone Democrat in 2020.

    So, what’s the difference between Delaware and McBride, compared to the rest of the nation?

    What voters care about

    For starters, Delaware, where I live, is minuscule compared to its sister states. These conditions make Delaware not only ideal grounds to break history on, but also the only place it could have happened for McBride.

    Delaware does not boast a large number of gay and trans people. A UCLA poll found that only 4.5% of citizens in Delaware are queer and trans and over half are under voting age. By and large, McBride was elected by a primarily straight electorate.

    This election did not contrast with the national sentiment of Democrats. A Pew Research study found that about 64% of Americans believe trans people should be protected from discrimination when it comes to employment, housing, and education. Additionally, democrats had even stronger support of the notion that gender is not assigned at birth.

    Simply put, Delaware and McBride are a good fit.

    McBride is calm, composed, and focusing on her Delaware constituents more than anything else. In fact, she is the first freshman democrat in the 119th Congress to bring a bill to the floor. A bipartisan bill protecting consumers from credit appraisal scams.

    Opposition from Republicans

    Some congressional Republicans prefer to call McBride names rather than work to make a stronger nation.

    Describing McBride’s welcome to D.C. can be summarized in two words: Political Theatre.

    On McBride’s first visit to D.C., she was greeted by a ban on the use of bathrooms in the house by transgender people brought forward by Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace. This pointed attack by Representative Mace didn’t seem to affect McBride, who was more focused on: “Delivering on the issues that keep Delawareans up at night.”

    In recent months, McBride has been subject to even more unwarranted scrutiny and misnomers from her republican colleagues.

    I spoke with McBride to hear her plans for Delaware, her response to President Trump’s actions, and what she has accomplished thus far in her congressional term.

    Jack McConnel: What was your main reason to run for congressional office? 

    Sarah McBride: So my interest in politics was really rooted in my own journey to authenticity as a young person, as someone growing up here in Delaware, I was scared. I wondered whether the heart of this country was big enough to love someone like me.

    And I faced a crisis of hope. And in that crisis of hope, I went searching for solutions and examples of our world becoming kinder and fairer. And I found a little glimmer of hope as I read history books and saw the through line of every chapter was a story of advocates, activists and a handful of courageous and effective elected officials working together to right the wrongs of our past, to address injustice, to bring people from the shadows and the margins of society into the circle of opportunity.

    I ultimately decided to run for office, though, in 2019 for the state Senate was really the byproduct of my experience as a caregiver to my husband during his battle with terminal cancer.

    Because I know despite the fact that Andy lost his life to cancer, I know how lucky we were. I know how lucky he was to have health insurance that allowed him to get care that prolonged his life. And I know how lucky both of us were to have flexibility with our jobs that allowed him to focus on the full-time job of getting care and me to focus on the full-time job of caring for him.

    McConnel: What are you most proud of so far in your term?

    McBride: First is that I’ve introduced multiple bipartisan bills.

    One with [California Republican] Young Kim that provides consumer protections for Americans against the predatory practices of so-called credit repair organizations.

    The second more recently with [Republican] Representative Mike Lawler from New York, which protects farmers and in so doing helps to lower costs for Delawareans at the grocery store by investing in combating avian flu.

    McConnel: How do you think the Democratic party should respond to the results of the 2024 election?

    McBride: What we can do is we can help to mobilize the public against [President Donald Trump]. Public opinion still matters. We are still under democracy. These people still care about their popularity. They still care about the next election and the goal in this moment as we defend Medicaid in the short run.

    The goal in this moment also has to be to make sure that this president, that the public understands the harms that this president is inflicting on people of every political persuasion across the country. As the public mobilizes against this president, it throws sand in the gears of an authoritarian machine that slows it down, that extends the runway of our democracy so that we can get to the next election and get to the next election.

    McConnel: How do you plan on responding to these movements?

    McBride: Fighting back against that is at the top of my priority list at this moment. In the longer term, obviously, there is an answer to your question, a real effort by this president to illegally and unconstitutionally consolidate power to essentially create absolute power.

    I mean, his first step is to employ what’s called the unitary executive theory, which is absolute authority within the executive branch under the purview of Congress. But he’s also clearly trying to undermine the main power of Congress, the power of the purse. He’s questionable about whether he’s going to listen to the Supreme Court and when all is said and done, making sure that we can’t stop every action by this president. The results of the last election give us limited institutional levers.

    McConnel: Thank you, Representative McBride.

    The main concern McBride reiterated again and again was what she was doing for the Delawareans who elected her. McBride took every opportunity during our interview to highlight the issues most relevant to her constituents. She talked to me about the effort to defund programs Delawareans rely on.

    When asked about what the Democratic Party should be doing going forward, McBride said that Democrats have lost the “art of social change” and that they must be willing to meet people where they are and engage in conversations where people disagree. She pointed towards the 2026 midterms as a place to build momentum towards.

    McBride said when Democrats try to sound the alarm about everything the president is doing, it dilutes the effect of the message. “We can’t ever go to 10 if we’re always at 10,” she said.

    McBride’s goal? Slow down Trump where she can and build support going into 2026.

     

    Questions to consider: 

    1. In what way does Representative Sarah McBride get treated differently than her Congressional colleagues?

    2. What did Delaware voters care about when they voted to elected McBride to Congress?

    3. If you were to vote for a government representative, what issues do you most want that person to tackle?

     

    Source link

  • Distorted Views of Higher Ed Lead to Wrong Remedy (opinion)

    Distorted Views of Higher Ed Lead to Wrong Remedy (opinion)

    Every day, in articles, podcasts and social media, I learn about American higher education.

    I learn that it aggressively stifles ideas that deviate from a narrow leftist orthodoxy. I learn that it privileges identity and politics over merit and knowledge.

    I learn that it is rife with antisemitism while serving as a safe harbor for people of color and LGBTQ+ people. I learn that Harvard, Columbia and other Ivy League universities are the prominent tip of a higher education iceberg that threatens to destroy our culture and country.

    If that is all I knew about American higher education, I would support tearing it down.

    I would think that American higher education, in anything resembling its current form, cannot and should not be saved.

