This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Pomona College is considering acquiringClaremont Graduate University after initiating confidential talks in late spring and entering exclusive talks in December.
The private nonprofit institutions, in California, announced their discussions last week andinvited their communities to weigh in. They expect to negotiate a definitive agreement over the next six months.
CGU has been exploring teaming up with another institution for over a year. On an FAQ page, the university says it is seeking “a mission-aligned partner that values graduate education and can support CGU’s transformation in response to financial, demographic, and technological change.”
Dive Insight:
Pomona and CGU’s agreement to exclusively discuss a transaction is nonbinding, meaning either can walk away from the talks at any point. For its part, CGU said that if it determines that “a partnership is not in its best interest or cannot be structured appropriately, the partnership will not proceed.”
Although they are still negotiating a detailed agreement, CGU wants a deal that would preserve its “name, mission, graduate identity, and academic autonomy.” The university also said that a transaction would neither result in a single institution nor would its students receive degrees from Pomona.
Pomona is an undergraduate liberal arts college offering just under 50 bachelor’s programs in the arts, humanities, natural sciences and social sciences, while CGU offers master’s, doctoral and certificate programs in a wide range of liberal arts and professional areas.
On the table is a deal that would turn CGU into a legal subsidiary of Pomona. This would not mean, according to CGU, that Pomona would subsidize its operations. Rather, Pomona would provide strategic guidance while helping it explore options for new financial models, investment management and additional revenue.
“CGU and Pomona would remain distinct institutions with separate admissions, academic programs, faculty, and degrees,” CGU said on its FAQ page. “Each school would continue to serve its own students and maintain its own educational mission.”
Likewise, Pomona President Gabrielle Starr said in a statement Thursday that “Pomona’s liberal arts undergraduate mission must and will not be turned aside by any agreement with CGU.”
Both institutions are part of the Claremont Colleges consortium, a century-old collaboration among seven independent institutions with adjoining campuses in southern California. It aims to provide “university-scale services and facilities” while individual institutions maintain the small liberal arts college experience, according to its website.
In entering talks with CGU, Pomona’s board considered “whether this partnership may, in fact, be essential to protecting and preserving the Consortium,” Starr said. Specifically, the college said in an FAQ that having a role in shaping CGU’s future could ensure the stability of the consortium, whereas an outsider partnering with CGU might not have the same interests in the coalition.
A partnership could also create new graduate pathways for Pomona’s students, the college said in the FAQ.
The two institutions have similarly sized student bodies, though they’re on different trajectories. Pomona’s fall headcount in 2023 stood at 1,664, up 5.8% from five years prior. CGU had 1,763 students in fall 2023, a decline of 6.3% from 2018.
Pomona also has more financial resources, with $3.9 billion in total assets and $424.6 million in liabilities in fiscal 2024 compared to CGU’s $347.4 million in assets and $57.2 million in liabilities.
Just under two years ago, CGU, facing an operating deficit, formed a committee to look at new institutional models to ensure its sustainability. Last July, it hired a consultancy, Tyton Partners, which specializes in transactions and partnerships in the education sector. In the early months of this year, the institution reached out to over 100 possible partners and invited them to provide written interest.
CGU narrowed the list of prospects down to about a dozen and sought formal indications of interest. It eventually landed on Pomona to hold exclusive talks about a transaction.
“This would not be a bailout or merger,” CGU Interim President Michelle Bligh said in a public message Thursday, describing instead a “true alliance” and “opportunity to co-create a new model of graduate education for the 21st century.”
This podcast examines the financial health and long-term viability of public and private colleges, drawing on data, institutional financials, and perspectives rarely centered in mainstream higher education coverage.
This week’s discussion highlights a wave of layoffs, program cuts, and institutional retrenchment across the sector. Stories include colleges eliminating dozens of “low-producing” academic programs, campuses experiencing sustained enrollment decline, and institutions emerging from—or newly entering—financial and accreditation probation after deep budget cuts.
