Study abroad is tied to personal and professional growth for college students, but crossing the border can be an enormous hurdle or feel unattainable for some learners.
A new initiative at Bucknell University seeks to empower and support first-generation and low-income students who are interested in experiential learning and study away through workshops, financial aid and mentorship.
In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader speaks to Chris Brown, Bucknell’s Andrew Hartman ’71 and Joseph Fama ’71 Executive Director of the Center for Access and Success, to learn more about the center and how it reduces barriers to student participation in high-impact activities.
In recent years AHUA has made a choice to talk about an absence of people of colour* within the professions it serves.
There was a discomfort that had existed unanswered for too long when looking at the annual association conference full of registrars, secretaries and chief operating officers – who were overwhelmingly white.
It was an acknowledgement that, while some progress was being made in the diversity of the students and staff that the association’s members served and supported – and even in the population of vice chancellors and university chairs they work with, the group of heads of administration has remained stubbornly white.
While we could have chosen as a membership organisation to defer on this issue to the institutions who appoint our members, we choose to recognise our responsibility and ability to influence and inform institutions.
We proactively sought out initiatives where we believe we have agency to increase opportunities to enhance progression and diversity and are committing resources to our members to help their own activities. We considered it a responsibility we share with institutions and the sector.
The work of the association to address this was multifaceted because, despite limited capacity and resource to invest, we knew that there was no silver bullet to be fired or piece of marketing that would change our language and in doing so break the barrier that appeared to exist.
We also knew we would need to speak about things that might be uncomfortable at times, and that would need some care to avoid being white folk talking about race in ways which inadvertently perpetuated problems or failed to acknowledge the privilege we might have.
A reciprocal mentoring program was established bringing together AHUA members with minority ethnic staff from middle management and director-level roles using frameworks that tried to create equal power in the relationship, and mutual learning and dialogue that would help advance the way people think about race and equity in their work and practice and aspirations.
A bursaries programme was launched for ethnic minorities to join our flagship “Aspiring Registrars and COO’s Programme”. The bursaries were designed to demonstrate our ambition to create pathways into the roles AHUA represent and bring together and diversify the conversations that take place within the course. They resulted in an increase in applications from a previously underrepresented group in the first year and it’s a pilot we may well repeat or extend in due course.
A research partnership and evidence base
These projects were modest attempts to start to try to generate change but we had to acknowledge that they were based on our own judgements and experience, as a largely white population of people who had made it into positions of power and authority.
It was on that basis that we decided we needed a robust evidence base that included the voices and experiences of those who are ethnically minoritised. So, we developed a research brief and ran a tender process to try to find a research partner who could work with us to best inform our further and continued work to deliver real change. In late 2024 we launched the research project with our partners at Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University
The research takes in two research phases. The first phase is desk-based, looking at institutions and what their available and existing data tells us about the structural profiles and institutional experiences of work on diversifying workforce, particularly at more senior levels in professional services.
This phase might reflect on race quality charters, Athena swan charters, ethnicity pay gap reporting and data on race/ethnicity in career progression.
The second phase conducts interviews and focus groups, primarily with people who are ethnically minoritised professional services staff and captures their own work experiences and perceptions of professional services. All of this data and research is intended to help us start to more deeply understand the barrier and enablers for career progression.
We are really anxious not to assume the research findings and outcomes will identify simple, easy solutions to a deep-rooted challenge for us. Equally, we are determined that the research outcomes (however uncomfortable) can be disseminated widely and that the substance of the research finds practical, initiatives that leverage change based on evidence.
Whatever the outcome, we are very firmly committed to gathering the research evidence that can underpin our work to bring a new diversity to the administrative leadership of universities in the years ahead.
If there are institutions who wish to share their data as part of the first phase please do get in touch with AHUA and / or Louise Oldridge ([email protected]) as the research project lead and we will make sure we can help you set up a collaborative agreement to share the available data and start be part of the project. We require participating institutions to be signed up before the end of March. Find out more about participation in interviews and to sign up.
*We recognise that this term is one way to refer to a community of people that share experiences of race and racism. We are continuously seeking ways to better engage and reflect the sector and community, and welcome feedback on our choice of language.
Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris is Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham.