    However, because I am a college president and have the opportunity to engage with students, faculty, staff and other college leaders every day, I think otherwise.

    Every day, I see students from myriad backgrounds and with disparate beliefs flourishing because they interact with one another in class, in the dining hall, in student residences, on athletic teams and in clubs. I hear about students whose understanding of the world is being pushed and transformed by faculty who expose them to new perspectives and new information.

    Every day I interact with students and alumni who are achieving their full potential because our college and our donors provide financial aid that caps student loans at $27,000 over four years, which is less than the average new car loan. Every day I am reminded that racism, sexism and transphobia have not been eliminated from our classrooms or our campuses—despite seeing daily evidence of our efforts to ensure that neither race, religion, nor any other identity confers advantages or disadvantages on our students, faculty and staff.

    It is because I see what college is every day, and not just what occurs on rare days on some campuses, that I know that ongoing efforts to tear down higher education are a travesty for our children and our country.

    It is why I know that the actions of those who are rarely on campus, and those who are focused on scoring political points, represent existential threats to America in what will continue to be a world in which knowledge and technology dominate.

    Much of the past 80 years shows what happens when the United States chooses knowledge over ignorance and decides to invest in its young people. After World War II, the U.S. made it possible for veterans, and then women, people of color and lower-income students, to attend college, raising the quality of life for millions.

    Our government partnered with universities to develop a research infrastructure that became the envy of the world. Innovations transformed lives and society. Diseases were cured. People lived longer and healthier lives.

    So, what confronts us now is a decision that will determine what kind of lives our children and grandchildren have.

    Are there too many colleges and universities at current prices? Are there some faculty who are intolerant of views that are inconsistent with their own? Would some college curricula benefit from more engagement with the real world?

    Yes, yes and yes.

    But will future generations thank us if we destroy the higher education system that took generations to build? Will they be better off if we judge every faculty member, administrator and student by the actions of those on the fringe, or by what we observe at a small number of colleges? Will they be better off if we shift control of scientific and intellectual innovations, course content and pedagogy from scholars to bureaucrats and politicians?

    For the sake of future generations and our country, we must find ways to convene a national discussion on the future of higher education. What are we trying to accomplish as a country, what part does each college play in that collective goal and how can we ensure the system is effective? What is right for the country is not the sum of the paths colleges set for themselves. It is not what colleges individually decide while trying to avoid existential threats from protesters, activist donors or state and federal governments.

    We must continue constructive engagement involving representatives from government, boards of trustees, college leadership, think tanks, student groups, the American Association of University Professors and other critical constituencies. The result must be a plan and action.

    As a soon-to-be former college president and the father of a future college student, I look forward to continuing to be part of this fight in the years to come. Those who sacrificed to create our great country, and those who will be impacted by our actions in the future, deserve nothing less.

    David R. Harris will step down in June after seven years as president of Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. He will join Harvard Graduate School of Education in the fall as a president in residence.

    Source link

  • Art Activities Help Med Students Unwind

    Art Activities Help Med Students Unwind

    Administrators at Duke University have devised a creative program to encourage medical students to practice mindfulness and take time for themselves during a rigorous and demanding course of study.

    A partnership between the Office of Learning Environment and Well-Being and Duke Arts Create established a free workshop that takes place twice a month to provide students the chance to unwind using various artistic media. The events help students engage in new art forms, connect with their peers and learn skills they can apply to their careers and beyond.

    In the Literature

    A 2018 research study found that medical students who had greater exposure to arts and humanities had better empathy, emotional intelligence and wisdom than those who didn’t. They were also less likely to develop burnout. Another study showed that art courses reduced stress for students enrolled in medical school.

    Crafting opportunities: Duke’s School of Medicine enrolls over 1,400 students in a variety of health-profession programs, including doctor of medicine, physician assistant, master of biomedical sciences and doctor of physical therapy programs, each with its own goals and accrediting body. Students represent a variety of backgrounds and experiences, so “there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for well-being,” said Jane Gagliardi, associate dean for learning environment and well-being for the medical school.

    Medical school students are able to participate in wider campus events, but the programs often feel siloed or off-limits to them, Gagliardi explained.

    Gagliardi first met Anna Wallace, who is the student engagement coordinator for Duke Arts, the university’s school of arts, at a student resource fair where they both had tables. Wallace had decorated hers with brown paper and crayons, allowing visitors to stop by and color.

    Gagliardi realized how much something as simple as coloring could be a pick-me-up for students, and she created a partnership with Wallace to provide art workshops for those in the medical school.

    Getting artsy: The free workshops, part of Duke Arts Create Workshops, take place twice monthly throughout the academic year on Duke Medicine’s Wellness Wednesdays.

    Activities include watercolor painting, needle felting, poetry through text deconstruction, zine making and singing workshops. One notable art project focused on the Duke chapel; students used watercolors to decorate a freely drawn image of the chapel.

    Students bring a variety of skills and talent levels to the workshops, sometimes surprising the staff.

    “It’s the students you think are the most clearly science-focused who are also just brilliant at expressing themselves creatively and supporting their classmates and colleagues at doing those things,” Gagliardi said.

    Some of the events are cohosted by affinity organizations on campus; for instance, the Lunar New Year celebration was conducted in partnership with the Duke Med Chinese Association, which taught students paper cutting and shared treats like boba tea.

    Events have been well received by everyone who’s participated, Gagliardi said, but having high attendance isn’t a goal. Rather, Gagliardi hopes such efforts show students that the school cares about their mental health and well-being.

    “I wanted an outlet to be free and let my creativity flow,” said Carly Williams, a Ph.D. student in the department of biochemistry, according to a Duke Arts press release. “I remembered doing watercolors as a kid and loving it, so this seemed like the perfect art session for me. And it turned out to be a relaxing two hours of painting and good company.”

    One of the benefits of the program is that it’s fairly low budget and easy to implement, Gagliardi said, allowing the school to pivot and be responsive to student interests as they arise.

    Holistic support: In addition to art workshops, Gagliardi heads various well-being initiatives across the medical school to support students and staff.