Several cases illustrate how financial stress reshapes academic life: colleges cutting entire majors such as economics and physics, institutions laying off staff as part of resource “shifts,” and campuses operating without core infrastructure—such as libraries—for years. The episode also addresses abrupt closures, including bankruptcies that disrupt students and anger alumni, reinforcing warnings that delayed action often increases harm.
At a policy level, the podcast notes signs of structural adjustment in higher education, including Colorado Governor Jared Polis’s proposal to merge the state’s higher education and labor departments—an acknowledgment of the growing alignment between workforce policy and postsecondary education.
Overall, the episode argues that college bankruptcies are coming, not as isolated failures but as predictable outcomes of demographic decline, financial mismanagement, and delayed decision-making. It closes by pointing listeners to The College Viability Manifesto, which calls for earlier, more transparent intervention to reduce damage to students, workers, and communities.
Well, it’s nearly the end of the year, and this is the final higher education postcard of 2025. And as is traditional, this is a bit of a Christmassy edition.
But when exactly is Christmas? We can imagine that record keeping 2,000 years ago was not as punctilious as the demands of today’s HESA return, and so the question of the precise date of Christmas is a good one. It was fixed as being 25 December by Pope Julius I, who was particularly pontifical between the years 337 and 352.
As well as fixing the date of Christmas, Julius weighed in on the Arian controversy. Arianism, named for Arius, a Christian clergyman from what is now Libya, held that Jesus was created by God and is thus distinct from God. Which is somewhat at odds with the notion of the trinity (the oneness of God, son and holy spirit) which was part of the Nicene creed. And which in turn was the start of a more managed approach to religious doctrine by the Christian church and the Roman empire. (Don’t worry, there’s not a test).
Julius was thus a defender of the Trinity, and so it is to a Trinity that we turn. Specifically, Trinity College, Oxford.
This was founded by another Pope. Sir Thomas Pope, one of Queen Mary’s privy counsellors. In 1555.
The idea was to provide for the training of Catholic clergy. It used buildings which had previously been occupied by Durham College, Oxford – which you may not have heard of, because it was founded in 1291 and closed in 1545. It was owned by Durham Priory, and abbey associated with Durham Cathedral, and served as a college for monks studying at the university. Durham Priory was dissolved in 1540 and the college followed suit five years later.
Durham College was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, St Cuthbert, and the Holy Trinity, and it is suggested that the new college was called Trinity College to reflect the last of these.
Anyway, the new college was established, and used some of the Durham College buildings, which still stand today. Although, sad to say, I think that they are hidden in the picture postcard, extending perpendicularly from the other side of the ivy clad building on the left. I think.
The college thrived in a way which its predecessor didn’t. In 1882 the college admitted men of all faiths and none, removing its CofE test. In 1979 it did the same but for women.
A few snippets will help to give a flavour of Trinity.
In 1618 the president of the college, Ralph Kettell, was concerned about students drinking in town. His plan: to brew beer in college instead. This sounds good in principle, but the plan backfired when the cellar he was having dug for the purpose caused the college’s hall to collapse.
Saint John Henry Newman, at the time plain John Henry Newman, was a student at the college, and made his first Anglican communion there. He was also, many years later, the first honorary fellow of the college, and this gesture – which aimed for reconciliation between the university and the future saint – was much appreciated by Newman.
Oxford colleges’ academic performance is ranked in the Norrington table. Norrington was Sir Arthur Norrington, President of Trinity from 1954–69. And the University has a nifty little Tableau presentation, which might appeal to certain wonks frequenting these parts.
Alumni include three former Prime Ministers – Pitt the Elder, Lord North, and Spencer Compton (who I had never heard of), and two splendid fictional characters: Jay Gatsby and Tiger Tanaka, the Japanese spymaster in You Only Live Twice.