Whilst we are still waiting for the government to decide on the operationalisation of the future direction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), it is easy to agree that providing all new learners with a tuition fee loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use up to the age of 60 is a good thing in principle.
In recent articles, Professor Deborah Johnston and Rose Stephenson have both presented useful positions and summaries on the status quo. For the University of Buckingham, the merits of the LLE are clear, but it is the relationship between the LLE and courses of different lengths that is central to our concern.
At Buckingham, we take pride in our unique approach to education. As a disruptor institution and the only private university in the UK with a Royal Charter, we emphasise our small and independent nature. Our distinctive positioning has enabled us to create a unique learning environment. We have successfully developed ‘accelerated degrees’, including our flagship degree models: the two-year undergraduate degree and the four-and-a-half-year undergraduate medical degree.
Where other institutions have a long summer holiday, at Buckingham we have a fourth term – the same amount of classroom time over a whole degree as in other universities, but a term in the summer which means that students can enter the labour market a year earlier and incur a year’s less accommodation and living expenses as well.
Alternatively, in three years, our students at Buckingham can undertake two qualifications: a foundation plus an undergraduate or an undergraduate plus a postgraduate degree. The year’s shape also more closely resembles the world of work and therefore ably prepares students more authentically for their future careers. We know this approach is working, and adds value. We are in the Top 10 for Graduate Prospects (outcomes) and:
92% of our graduates agree their current activity is meaningful (sector 85%).
88% of our graduates feel their current activity fits with their future plans (sector 78%).
83% of our graduates say they are using what they learn while studying (sector 69%).
97% of our graduates are in work or study (sector 89%).
72% of our graduates are in full-time employment (sector 61%).
Buckingham has been a beacon for accelerated degrees to help students achieve their degrees in a shorter period and get out into the workplace or onto further study sooner. We can also see this model allowing students to interrupt their studies and take their degrees in shorter chunks (each of our terms, for example), which would be possible with the LLE framework once it is implemented. However, there is a fundamental unfairness facing Buckingham and others that needs to be addressed.
To understand this issue, we must first delve into the technical world of registering with the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator for higher education in England. Providers of higher education can (although not at the moment as new registrations are paused) register with the OfS under two categories:
1) Approved (fee cap)
Providers in the Approved (fee cap) category can only charge up to the fee cap of £9,250 (2024/25) / £9,535 (2025/26) for full-time students. Students can take out a tuition fee loan to cover their entire fee (for undergraduate courses). Approved (fee cap) providers can also access teaching and research grant funding. Most institutions are in this category.
2) Approved
Providers in the Approved category, which includes Buckingham, can charge tuition fees above the cap. However, students at these institutions can only access tuition fee loans up to the lower limit (£6,355 per annum for three-year programmes and £7,625 per annum for two-year programmes). Any additional fees charged need to be covered privately. Further, these institutions cannot access teaching and research grants.
Because of our category of registration, students can only get the fee loan for the accelerated (two-year) degree programmes at the lower fee loan limit. Our students study for more of the year, and in each of their two years, yet they are entitled to less of a loan each year to support their learning, meaning that through the current category of registration they are discriminated against, even though our accelerated degrees are clearly better for getting students into the workforce and for the skills agenda being pushed by the new Labour government.
What is also grossly unfair is that despite approved providers being unable to access direct government funding for learning and teaching, research, or capital activity, they remain subject to nearly every aspect of OfS regulation. One exception is the Access and Participation Plan (although we still produce an Access Statement). Yet, re-stating the above, students at approved category institutions cannot benefit from a full loan for the studying they do.
So, as the government considers how to support the skills agenda and deliver on skills shortages, here at Buckingham we make a request on behalf of the sector and the potential students: implement the LLE and remove the disparities.
We are calling for one of two developments:
A government review to address tuition fee loan eligibility (tied to current categorisations). Why should students be disadvantaged for the loan they can apply for by the category of their institution’s registration? In The University of Buckingham’s case, we have a TEF, we meet OfS requirements, and we even directly support the government’s desire to get students into work faster. Should it not be £9,250 (or now £9,535 from 2025/26) for all?
If not that, a change to loans for the credits studied will allow the students studying in that fourth term with us at Buckingham, and completing in two years, to be able to seek loans for the full amount of their two years of full-time study. The point here is that the implementation of the LLE means that the loan is for the credit instead, so this inequity is removed. All students can get a loan for the credit they study. Our students then would, as a bonus, gain the credit quicker, as they would study over two years.