    “Finding ways to maintain your humanity while pursuing your rigorous study is important,” she said, particularly in a field like medicine, in which students learn about illness, recovery and death. “Equipping people with skills and strategies to deal with distress is important to maintain a functional ability to learn.”

    Each week, she hosts Granola With Gagliardi, open hours for anyone to stop by, pick up a KIND bar and talk with her.

    Duke Medicine also regularly collaborates with Medicine in Motion, hosting events like power yoga, running or pickleball tournaments to promote physical activity and well-being.

    In the future, Gagliardi hopes to connect additional student groups with Wellness Wednesday events.

    Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Support for action on ethnic and disability pay gaps demonstrates our commitment to our communities

    Support for action on ethnic and disability pay gaps demonstrates our commitment to our communities

    By mirroring gender pay gap reporting, which was made mandatory in 2018, the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill would introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers with 250 or more employers.

    In his foreword to the consultation on introduction of the Bill, the Minister for Social Security and Disability Stephen Timms notes that the UK is far away from achieving its goal of creating a more equal society in which people can thrive whatever their background. According to the Office for National Statistics, the current ethnicity pay gap in the UK ranges from 1.9 per cent to 9.7 per cent, depending on ethnicity and if individuals were born in the UK.

    Diving into the data, we were concerned to find that no progress has been made in reducing the median gross hourly pay gap for Black, African, Caribbean or Black British employees compared to white employees, remaining “consistent since 2012”. The disability pay gap is even more pronounced, at 12.7 per cent, having remained “relatively stable since 2014.” The lack of progress in closing these pay gaps is as concerning as the lack of awareness of the problem.

    Conversely, the practice of gender pay gap reporting will have contributed to the gender pay gap declining by approximately a quarter among full-time employees over the past decade. Greater transparency helped build the foundations for positive transformation, creating a strategic imperative to root out systemic inequalities and leading to many employers developing, and proactively publishing, action plans to close the gap within their organisations.

    In pursuing the noble aim of creating a more equal – and socially cohesive – society, the same focus must now be placed on tackling racial and disability inequalities. Economic inequalities between ethnic groups are an important contributor to social unrest.

    The government should be supported in its proposed introduction of the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and, speaking as vice chancellor of Birmingham City University (BCU), David would encourage fellow higher education leaders to join him in lending our public support to the government for this proposal.

    There are two key reasons for higher education institutions publicising their ethnicity pay gaps in particular: to build trust with their internal community, and to strengthen authentically social cohesiveness in their local communities.

    Building trust

    BCU’s new strategy articulates a clear commitment to improve the diversity of our organisation at all levels and eradicate pay gaps. The first step in this will be to publish all our pay gaps with a clear plan to close them by 2030.

    There are persistent racial inequalities in higher education. This is demonstrated most evidently in awarding gaps for ethnic minority students and Black students achieving a good honours degrees compared to white students, at 14.1 per cent and 21.6 per cent respectively in 2024. A lack of representation of ethnic minority staff in senior positions also conveys persistent inequities. Ethnic minorities now comprise one in three undergraduate students, but only one in four (20.2 per cent) of academic staff. Their representation is even lower among professors (15.1 per cent), senior managers (9.1 per cent) and executives (7 per cent).

    The picture is more concerning in terms of Black representation in higher education. One in ten undergraduate students is Black (9.6 per cent), but only one in every roughly 27 academics share their ethnic identity. Only 1.6 per cent of all professors are black and 0.7 per cent of executives.

    In contrast to the gender pay gap, information on the ethnicity pay gap in higher education is not routinely published. Combined with the lack of proportional representation of ethnic minority staff in senior positions, the lack of published data and strategy to tackle pay gaps has caused many staff to lose trust in institutional leadership and its commitment to tackle racial inequalities. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill would bring parity with mandatory gender pay gap reporting and offer greater transparency to our communities.

    For reference, the median gender pay gap across higher education institutions, which stands at 11.9 per cent, reduced by 4.4 percentage points since reporting began in 2017.

    Community cohesion

    Universities play a crucial role in shaping their localities and are increasingly active in strengthening social cohesion – our institutions allow (mostly) young people to study in diverse settings, enable better understanding of different cultures, encourage active citizenship, and develop graduates who are more likely to show concern over racism, be more positive towards immigration, and less likely to view feminism as harmful. Our social mobility missions break cycles of poverty, research and innovation activities drive productivity, and graduates sustain vital public services.

    Working effectively with our diverse local communities necessitates trust and the transparent reporting of systemic racial inequalities is paramount. For BCU, this means better reflecting and working in partnership with a community in which no ethnic group has a majority; the 2021 census identified that Birmingham’s population is more than twice as likely to come from an ethnic minority than the overall population in England. 51.4 per cent of people living in Birmingham are from an ethnic minority group, compared to a national average in England of 19 per cent. The data is much more profound for Ladywood, the constituency in which BCU’s city centre campus is based. Here, more than three in four (76.6 per cent) come from an ethnic minority, with the greater proportions of Asian (38.6 per cent) and Black (25.9 per cent) than White (23.4 per cent) citizens.

    Birmingham’s “super-diversity” is seen as one of its biggest strengths, the city council opining that it stems from the city’s long-standing history for welcoming people from around the world. However, we must recognise that challenges persist, most notably in terms of engendering social harmony and tackling inequality. Those two challenges are interlinked: social harmony rests on our different racial and ethnic groups feeling valued and having trust in their local institutions providing equal opportunities and equitable outcomes, regardless of background.

    Our 2030 strategy sets out a clear vision to be an exemplar anchor institution by 2030. This vision was co-created with representatives from our communities, who recognise and value the crucial role that universities like ours play in their locality. Our strategy explicitly recognises the responsibility we have in strengthening social cohesion in our home city of Birmingham.

    From speaking with many vice chancellors, I know that we at BCU are not alone in championing our civic mission. Notwithstanding this, until we collective publish data on ethnicity pay gaps – alongside action plans to overcome these – our sector may find it difficult to build and sustain trust with our diverse internal and external communities. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill offers a timely opportunity for our sector to demonstrate its commitment to racial justice.