The card above was unposted, but the card with the college arms was sent in 1905 to a Miss Jones in Weybridge. As best as I can make out, it reads:
Still alive, but not much thinking going on. When do you contemplate sailing and how do you think we are going to be consoled for the loss? Have not sent you many of these Pcards, they will come along slowly. I have been up again this week, feel tired of everything, today may have better time later. Kind regards etc
May I wish you all the best for the Christmas break, whether you’re with family, working all the way through, or just trying to escape from it all. Thank you for reading my posts, and I’ll be back in the new year.
In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on state-authorized sports betting, opening the floodgates to an industry that dumps billions of dollars into state budgets. According to the American Gaming Association, Americans wagered $119.84 billion on sports events in 2023, up 27.5 percent from the previous year. Professional leagues attract the highest betting volumes, but gambling in college sports is growing, according to Jim Borchers, president and CEO of the U.S. Council on Athletes’ Health (USCAH) and chief medical officer for the Big 10 Conference.
Digital platforms, gamification and prop betting are driving this boom, he says. A former Ohio State football player, Borchers argues the influx in gambling threatens the integrity of college sports and risks athletes’ mental and emotional health. Name, image and likeness payments, combined with media revenue-sharing, contribute to a new reality for college sports that is more transactional than ever, with huge sums of money flowing in and out.
To help students and institutions respond to the new environment, USCAH developed an accreditation process mapped to the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s best practices and standards of care. USCAH launched the program in September and is already working with 40 institutions at every level of college athletics from the power four conferences (the Big 10, SEC, Big 12 and ACC) to Division III institutions.
Gambling is now an integral part of college athletics, Borchers acknowledges, but he is hopeful the new accreditation system will guarantee that student athletes’ health isn’t lost along the way.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: In 2018, the Supreme Court ended the federal ban on sports gambling. From your vantage point, how has that changed gambling in college athletics?
A: It’s been in the back rooms and dark corners, but I think gambling always existed, and there was always a concern around integrity in sport. But in the last five to seven years, gambling has exploded, and it’s really become part of the fabric of sport, so much so that many people consider it like a video game. It’s so easy make a wager on so many different things in sport. And it seems like it’s just a normal part of what goes on. So the technology piece of it—the predictive markets, the prop bets, the things that go beyond “is Team A going to beat Team B by a certain number of points?”—have a huge effect on the individual and that’s something that we have to take into account when we think about how this affects sport.
Jim Borchers, president and CEO of the U.S. Council on Athletes’ Health and chief medical officer for the Big 10 Conference
Q: Prop betting is where gambling gets more sophisticated, but also a bit wacky. How does prop betting, in particular, affect athletes?
A: It gets really wacky because you’re betting on things that individuals may or may not do, or things that you would expect them to do in real time during the course of a game. I’ve explained it to people as: If you play a team sport and the overall objective is to play well and have your team win, you can have a good outcome. You and your coach could feel like you played pretty well. But if you didn’t meet these prop bets, all of a sudden you start seeing negativity around the way you performed, and you start thinking, “Wait, am I really doing what I should be doing?”
How does that affect someone who’s 18 or 20 years old? It creates a whole outside amount of stress that obviously can become pretty specific for the individual. It can be very harassing. It can be malignant. It can be damaging. And I think that’s where you’ve seen a lot of the movement to try to get prop bets and predictive markets out of the sport betting market. But I just don’t think that’s realistic. The train has left the station, and we need to think of different ways to address it.
Q: Especially because these betting companies buy TV ads during the games. Gambling is totally integrated in the college sport business. There’s just no way that you can separate them.
A: And their number one market is males, ages 18 to 24. They give you free bets. They’re trying to create habits. Gambling, in and of itself, can be a very addictive and malignant behavior and lead to all sorts of health issues and personal issues. But there are a lot of people who don’t think anything of, “Yeah, I’ll take 20 bucks and make a few bets and see if I can hit something this weekend.” I think they see that as part of the fun of sport, rather than being invested in the sport or the game itself.