Most students, due to the cost of living and other responsibilities, should now be considered part-time students, and we need to consider ways to help them fit their lives around their studies – something we certainly pride ourselves on. To support those who also need to work during their intensive studies, we timetable differently and teach differently. Ultimately this is about helping every one of our students to study more effectively (and in a shorter timescale), and as presented in The University of Buckingham’s Strategic Plan 2023-28, supporting our students by embedding employability and entrepreneurship within the curriculum.
Ahead of a House of Lords debate on the topic of lifelong learning later this week, today’s blog features two posts on the topic.
Elsewhere on the site, Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham, highlights what is, in her view, a critical flaw in the LLE: the unfair funding gap facing students on accelerated two-year degree programmes, despite their clear benefits for employability and skills development. You can read that piece here.
And below, Dr. Michelle Morgan explores the gaps in the Government’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), questioning why postgraduate taught courses have been left out and what this means for students, universities, and businesses.
So the Government has announced that the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will come into effect in September 2026.
The government is arguing that the LLE will allow people to develop new skills and gain new qualifications at a time that is right for them. The LLE will focus on:
full courses at level 4 to 6, such as degrees, technical qualifications, and designated distance learning and online courses
modules of high-value technical courses at levels 4 to 5.
It is argued that it will help drive sustained economic growth, break down barriers to opportunity broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training, and support greater learner mobility between institutions.
However, yet again the sector’s postgraduate taught (PGT) provision has been ignored. By excluding this level of study, the ambitions of the Government will not be as great as they could be, and it is a huge, missed opportunity for higher education and this is why.
The first problem: Declining PGT participation of UK-domiciled students
In the past 10 years, the higher education sector has increasingly relied on international master’s students to fund itself. EU and non-EU PGT students are nearly all undertaking master’s degrees, whereas for UK-domiciled students, a master’s degree only constitutes around 55% of those on PGT courses. Taught courses include master’s, postgraduate certificates, diplomas, and institutional credits and postgraduate certificates in education.
For Master’s participation, 2019/20 was a pivotal year as non-EU participation surpassed UK-domiciled for the first time. In each year since 2021/22, UK-domiciled Master’s enrolments have declined (see Table 1). Although we do not have Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) return data to view for 2022/23 and 2023/24, there is a strong sense across the sector that we will see a decline in master’s participation, especially among international students.
The decline is the same pattern that occurred leading up to 2010/11. The only reason why master’s participation continued to increase then was due to non-EU enrolments. The response by the Government to re-energise the UK-domiciled market after the Higher Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE, which was then the regulator) Phase 1 and 2 of the Postgraduate Support Scheme was to bring in the Postgraduate Loan. As soon as this happened, you could hear an audible sigh of relief across the sector, and there was an attitude of ‘that will solve the problem so let’s just focus on growing the master’s market’. The sector did not consider the demand for master’s qualifications by business and industry, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Employer demand for Master’s graduates
There are disciplines where a master’s is required for career progression such as professional accreditation. However, as the 11 University Postgraduate Experience Project found, which was one of 20 projects funded as part of the HEFCE Phase 1 Postgraduate Support Scheme, many SMEs did not need master’s graduates. Most useful to them was for higher education to provide short courses and modules that provided their staff with advanced skills in key areas such as Business and IT and emerging ones such as Generative AI. According to the Department for Business and Trade’s report on Business population estimates for the UK and regions in 2024, there were 5.6 million UK businesses in 2024 of which 5.5 million were SMEs, accounting for 99.8% of all businesses. By ignoring the needs of business and industry, we are losing an opportunity to engage with a critical market.
Funding and repayment
As soon as the Postgraduate Loan was introduced, most universities immediately raised their fees. The aim of the £10,000 loan was to cover fees and some maintenance. Although the loan for September 2024 English starters is now £12,471, for many this will not come close to covering their costs. What is also not factored into any discussion is that someone who has both an undergraduate and a postgraduate loan must pay them back concurrently. This equates to 9% for the undergraduate loan and 6% for the postgraduate, or 15% of someone’s salary on top of tax, National Insurance and any other employee-related costs. Although employers’ national insurance contributions are increasing next year, if there is any tax or National Insurance increase for the individual next year, this will further reduce their disposable income.