    My fellow vice-chancellors would do well in voicing their support through this government consultation.

    The consultation on the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill closes on 10 June and can be accessed here.

    Source link

  • Impact can’t be gamed or systematised

    Impact can’t be gamed or systematised

    In a recent Wonkhe blog, Joe Mintz discussed the challenges of policy impact in social sciences and humanities research.

    He highlighted the growing importance of research impact for government (and therefore institutions) but noted significant barriers. These included a disconnect where academics prioritise research quality over early policy engagement and a mutual mistrust that limits research influence on decision-making.

    We have recently published a book on research impact that endeavours to explore the challenges of research impact, and these views chime greatly with us. Our motivation for starting the book project were personal. We have carried out a great deal of impactful research and provided support and training for others wishing to engage in impact. However, we wondered why impact seems to be so poorly understood across the sector, and, we had observed, there was a clear fracture between those who wanted to do impactful research, and institutions who wanted to control the process while not really understanding it.

    Agenda opposition

    There continues to be understandable opposition by some to what has been referred to as “the impact agenda”. One criticism is that impact is something being imposed by government and management that is at odds with the ideology of research. This argument follows that research impact is a market-driven mechanism that pressures academics to demonstrate immediate societal benefits from their research, often at the expense of intellectual freedom and critical inquiry. And a metric driven measurement of research impact may not fully capture the complexity or long-term value of research.

    We can certainly empathise with this perspective, but might suggest that this is, in a large part, due to how impact has manifested in a sector that does not really understand what it can be. In our own experiences we have experienced management “advice” that firstly says do not waste your time doing impact, then, once performance-based research funding becomes attached to it, being told it is very important and your impact needs to be “four star”. And then indifference is replaced with interference and attempts to control, to make sure we’re doing it “properly” and making sure it can be monitored.

    In trying to develop our understanding, we spoke to 25 “impactful” academics, who had objectively demonstrated that their research has high value impact, and a range of research professionals across the sector. It soon became very clear that our own observations were not outliers for those doing impactful research.

    Impact success for those we spoke to came from a personal belief that saw it ingrained in their own research practice – this was something they did because they felt it was important, not because they had been told to. The stakeholders and networks they had, and often spent considerable time building, were their own not their institution’s, and many protected these contacts and networks from institutional interference.

    In most cases, interview subjects said that there was little support from their institutions, they just did the work because they felt it was an important part of their research, and this symbiotic work with stakeholders provided further research opportunities. They could see the value of doing impactful research and felt personally rewarded as a result.

    And many talked of institutional interference, where there was opposition to what they were doing (“you’re not doing impact properly”) and advised from positions of seniority although perhaps not knowledge or, in some cases integrity. They were instructed to do things more in line with university systems, regardless of how poor they might be. There was a clear dissonance between academic identity and management culture, often informed by an “impact industry” where PowerPoints from webinars are disseminated across institutions with little opportunity for deep knowledge becoming embedded.

    Secret sauce

    And many spoke of the research management machine, insisting that they engage with central systems so their work could be “monitored” and having many people around them telling them what to do, but offering no support. This support was often as basic as “do more impact” and “give us the evidence now”. In some cases, threats were made to not submit their case studies should they not follow the “correct process”, even when their work was clearly highly impactful. An odd flex for a senior leader, given QR funding goes to the institution, not the academic.

    While the research that went into this book probably threw up as many questions as answers, one thing was very clear for this work. If it is to be successful, impact cannot be imposed upon academics or centrally controlled, it must originate from the academic’s community and own identity as a researcher. Telling someone to “do some impact because we need another case study” with a year before a REF submission is not good practice; management needs to take time to understand the research academics are doing and explore together how best to support it.

    We are reminded of a comment from one interviewee, who does incredibly interesting and impactful research, and has done for many years. When asked why they do it, they simply said “because I enjoy it and I’m good at it”.

    High quality impact case studies come from high quality research and high-quality impact. This is not something that can be gamed or systematised. Academics need to own impact for it to be successful, and institutions need to respect this.

    Source link

  • Scott Pelley BASHES Trump Admin During Wake Forest Commencement (The Hill)

    Scott Pelley BASHES Trump Admin During Wake Forest Commencement (The Hill)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Scott Pelley BASHES Trump Admin During Wake Forest Commencement (The Hill)




    Source link

  • Trump’s executive orders: Due process, ‘breathtaking sweeps,’ and the evils of intentional vagueness — First Amendment News 472

    Trump’s executive orders: Due process, ‘breathtaking sweeps,’ and the evils of intentional vagueness — First Amendment News 472

    Beginning next week, First Amendment News (FAN) will be moving to Substack. Be sure to sign up and follow us there for future installments!

    “No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit . . . The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on . . . foundational principles. . . . Here, deciding what process was due to plaintiff is unnecessary, because no process was provided.” — Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice (Dist. Ct., D.C., May 2)

    “[T]he Court found that Ms. Rumeysa Ozturk has demonstrated a substantial claim of a violation of due process.” — Ozturk v. Hyde (Dist. Ct., VT, May 16)

    “[T]his directive has a breathtaking sweep . . .” — Jenner & Block v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (Dist. Ct., D.C., May 23)

    Maxim: #1: Vagueness and due process cannot coexist, at least not in any system of constitutional justice worthy of the name. 

    Maxim #2: The broader the law’s sweep, the greater the likelihood that it was designed to be arbitrarily punitive.

    It is undeniable: Many of Donald Trump’s executive orders run wildly afoul of basic tenets of fairness. Time and again, he has ordered his subordinates to enforce orders that are shockingly vague and disturbingly broad. Both in their conception and execution, such orders patently violate the commands of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. And yet, the public and the courts are asked to countenance such abridgments of law in the name of unfettered executive prerogative.

    Clarity and precision in lawmaking are fundamental to any system of justice. That call for clarity, which traces back at least to Roman law, finds expression in Montesquieu’s “Spirit of Laws” and William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” Laws must be “plainly and perspicuously penned,” is how Blackstone tagged it.