Q: Give me some examples of the impact you’ve seen gambling have on student athletes.
A: This whole financial marketplace now exists in college athletics—even high school athletics now has NIL payments—and so sport as a financial vehicle is growing, and these markets are growing, and that causes them stress. Young athletes are developing physically and mentally. Do we expect them to have a skill set to manage that financial stress like an adult, or the experiences and the ability to develop that skill set? I think it is misguided.
You add into that the pressure of outside influences who now have their own financial market where they’re making these bets and providing those bets. And they can make comments to that person directly either on social media or direct messaging. It’s easy for me as a 55-year-old to say, “I’ll just turn my phone off,” but that’s not how these folks operate. It impacts their mental and emotional health, and that impacts their performance. We know athletes have to be physically, mentally and emotionally well to perform at their best.
Q: You mentioned that these betting agencies are focusing on 18- to 24-year-old men, and I would take a guess that most of the games they’re betting on are football and men’s basketball. Is there enough discussion about this being an issue for males in particular?
A: I don’t think there’s enough discussion at all, because the focus gets drawn away from the actual event. The other piece of it is, oftentimes, it’s peer groups that are engaging in these behaviors. It’s people that athletes see on campus or in their classes. It’s led to more isolation and more silos. College athletes feel like they have to wall themselves off from all of those parts of the college experience that are important to the overall development of a young adult.
Look, higher education serves a lot of roles. There’s a knowledge base and building a foundation in a field of study. But there’s developing as a young adult through social interactions—being on your own for the first time and learning to engage in the community and interact with people with similar beliefs or maybe different beliefs. I think you’re seeing athletes become more isolated and unable to participate in that. In some way it’s stunting their development, and they leave college then, as young adults, without having had a lot of those experiences.
Q: Division I sports and the big four conferences are where we see big sums of NIL payments and revenue sharing. Is gambling concentrated in those areas of college sport too?
A: Gambling is universal. There’s a marketplace for everything. With the recent NCAA basketball issue you saw how it seeps down into schools, where people would have thought, wow, really, people are betting on these events? It’s misguided to think this is only happening at the highest level of sport. And I think it’s misguided to think that athletes themselves aren’t invested in it and doing it.
Q: I even read a story about a bus driver who saw an athlete was limping and then capitalized on that.
A: Yeah, information and the ability to gain information is key. You’re seeing people go to all sorts of lengths to try to find out information. And that introduces a whole different set of malignant consequences to that part of this industry. They’re trying to find out information from the individuals: people that are working with the medical staffs, as you mentioned, a bus driver. Are you a food services person? Are you doing something with athletes where you’re able to garner some information and pass that information off? And then there are the athletes themselves. If they are being approached for information and maybe think, “Well, I’m just giving an injury update on someone,” but they don’t realize the effect that’s having in the larger environment around wagering and sport.
Q: To your point about integrity earlier, the amount of money in college athletics points to a greater question around the integrity of college athletics as a whole. Where is this all going?
A: To me, it’s asking, “What is the purpose of sport?” Is sport, and your ability to participate in a sport and be good in sport, a financial vehicle? And if it is, what role does it play in education-based athletics? In the United States, sport is so much a part of what the community is and how people identify with an institution. But the financial markets are creating a transactional nature to it. I think most college athletes just want sport to continue to be part of their college experience, because it’s what they’ve known. They want to go to school, have a peer group and play a sport they enjoy. When it becomes a financial vehicle, there’s a whole different aspect to sport because now your efforts and what you’re doing in sport are objectively equated with a dollar amount.
And how do we reconcile those two? It’s really challenging. Now that you have athletes in college making seven figures, they’re probably the financial engine for their families. Their purpose and why they’re there has changed. Not that sport hasn’t always been a big part of the collegiate experience, but if you’re paying somebody a million dollars or $500,000 to participate in sport, I don’t think they’re going to have much focus on any of the other reasons why they’re in college.