The Postgraduate Loan also differs between UK countries. In England, the loan does not cover stand-alone postgraduate certificates and diplomas, unlike in Scotland, where non-master’s postgraduate taught course participation is 56% compared to 44% in England. If they were included, then maybe the LLE as it stands would not be quite as restricted. The English loan system is not agile enough to support engagement in short or non-master’s courses, and English universities plan their finances for master’s enrolments and anticipated completions. A student should not have to register and enrol on a master’s if they only want or need to do a postgraduate certificate or diploma. If an individual needs a master’s for professional accreditation, this will not stop them from doing a master’s. In fact, we may see an increase in integrated degrees being undertaken where a master’s is incorporated into the undergraduate degree as a result.
Additionally, we have just had the announcement that undergraduate loans are slightly increasing, but no announcement has been made for postgraduate loans. The current system hinders engagement. It also adopts a deficit model approach, as these qualifications are deemed exit qualifications if someone fails to achieve the Master’s.
Ability to participate in master’s study
What is also overlooked in discussions are the debt levels of undergraduate alumni and how this could explain the decreasing number of UK-domiciled 21-24-year-old participants. The majority of PGT enrolments are for the age group of 30 years and over.
When the Postgraduate Loan was introduced in 2016, only one cohort had graduated under the £9,000 a year fee regime introduced in 2012. We now have 10 cohorts who graduated under that regime. It is maybe not a surprise therefore that the largest group investing in postgraduate taught study are those with the smallest amount of undergraduate debt.
Last year, I got the results of a Freedom of Information request from the Student Loan Company regarding the debt levels for English-domiciled recipients entering postgraduate Master’s study in 2021/22 (see Figure 1). Of the 72,618, 74.8% had debt in excess of £40,000 and 11.9% over £70,000. This debt will include any repeated years as well as longer length undergraduate courses such as integrated degrees with placements. With the recent announcement that fee levels will rise by £285 to £9,535 in 2025/26, this will increase individual debt.
Figure 1: Debt levels of 72,618 English-domiciled master’s students who also have an undergraduate loan (fee and maintenance) in 2021/22 only
The recent Times and Sunday Times showed how parental financial support differs by student groups and universities. The universities where parents pay the most – up to £30,000 – are mainly Russell Groups. And when you explore postgraduate taught participation by ethnicity, 66% are White. How will the factors highlighted above enable widening participation at the postgraduate level which delivers advanced skills, competencies and knowledge?
We need a rethink
The LLE that will be introduced will not super-proof the pipeline for longevity of postgraduate taught study nor provide the advanced skills that are accessible, meaningful and needed for the individual, society or business and industry.
So we need to start thinking now about the long-term implications of student debt, and social and economic needs so we can develop policy, strategy and practice. To do this though, the sector needs to start thinking about how we can reimagine and do things differently, Government needs to listen to key stakeholders, and we must proactively work together and not against one another.
Australia’s universities are some of the most prestigious and highly-ranked in the OECD. Yet the sector is arguably in crisis.
It narrowly escaped a potentially devastating hit to the $47.8 billion in annual revenue generated by international education, with proposed international students caps only just scuppered in parliament’s last sitting fortnight of the year.
But it is again being rocked by headlines around “wage theft” and millions of dollars wasted on consulting fees by some of our biggest universities.
A damning report by the National Tertiary Education Union has labelled this a “crisis of governance” constituting “reckless spending’’ by “the overpaid executive class”.
Ouch.
Yet Australia’s education system is strong by global standards, ranking third globally, and is home to several prestigious universities that consistently rank among the best in the world.
It is unlikely that a sector built on advancing human potential has solely reached this point by maliciously setting out to hurt its own backbone – its faculty.
Rather, systemic problems often indicate structural sectoral flaws, and ineffective means to address them. And Australia’s university system is not immune by any means.
A legacy issue of systemic complexity
We cannot know with certainty if there are indeed some bad actors in this story. Possibly.
But what is undeniably evident are the range of sectoral factors contributing to the sector’s longstanding history of poor record-keeping, including the challenges posed by its complex workforce structure.
Payroll compliance in universities is highly complex due to the combination of intricate awards, unique enterprise agreements, and a history of poor record-keeping.