    In “Federalist No. 62,” James Madison condemned those laws that were “incoherent that they cannot be understood.” The idea is rooted in basic fairness, in due process of law. Such a process is especially important in the First Amendment context.

    Whether it be in executive orders directed at DEI practices, law firms, universities, libraries, or immigrants, among others, the basic problem of vagueness is the constitutional cancer present in all of them. 

    As Justice Thurgood Marshall made clear in 1972’s Grayned v. City of Rockford, vagueness offends fairness because (i) it provides no meaningful warning to ordinary persons as to “what is prohibited,” (ii) it provides no “explicit standards” to law enforcement officials, judges, and juries necessary to avoid “arbitrary and discriminatory application,” and (iii) vague laws chill protected speech insofar as the “boundaries of the forbidden areas [are not] clearly marked.” 

    Justice William Brennan explained the First Amendment importance of that principle in 1963’s NAACP v. Button: “Standards of permissible . . . vagueness are strict in the area of free expression. . . [I]n the area of First Amendment freedoms, the existence of a [vague mandate is] susceptible of sweeping and improper application.”

    In the unconstitutional process, lawyers, scientists, librarians, universities, law firms and others are chilled into silence — and that is precisely the point.

    The evils of vagueness, among other constitutional wrongs, were thoughtfully identified by federal district court Judge Adam B. Abelson in the recent Maryland District Court case National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump. In relevant part, Judge Abelson began: 

    This Court remains of the view that Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their facial free speech and vagueness claims . . . The Challenged Provisions forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in “equity-related” work and from “promoting DEI” in ways the administration may consider to violate antidiscrimination laws; they demand that the “private sector” “end . . . DEI” and threaten “strategic enforcement” to effectuate the “end[ing]” of “DEI”; and they threaten contractors and grantees with enforcement actions with the explicit purpose of “deter[ring]” such “programs or principles.” 

    Judge Adam B. Abelson

    Thereafter, he emphasized that the Court was 

    …deeply troubled that the Challenged Provisions, which constitute content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech (in addition to conduct), have the inherent and ineluctable effect of silencing speech that has long been, and remains, protected by the First Amendment. And they do so through impermissibly vague directives that exacerbate the speech-chilling aspects of the Challenged Provisions.

    To elucidate that point, he added:

    Historically, the metaphor used to describe the effect of laws that restrict speech is “chill.” The more apt metaphor here is “extinguish.” Part of the explicit purpose and effect of the Challenged Provisions is to stifle debate — to silence selected viewpoints, selected discourse — on matters of public concern. They forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in discourse — including speech such as teaching, conferences, writing, speaking, etc. — if that discourse is “related” to “equity. ” And they direct the “private sector” to “end” diversity, to “end” equity, and to “end” inclusion. See J21 Order § 4(b) (directing agencies to “encourage the private sector to end . . . DEI”). “End” is not a mere “chill.” “Deter[rence]” is not a side-effect of the Challenged Provisions; their explicit goal is to “deter” not only “programs” but “principles” — i.e. ideas, concepts, and values. After all, the opposite of inclusion is exclusion; the opposite of equity is inequity; and, at least in some forms, the opposite of diversity is segregation.

    Such are but some of the evils rooted in many of Trump’s executive orders. Those affronts to due process and First Amendment principles are so obvious as to render their design intentional (see “Trump’s ‘So what?’ stratagem,” FAN 470).

    Trump’s Justice Department defends such lawlessness by procedural obfuscation coupled with political rhetoric and claims of unrestrained executive prerogative. When that fails they take cover by being evasive, as revealed in oral arguments in the Second Circuit case of Ozturk v. Hyde: 

    The appeals court judges pushed . . . [Department of Justice attorney Drew] Ensign on whether or not the Trump administration believed that both students’ speech was lawful speech.

    “We have not taken a position on that,” Ensign told the panel of three judges, saying concerns over where the students’ cases should be heard were more important.

    “Help my thinking along,” Judge Barrington D. Parker then said. “Take a position.”

    “Your honor, I don’t have authority to take a position on that right now,” Ensign replied.

    Drew Ensign Former Arizona Deputy Solicitor General

    Drew Ensign

    In the unconstitutional process, lawyers, scientists, librarians, universities, law firms and others are chilled into silence — and that is precisely the point. 

    Consider as well this from an article in The New York Times by Stephanie Saul:

    The Trump administration is set to cancel the federal government’s remaining federal contracts with Harvard University — worth an estimated $100 million, according to a letter that is being sent to federal agencies on Tuesday. The May 27 letter [from the U.S. General Services Administration] also instructs agencies to “find alternative vendors” for future services.

    The additional planned cuts, outlined in a draft of the letter obtained by The New York Times, represented what an administration official called a complete severance of the government’s longstanding business relationship with Harvard.

    The letter is the latest example of the Trump administration’s determination to bring Harvard — arguably the country’s most elite and culturally dominant university — to its knees, by undermining its financial health and global influence. Since last month, the administration has frozen about $3.2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard. And it has tried to halt the university’s ability to enroll international students.

    Related

    A new episode of the Academic Freedom Podcast has been released. The podcast is sponsored by the Academic Freedom Alliance and the Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech at Yale Law School.

    This episode features a conversation with Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School and former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His recent working paper, ‘Our Money or Your Life!’ Higher Education and the First Amendment,’ explores the First Amendment constraints on federal funding to American universities.

    In the last few weeks, the Trump administration has made several announcements that it is withholding a significant amount of federal funds from specific universities, notably Columbia University and Harvard University, and that those funds will not be released until those universities comply with a set of demands. Harvard received a letter on April 11 demanding changes in Harvard’s governance, faculty hiring practices, student admissions practices, viewpoint diversity among the faculty, and student disciplinary policies, among other things. On May 5, the Secretary of Education sent a letter to Harvard informing the university that the federal government will award it no grants for scholarly research in the future. Reportedly, there is more than $2 billion dollars at stake.

    On the podcast we talk through what the Trump administration is doing, what the consequences are for Harvard and other affected universities, and what constitutional issues are raised by the administration’s actions in denying Harvard access to federal research funds. In the process, we get a short course on First Amendment doctrine relating to viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional conditions.