Q: From my conversations with university leaders, it’s clear they’re not happy about how much money is flowing through athletics. But here we are. What can colleges do?
A: Our most recent initiative is accreditation for athletic departments on health, safety and well-being. The other reality is I don’t know that athletic departments are complex enough to handle those and all the issues around the financial part of the business. Now there’s a whole different risk profile to sport when people are making this kind of money. I think you’re going to see more lawsuits because there’s going to be lost wages or an inability to earn income.
We have to acknowledge that and then be very transparent about what the expectations are when people come to sport. As much as we want to say college athletics is still a relationship-driven industry where parents and their kids made an investment in going to school to play sport because they built great relationships with coaches or felt great about the institution, we’ve now allowed this transactional nature to take place. There are representatives, agents and other influences in college athletics. We have to allow it to be part of what we’re talking about every day, and thinking about as an athletic department or an institution. Unless you think of it that way, you’ll have outcomes that you’re just not prepared for.
Q: Where did the accreditation standards come from?
A: A group of higher education leaders asked the U.S. Council for Athletes’ Health about 18 months ago to develop an accreditation program that shows institutions are meeting best practices and standards of care based on the NCAA roadmap. We met with legal and education experts and have developed a program that focuses on ongoing self-study and assessment and education. It’s a four-year process. We’ve met with the NCAA and they acknowledge that it meets their best practice standards. We feel like accreditation is a step in the right direction because it’s something people in education understand—this is a four-year cycle, we educate people every year on these topics, we do a self-study every year, and once every four years, we do a more comprehensive self-study with an audit or an evaluation from the accrediting body, where we share our information and get feedback.
Q: For academic accreditation, you either get access to Title IV funding or you don’t. Is there an incentive for what you’re talking about here?
A: The incentive, in my opinion, is the risk and liability that exists if you’re not doing this. Because as somebody who sits in as an expert in cases, when there are unwanted outcomes, it’s the system failure that is the biggest issue. And it’s a reputational harm. I tell people all the time—you drop your child off at a daycare for eight hours a day. Would you drop your child off with coaches or with other people that aren’t going to meet best practices? It’s a process that you should be invested in and, if you choose not to be invested in it, that says something about what you’re doing.
Digital advertising in higher education recruitment: 2020–2024 trends and student perspectives
Colleges are still trying to catch up to the digital expectations of students.
Today’s college search usually begins with a scroll. Students meet their future alma mater while still in pajamas, thumb hovering over TikTok dorm tours, YouTube “day-in-the-life” videos, and Instagram stories showing everything from campus squirrels to club fairs.
While most college marketers recognize the importance of meeting students in digital spaces, data show that many institutions are still catching up to student behavior.
Nearly two-thirds of students use Instagram daily, yet only about half report seeing college content in their feeds, according to the 2025 E-Expectations Trend Report. That gap, between where students spend their time and where colleges spend their dollars, tells the real story.
Here are several other significant places where student behavior and institutional strategies do not align:
Students live on TikTok and YouTube, but institutions continue to invest more heavily in Facebook and Instagram.
Retargeting and program-specific ads perform best because they feel relevant, yet many colleges default to broad brand campaigns.
Search and AI-driven summaries are now leading sources of inquiry traffic, but SEO remains underfunded or outdated.
Today, nearly every institution had allocated a budget to digital channels, including search ads, Instagram, Facebook, display ads, YouTube, and more (according to our 2025 survey of marketing and recruitment practices). But sending dollars into platforms without a data-backed strategy is a recipe for low return.
Channel usage and effectiveness
The first step toward a smarter strategy is aligning digital investments with students’ stages of college planning. Timing matters.
9th graders are dreamers; they are just beginning to imagine college. This is the moment for creative, curiosity-driven content on TikTok and other emerging platforms.