For instance, universities rely heavily on casual staff, working under often-opaque arrangements. Compensable tasks such as marking essays or tutorial attendance are governed by intricate rules or piece-rate agreements, complicating the tracking of hours and payment.
These layers of complexity create incomplete and inaccurate timesheet data, making it nearly impossible for a human to verify when employees worked and whether they were paid correctly.
And so the resulting payroll errors aren’t just mistakes – they represent a systemic failing with devastating consequences all round.
Underpaid employees face reduced morale, a loss of trust in their employers, and financial stress that often disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Menwhile, the underpaying universities risk potentially enormous fines and suffer from deep reputational damage, as has been demonstrated recently.
Worse still, is the fact that attempts at resolving these issues are also failing, because they represent nothing more than curative and labour-intensive bandaid “solutions”.
For instance, many universities, after spending millions on consultants to recalculate and backpay impacted employees, have now shifted to hiring large internal teams to manage ongoing compliance efforts.
These teams are tasked with monitoring timesheet accuracy, tracking errors, and managing ongoing remediation efforts, seemingly indefinitely, as if fixing this problem should somehow just be “business as usual”.
Yet treatments should never be “business as usual”, because this is to accept that the problem will never be resolved.
Instead, systemic problems like this one require systemic solutions that assume eliminating the problem is indeed possible.
Fixing the system, not the symptoms
For this to occur, Australia’s tertiary education sector must urgently stop outdated and cumbersome legacy practices and instead embrace preventative long-term solutions that rebuild trust, and support fair and accurate pay for all employees.
In practice, this would involve the adoption of advanced compliance tools and technologies that enable payroll teams to efficiently and accurately monitor payroll end-to-end. This allows teams to rapidly identify errors before, not after, a pay run, and drastically reduce the need for constant manual interventions.
Introducing independent oversight by risk and compliance teams will also help to reduce the risk of a “marking your own homework” approach by human resources and payroll teams, bringing a fresh perspective to compliance checks.
Regular training to keep payroll and compliance teams up to date on changes in legislation, award conditions, and enterprise agreements are also a must in industries like education where payroll practices are complex and dynamic.
And, finally, all of these processes should be consistent across all schools and faculties to avoid disparities and confusion, and reduce errors caused by varying practices.
Any university with the courage to break from centuries of backwards-looking remediation practices and instead embrace a forward-looking, technology-based approach would not only demonstrate bold and refreshing leadership.
It would also help to create enormous goodwill for a sector in desperate need of positive news and, critically, potentially save millions in the process.
Fred van er Tang is chief executive of payroll compliance technology companyPaidRight.
The Queensland University of Technology has announced more details about its independent review into last month’s controversial National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action event.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Job titles, and the names given to organisational roles, are important for the meaning that individuals derive from their work and their engagement with their work.
Yet within many UK universities, and especially the post-92s, the trend is towards new job titles with potentially negative connotations for the job holders in terms of the meaning of their work and their commitment to it and to their institution.
Such universities have been moving away from the conventional “lecturer” titles, adopting the US system of titles. US institutions typically designate their junior (un-tenured) academics as Assistant Professors, with an intermediate grade of Associate Professor and then a full Professor grade. Within the US system, most long serving and effective staff can expect to progress to full Professor by mid-career.
Yet, in this new UK system, only around 15-20 per cent of academics are (and likely ever to be) full Professors and many academics will spend their entire careers as Assistant Professors or Associate Professors, retiring with one of these diminutive job titles.
The previous, additive, job titles of Lecturer to Senior Lecturer and then to Principal Lecturer or Reader had meaning outside the university and, crucially, had meaning for the post-holders, giving a sense of achievement and pride as they progressed. Retiring as a Senior or Principal Lecturer was deemed more than acceptable.
Status and self-esteem
It is not hard to imagine the impact that the changes in job titles is having upon mid and late-career academics who may have little chance of gaining promotion to full professor, perhaps because quite simply they draw the line at working “just” 60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. The impact on status and self-esteem is immense. Imagine explaining to your grandkids that you are, in essence, an assistant to a professor. As an Associate Professor, and particularly in a vocational discipline, one of the authors is often asked, “I can understand you wanting to work part-time for a university, but what’s your main job?” Associate, affiliate, adjunct – these names are pretty much the same thing to outsiders.