    Trump’s lackey: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr

    Commissioner of Federal Communications Commission Brendan Carr discusses how FCC funding has helped expand patient care at the University of Mississippi Medical Center's Center for Telehealth, during a news conference at the telehealth center in Ridgeland, Mississippi, on April 1, 2021.

    FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

    “He has . . . abandoned the FCC’s posture as an independent regulator in favor of an openly personal embrace of Trump.”

    Four months into his tenure as head of America’s top communications regulator, Brendan Carr appears to be running a Trumpian playbook to transform a long-independent agency.

    Immediately after being promoted by President Donald Trump to chair the Federal Communications Commission, on Jan. 20, Carr launched investigations into top media companies, including NPR, PBS and Comcast.

    Related

    Latest update of Zick’s Executive Orders repository 

    SCOTUS denies review in middle school ‘two genders’ shirt case 

    This past Monday the Supreme Court denied review (7-2) in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough. The issue raised in that case was whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.

    Summary of facts: “In this case, L.M.’s [middle] school prohibited him from wearing a non-obscene, non-vulgar shirt stating, ‘There Are Only Two Genders,’ because the message ‘would cause students in the LGBTQ+ community to feel unsafe.’. The school even banned him from wearing the same shirt on which he covered the words ‘Only Two’ with a piece of tape on which he wrote “CENSORED” so that the message read, ‘There Are [CENSORED] Genders.’”

    The petition had been distributed for conference twelve times.

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a separate dissent, which in part read:

    This case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive. In this case, a middle school permitted and indeed encouraged student expression endorsing the view that there are many genders. But when L. M., a seventh grader, wore a t-shirt that said “There Are Only Two Genders,” he was barred from attending class. And when he protested this censorship by blocking out the words “Only Two” and substituting “CENSORED,” the school prohibited that shirt as well.

    The First Circuit held that the school did not violate L. M.’s free-speech rights. It held that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. And it employed a vague, permissive, and jargon-laden rule that departed from the standard this Court adopted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969).

    FBI reopens probe into Dobbs Supreme Court leak

    The FBI will launch new probes into the 2023 discovery of cocaine at the White House during President Joe Biden’s term and the 2022 leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a top official announced on Monday. Dan Bongino, a rightwing podcaster-turned-FBI deputy director, made the announcement on X, saying that he had requested weekly briefings on the cases’ progress. . . .

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Heather Mac Donald on Trump & free speech


    “[M]y reaction to everything that Trump is doing, and I agree almost across the board with his substantive aims whether it’s with regards to the universities, whether it’s regards to immigration, is what would we feel if the democratic administrations were doing this exact same thing in favor of their values? Everything we’re doing sets a precedent. Again, I acknowledge the precedent has already been set. . . . I’m still very nervous about the government using power because even though I’m not deeply libertarian, I do think that the hope of a neutral arbiter of a government that is restrained by rules that are content-free that are politics-free is one of the biggest yearnings of humanity, at least in the west.” — Heather Mac Donald

    Heather Mac Donald discusses the Trump administration’s free speech record amidst its battles with higher ed, mainstream media, law firms, and more.

    Mac Donald is a Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her most recent book is “When race trumps merit: How the pursuit of equity sacrifices excellence, destroys beauty, and threatens lives.”

    Related

    • Heather Mac Donald, “The White House’s Clumsy Attack on Harvard,” City Journal (April 15) (“The administration is growing ever bolder in its crusade against the institutions responsible for left-wing ideology — whether elite law firms or universities. That crusade is unquestionably justified. Its targets deserve little sympathy. . .”)

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions 

    Petitions denied

    Emergency Applications 

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Beginning next week, First Amendment News (FAN) will be moving to Substack. Be sure to sign up and follow us there for future installments!

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 471: “Seven free speech groups issue a call to oppose Trump’s First Amendment violations… Why aren’t there more?”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE.

    Source link

  • Email Marketing for Universities That Converts

    Email Marketing for Universities That Converts

    Reading Time: 11 minutes

    In a world obsessed with TikTok trends and digital ad spends, it’s easy to overlook the humble email. Yet, email marketing for universities and other higher educational institutions isn’t just surviving, it’s thriving.

    While newer platforms grab headlines, email continues to deliver results where it matters most: student recruitment. In fact, email engagement has surged by a staggering 78% in recent years. That’s a clear signal: email is not just relevant, it’s essential.

    Email remains one of the most powerful channels in higher education marketing, and for good reason. By the end of 2025, global email users are projected to reach 4.6 billion, with over 376 billion emails sent daily.

    Our targeted email marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students.

    Discover how we can enhance your recruitment strategy today!

    The ROI speaks for itself: email marketing returns around $36 for every $1 spent, outshining many other channels. Here’s the surprising part. Students want your emails. In a recent survey, more than 68% of students prefer to receive content via email from higher-ed institutions.

    But many schools are still doing it wrong. They send the same message to every contact, ignore personalization, and fail to align emails with the student journey. The result? Missed opportunities and low conversions.

    This guide will walk you through how to craft student-first, high-converting email campaigns, from audience research to measuring real impact. Ready to turn your inbox into an enrollment engine? Let’s dive in. 

    Why Email? Why Now?

    Let’s start from the very beginning. What is educational marketing? Educational marketing refers to the strategies and tactics used by schools, colleges, and universities to attract, engage, and enroll students. It includes campaigns across digital channels like email, social media, SEO, and paid ads to promote programs and build institutional brand awareness.

    From there, we move on to the big question: Is email still relevant in 2025? Absolutely. In fact, 69% of education marketers say email provides a good to excellent ROI, outperforming heavy hitters like social media (55%), display ads (19%), and even SEO (46%).

    Why is that?

    Because email does three things exceptionally well. It provides a direct line to decision-makers, allows for scalable personalization, and supports long-term engagement without burning through your budget.

    But, and this is key, many schools still aren’t tapping into its full potential. Too often, the same message is sent to everyone, without clearly defined audience profiles to guide the way. That’s where opportunity lives, for those willing to do it right.