10th graders start exploring and comparing. Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), and BeReal are gaining influence as they seek authentic glimpses of campus life.
11th and 12th graders shift into decision mode. They are more likely to engage with YouTube, Instagram, and even Facebook, the places where institutions focus most on deadlines, financial aid, and event promotions.
Let’s examine how college and student perspectives align, and where they diverge. This table shows the usage and effectiveness of recruitment practices by recruitment professionals (taken from the 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report). The last column shows the student perspective as captured by the 2025 E-Expectations Report.
Channel
Usage by Colleges
Effectiveness
Student Perspective
Instagram
Private: 93% Public: 87% Two-Year: 86%
Private: 94% Public: 90% Two-Year: 100%
63% of users use Instagram daily, but only 53% view college content.
Facebook
Private: 81% Public: 89% Two-Year: 85%
Private: 77% Public: 76% Two-Year: 100%
Still visible, but less influential than Instagram or TikTok.
YouTube
Private: 81% Public: 66% Two-Year: 57%
Private: 79% Public: 86% Two-Year: 100%
Campus vlogs and videos help students picture themselves there.
TikTok
Private: 60% Public: 35% Two-Year: 71%
Private: 82% Public: 74% Two-Year: 80%
One of the most influential platforms for discovery and decision-making.
Display Ads
Private: 94% Public: 77% Two-Year: 86%
Private: 90% Public: 97% Two-Year: 100%
Students often click Google ads when researching programs.
Retargeting
Private: 86% Public: 69% Two-Year: 80%
Private: 98% Public: 86% Two-Year: 94%
Highly effective when personalized, reminders drive action.
Takeaway: To reach students where they truly live online, colleges must rebalance their media mix toward video-rich, mobile-first channels and strengthen SEO to connect organically within search and AI summaries.
Messaging strategies that move students
Ask any university marketing team what they promote and you will hear familiar answers: brand identity, application deadlines, campus events, student stories, program highlights. All important, but not all equally effective.
Students tell us that the ads that stick are the ones that feel authentic and actionable. They click when they see a major they are interested in. They re-engage when retargeted about unfinished applications. They respond when the tone feels genuine, not corporate.
Breaking through the stream of memes, influencers, and viral videos requires messaging that is personal and specific, not just polished.
Messaging Strategy
Usage by Colleges
Effectiveness
Student Perspective
Application Deadlines
Private: 98% Public: 92% Two-Year: 85%
Private: 94% Public: 93% Two-Year: 100%
Clear calls-to-action work. Deadline ads drive clicks and completions.
Brand Messaging
Private: 98% Public: 95% Two-Year: 86%
Private: 94% Public: 94% Two-Year: 100%
Generic brand ads rarely move the needle; authenticity wins.
Event Promotions
Private: 94% Public: 86% Two-Year: 86%
Private: 96% Public: 97% Two-Year: 100%
Virtual tours and admitted-student events generate strong engagement.
Student/Alumni Stories
Private: 81% Public: 83% Two-Year: 57%
Private: 95% Public: 93% Two-Year: 100%
“Show me real people.” Authentic voices and outcomes persuade.
Program-Specific Ads
Private: 87% Public: 89% Two-Year: 57%
Private: 95% Public: 100% Two-Year: 75%
Students want details about majors, careers, and outcomes.
Bottom line: High-level brand awareness campaigns rarely convert. The content that wins is personal, timely, and anchored in real stories and next steps.
The big picture
So what does this all mean for your digital strategy? The short version: ads work best when they meet students where they are, in their social feeds, with content that feels personal, genuine, and video-forward.
Here is how to make that happen:
Invest where students spend time: TikTok, YouTube, and optimized search.
Fix underperforming channels: Strengthen Instagram with better creative and stage-specific targeting.
Use personalization and retargeting: Move students from “just browsing” to “taking action.”