Managerially, though, the change from designating academics as Senior Lecturer to Assistant Professors and from Principal Lecturers to Associate Professors is genius. These diminutive job titles confer inferiority – but with the promise that if you keep your nose to the grindstone and keep up the 60+ hour weeks, 50 weeks a year, you might be in with a chance of a decent job title, as a professor. What a fantastic, and completely friction-free, way of turning the performative screw.
The UK university sector is not alone and other public sector organisations have similarly got into a meaning muddle from the naming of their jobs. For example, in the British civil service, a key middle management role is labelled “Grade B2+”, whereas a relatively junior operational role is designated a rather grand sounding “Executive Officer”. And just last autumn, the NHS acknowledged that names do matter, abandoning the designation of “junior” doctor which was used to encompass all medics that sit within the grades below what is known as “consultant”, and which their union described as “misleading and demeaning” – it’s been replaced with “resident” doctor.
Meaningful work
A name gives meaning to workers. It gives status, prestige, and identity. While those organisations such as universities who fail to realise the importance of job titles may be able to turn the screw in the short-term, extracting ever more work from their junior-sounding Assistant and Associate Professors, they will in the longer-term, for sure, have an ever more demoralised and demotivated workforce for whom the job has little meaning other than the pay.
And, since pay for university academics in the UK has been so badly eroded in recent decades, job title conventions are a self-inflicted injury – one that risks academics’ engagement and wellbeing and, ultimately, their institutions’ performance.
The Australian higher education sector continues to evolve rapidly, with hybrid learning, non-linear education, and the current skills shortage all shaping how universities operate.
At the same time, universities are grappling with rising operational costs and decreased funding, leading to fierce competition for new enrolments.
Amidst the dynamic landscape of higher education, the student experience has become a crucial factor in attracting and retaining students.
The student experience encompasses a wide array of interactions, from how students first learn about an institution through to the enrolment process, coursework, social activities, wellbeing support and career connections. With so many student touchpoints to manage, institutions are turning to data and technology integrations to help streamline communications and improve their adaptability to change.
Enhancing institutional efficiency and effectiveness Universities face an increasingly fragmented IT landscape, with siloed data and legacy systems making it difficult to support growth ambitions and improve student experiences.
By integrating systems and data, institutions are starting to align digital and business strategies so that they can meet operational goals while providing more connected, seamless and personalised experiences for students.
One of the most effective ways universities can achieve this is by consolidating disparate systems into a cloud-based Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution, such as Salesforce.
Optimising admissions and enhancing student engagement In recent years, there have been significant fluctuations in the enrolment of higher education students for numerous reasons – Covid-19 restrictions, declining domestic student numbers, high cost of living, proposed international student caps, and volatile labour market conditions being just a few.
To better capture the attention of prospective students, institutions are now focusing on delivering more personalised and targeted engagement strategies. Integrated CRM and marketing automation is increasingly being used to attract more prospective students with tailored, well-timed communication.
Universities are also using CRM tools to support student retention and minimise attrition. According to a Forrester study, students are 15 per cent more likely to stay with an institution when Salesforce is used to provide communications, learning resources and support services.
Streamlining communication and collaboration By creating a centralised system of engagement, universities can not only support students throughout their academic journey, but also oversee their wellbeing.
For example, a leading university in Sydney has developed a system that provides a comprehensive view of students and their needs, allowing for integrated and holistic support and transforming its incident reporting and case management.
Fostering stronger alumni and industry relations Another area where CRM systems play a pivotal role is in building alumni and industry relationships. Alumni who feel valued by their university – through personalised engagement – are more likely to return when seeking upskilling, or to lend financial support.
Personalising communication to industry partners can also help strengthen relationships, potentially leading to sponsored research, grants, and donations, as well as internships and career placements.
University of Technology Sydney, for example, adopted a centralised data-led strategy for Corporate Relations to change how it works with strategic partners, significantly strengthening its partner network across the university.
Unlocking the value of data and integration
With unified data and digital technology driving personalised student interactions, university ICT departments can empower faculty and staff to exceed enrolment goals, foster lifelong student relationships and drive institutional growth.
To learn more about the strategies and technologies to maximise institutional business value, download the white paper.