    Know Your Audience: Meet Sophie

    Let’s talk about what separates forgettable campaigns from unforgettable ones.

    It starts with understanding your audience, not just broadly, but deeply. This is where student personas come into play.

    Meet Sophie.

    She’s a 30-something international career professional with 3–7 years of experience. Sophie is exploring MBA programs and micro-credentials, driven by career advancement and global networking opportunities. She’s ROI-conscious, skeptical about short courses, and likely found your school via Instagram or Google.

    See the difference?

    When you write with Sophie in mind, you’re not just blasting content, you’re building trust. She wants to know your credentials are legit. She’s inspired by student success stories. She’s curious about cultural experiences.

    So instead of saying, “Join our business program,” try, “Boost your global career with accredited micro-credentials and a community that spans five continents.” Now that’s an email that connects. Now that we’ve seen what a well-developed persona looks like, let’s explore how to apply this kind of insight through segmentation.

    Example: McMaster University’s Continuing Education division’s persona-based email drip campaigns for lead nurturing show how each email is tailored to a persona (e.g. career changers in Project Management or Applied Clinical Research) with personalized greetings (“Hi {{FirstName}}”) and program-specific content.

    HEM Image 2HEM Image 2

    Source: McMaster University

    Make It Personal: Segmentation and Customization

    Different students have different interests and needs, so your university email campaign should too. 

    Segmentation

    By dividing your email list into meaningful groups (or “segments”), you can send each group content that truly matters to them. The result? Dramatically better performance.

    For instance, marketers have seen a staggering 760% increase in email revenue from segmented campaigns. Campaign Monitor also found that segmented education campaigns can achieve open rates around 18%, far above the industry average. Clearly, segmentation isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s a game-changer.

    How to segment effectively? Think about the factors that distinguish your prospective students. Common segmentation angles in higher ed include:

    • Stage in enrollment journey: Are they brand-new inquiries, applicants, or admitted students? (More on this later.)
    • Academic interests: What program or major are they interested in? Emails tailored by program (e.g. Engineering vs. Liberal Arts prospects) will highlight different selling points.
    • Demographics/Location: Is the student international or domestic? High school senior or adult learner? Local or out-of-state? Each group may respond to different messaging.
    • Behavioural engagement: How have they interacted with your school so far? (Attended a webinar, downloaded a brochure, etc.) Those actions can trigger targeted follow-ups.

    Segmenting your list by criteria like these ensures each student gets content that speaks to their specific situation. As a result, your emails feel more relevant, and relevance drives results.

    Example: The Cut Design Academy launched a promotional recruitment email targeting prospective students for its January 2025 Makeup Artistry Certificate intake. The campaign focused on driving immediate applications from students close to the decision stage, offering a limited-time tuition discount to accelerate conversions. Framed around an exclusive offer, the email used urgency, clear benefits, and student-focused messaging to stand out. The campaign leveraged personalization through tone (“Dear creative mind”) and clear calls to action, guiding prospects from interest to enrollment with stage-aligned messaging.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: The Cut Design Academy

    Segmented emails consistently outperform generic blasts, leading to stronger engagement, greater relevance, and improved results across the board. Marketers find that tailoring messages to specific audience groups makes campaigns more effective and impactful. The bottom line? When you embrace the diversity of your audience and tailor your messaging accordingly, they’ll reward you with higher engagement.

    Let’s say you have a student interested in your Executive MBA. They’ve clicked on emails but haven’t registered for an event. You wouldn’t send them the same message as a high school student in Colombia interested in ESL. 

    Personalization

    Now add personalization on top. If segmentation is about who you’re writing to, personalization is about what and how you communicate to each person. Today’s prospective students expect a personalized touch, and they respond when they get it.

    Here’s why: Research shows that emails with personalized content have a 29% higher open rate and a 41% higher click-through rate than non-personalized emails. Simply put, personalization grabs attention. It signals to the student that “this is about you,” cutting through the clutter of impersonal mass communications.

    Personalization can be as simple as using the student’s first name in the greeting or subject line – emails with a personalized subject are 29% more likely to be opened, according to Experian. But it goes much deeper than that. Effective enrollment emails often incorporate personal details like the student’s intended major, specific interests, or past interactions.

    Let’s Look At Two Examples:

    • If a prospect has shown interest in your business program, your follow-up emails should reflect that. Highlight business-specific content such as alumni success stories, internship opportunities, and upcoming events related to the program. This reinforces relevance and keeps the student engaged with information they care about.
    • If a student clicks on a link about financial aid, your next email could focus on scholarships, bursaries, or affordability tips. This kind of targeted follow-up shows that you’re paying attention to their concerns. And students notice this effort.

    An EAB survey in 2024 found that 93% of students said receiving a personalized message from a college would encourage them to explore that school further.

    That’s an overwhelming majority who are more likely to engage simply because your email spoke directly to their interests or concerns. 71% of students expect personalized interactions from brands (including universities), and 76% get frustrated when they don’t get them. The message is clear: personalization isn’t just a nice touch; it’s expected.

    Example: This email from London Business School (LBS), addressed personally to the recipient (“Conor, come and meet some of the people that make LBS unique”), exemplifies effective personalization (using the student’s name and regional relevance) and event-based drip sequencing, reinforcing LBS’s presence and availability as the student prepares to make a decision.

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: London Business School

    So, how can you infuse personalization into your campaigns? Here are a few proven tactics (think of these as the “little things” that yield big results):

    • Use dynamic fields: Most email platforms allow you to insert the recipient’s name or other attributes automatically. A subject like “John, here’s info on the Computer Science program you liked” is far more engaging than a generic “Learn about our programs.”
    • Tailor content to personas: If you’ve segmented by persona or interest, craft the email copy and images to match each segment. A student athlete might get an email highlighting campus sports facilities and team success, whereas a fine arts prospect might see content about your art studios or student exhibits.
    • Leverage behavioural data: Personalization can also be triggered by what a student does. For instance, “We noticed you started an application – here are the next steps,” or “Thanks for downloading our Nursing Program guide – would you like to attend a nursing info session?” These timely, relevant messages show that you’re paying attention and ready to help.

    In a nutshell, how do you develop a marketing strategy for a university? Start by defining clear goals (e.g., increase applications or improve yield), identify target audiences using personas, choose the right channels (email, social, SEO), create tailored content for each stage of the student journey, and measure results regularly to optimize performance.

    Align With the Student Journey

    A student’s path from curiosity to commitment isn’t linear. Your email marketing strategy shouldn’t be either.

    Awareness

    This is your digital handshake. Send welcome emails that reflect your institution’s voice: professional, warm, and resourceful. Keep it brief and include CTAs to helpful blog posts, reports, or program videos. The goal here? Spark interest and build trust.

    Example: Algonquin College initiated a welcome email campaign targeting newly inquiring students, aimed at supporting the awareness stage of the enrollment funnel. This automated email is sent immediately after a student checks out a program or completes an inquiry form, making it a textbook example of an early-stage drip campaign designed to keep the college top-of-mind and help prospects begin their research journey.

    HEM Image 5HEM Image 5

    Source:  Algonquin College

    Consideration

    Now that they’re paying attention, it’s time to educate. Share program benefits, tuition details, and testimonials. Even better, offer personalized interaction, like a Q&A session with advisors. Emails at this stage become your student’s research partner.

    Example: Miami Ad School implemented a direct and informative follow-up email targeting prospective students who had expressed prior interest in one of its portfolio programs. The message used light personalization and concise formatting to clearly lay out the next steps for engagement. This email served as an early-stage consideration touchpoint designed to convert inquiry-stage leads into applicants.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: Miami Ad School

    Decision

    Here’s where the magic happens, or it doesn’t. Use emails to overcome last-minute doubts, emphasize application deadlines, and make it ridiculously easy to act. Offer a call with an advisor. Include direct application links. This is where you close the loop.

    Enrollment

    Don’t stop now. Once students say “yes,” keep the momentum going. Celebrate with a warm welcome, then guide them through the next steps: registration links, orientation videos, and community invites. Make them feel like part of something exciting.

    The Anatomy of a Winning Email

    So what does a high-converting email actually look like?

    1. Craft Irresistible Subject Lines

    • Include first names or program names
    • Add urgency (“Last Chance!”) or exclusivity (“Just for You”)
    • Steer clear of spammy ALL CAPS and excessive punctuation

    Example:
     [Alex], Your Journey to an International Career Starts Here

    2. Write Compelling CTAs

    • Be specific and action-driven:
      • “Apply Now”
      • “Book a Call”
      • “Join the Webinar”
    • Explore more about email CTA best practices

    3. Optimize for Timing and Mobile

    • Test send times (mid-week often work well)
    • Mobile-first design is a must; 55% of emails are opened on phones
    • Responsive layouts = higher clicks and happier readers

    Stay Out of Spam and In Their Good Books

    Even the best content won’t help if it lands in the junk folder. Avoid spam triggers (like “FREE!!!”). Keep your database clean, and follow laws like CAN-SPAM (US), CASL (Canada), and PECR (UK). And yes, always include that unsubscribe link; it builds trust.

    Fun fact: The average inbox placement rate is 83%, so there’s room to optimize.

    Build Relationships With Drip Campaigns

    Think of a drip campaign as a well-timed sequence of nudges. It starts with a thank-you or auto-response after form submission.

    Then, over days or weeks, you send emails that deepen interest, event invites, alumni success stories, or a reminder to complete an application. Every email has a purpose. Every message moves the needle.

    Track What Really Matters

    If you’re only looking at open rates, you’re missing the bigger picture.

    Here’s a smarter approach:

    • Use open rates to gauge subject line effectiveness (aim for 46–50%)
    • Analyze click-through rates to measure engagement, event invites can hit 15–25%
    • Most importantly, track conversion rates: Are students applying, booking meetings, or showing up?

    The data doesn’t lie. HEM’s insights show that most student bookings happen only after a lead is nurtured, sometimes weeks after their first touchpoint.

    Final Thoughts: Your Enrollment Power Tool

    We’ve covered a lot of ground, and you might be thinking, “How do I implement all of this?” The key is to view these strategies not as isolated tactics, but as complementary pieces of a holistic email marketing plan.

    Segmentation gives you the framework (who gets what), personalization adds the special sauce (making content relevant to each individual), drip campaigns provide the delivery engine (timing and automation), mobile optimization ensures your efforts actually get seen on students’ preferred devices, and enrollment-stage alignment keeps your messaging strategy coherent from start to finish.

    Each strategy is powerful on its own, but together they truly transform your email marketing from a simple broadcast tool into an engaging, research-backed recruitment machine.

    You’ll be speaking to the right student with the right message at the right time – and that’s a recipe for higher open rates, click-throughs, and conversion to applications and enrollments. Just ask the institutions we discussed: they’ve seen application surges, increased yield, and record enrollments by putting these principles into practice.

    To recap, how can colleges increase enrollment? Colleges can boost enrollment by improving lead nurturing (e.g., drip email campaigns), enhancing website conversion, offering personalized communication, streamlining the application process, and using data to better target and engage prospective students.

    Done right, email isn’t just part of your marketing mix. It’s the glue that holds your enrollment strategy together.

    Our targeted email marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students.

    Discover how we can enhance your recruitment strategy today!

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What is educational marketing?

    Answer: Educational marketing refers to the strategies and tactics used by schools, colleges, and universities to attract, engage, and enroll students. It includes campaigns across digital channels like email, social media, SEO, and paid ads to promote programs and build institutional brand awareness.

    Question: How do you develop a marketing strategy for a university?

    Answer: Start by defining clear goals (e.g., increase applications or improve yield), identify target audiences using personas, choose the right channels (email, social, SEO), create tailored content for each stage of the student journey, and measure results regularly to optimize performance.

    Question: How can colleges increase enrollment?

    Answer: Colleges can boost enrollment by improving lead nurturing (e.g., drip email campaigns), enhancing website conversion, offering personalized communication, streamlining the application process, and using data to better target and engage prospective students.

    Source link