Tell real stories: Highlight authentic student voices and tangible outcomes, not just taglines.
Students now research colleges the same way they manage the rest of their digital lives; they discover, compare, and decide while scrolling. A TikTok video might spark curiosity, a YouTube vlog might help them imagine themselves on campus, and a retargeted ad might push them to finally hit “apply.”
They are already making college decisions mid-scroll. To earn their attention and their trust, colleges must meet them there, with relevance, immediacy, and authenticity.
Ultimately, it is not about clicks for the sake of clicks. It is about connection, belonging, and the digital moments that turn curiosity into commitment.
Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts
RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges. Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:
Where do you start as you are creating a student retention plan? The answer is with data. Simply put, data are the lifeblood of successful student recruitment and retention efforts. You cannot possibly hope to maximize enrollment yields and student completion rates without strong data analysis and planning. The following five steps illustrate how to achieve a robust, data-informed approach to retention.
1. Make data the foundation for decision-making.
It sounds simple, yet we know that many campuses do not rely on data to guide strategies. Often “conventional wisdom” or “that’s the way we’ve always done it” override any actual research or data. Those types of processes are very flawed for crafting enrollment strategies, especially given the rapid changes that are reshaping the higher education environment.
2. Collect all the data that are relevant to student success.
Data are the lifeblood to successful student recruitment and retention efforts
In discussing student retention, first-to-second year persistence and overall completion/graduation rates are useful metrics. However, they are lagging indicators gathered only after it is too late to intervene with students and do not provide a complete picture of persistence patterns. There are many data elements that can help not only provide a more accurate assessment of retention at your campus, but also allow you to intervene with students in a more timely fashion such as:
Student motivation data. How do students feel about attending college? What are their attitudes toward studying? What family and/or social factors could interfere with their success? Motivational data can go a long way toward focusing your student retention initiatives, especially when gathered as students first enroll at your institution. (Learn more about the motivational assessment tools that are available to support your efforts).
Credit hours attempted versus credit hours earned. This ratio is very revealing as it demonstrates if students are succeeding in their educational plans before reaching the critical juncture of withdrawing. These data can be especially helpful during a student’s first and second semesters.
Student satisfaction and priorities assessment. When students are not satisfied, they become less likely to persist. Improving their satisfaction improves the quality of their life and learning. When satisfaction is viewed within the context of importance (priorities), the data allows you to better understand which satisfaction issues are more pressing and in need of immediate attention. (Take a look at the satisfaction-priorities surveys options).
Common characteristics in student retention. Do students who persist or withdraw share common characteristics? Are there indicators of student success or red flags for persistence that would help you quickly understand which students you should target? (Contact me if you would like to learn more about data analytics options for retention guidance).
Institutional barriers to student success. Similar to student characteristics, are there certain factors across campus that may hinder persistence and completion? Conducting an opportunity analysis with an outside perspective can help you identify places where you could make improvements.
3. Understand what the data are telling you
Once you have made a commitment to collect the data and have gathered what you need to inform your decisions, you may ask yourself, “Now what?” This is your turning point for using data to improve student retention. You have to know what the data say about student persistence. Are there patterns to observe? Do you know which students or cohorts to prioritize? Which resources are having the greatest impact on student success? This is admittedly one of the more difficult tasks in data-informed retention planning and one where experience can make a big difference. However, once you successfully analyze your data, your retention efforts have the potential to improve!
4. Take action based on the data
Here we close the loop with steps one and two. Now that you are informed by data, you can build retention initiatives on solid information. You will be able to focus your limited resources more strategically on the students who need the most help and/or are the most receptive to assistance. You will be able to direct your attention to improving areas that matter to students. You will be able to be proactive based on the knowledge of characteristics of successful (and less successful) students. The power of data comes when your institution takes action based on what it has learned about your students.
5. Use what you know about retention to guide recruitment
There is a tendency to look at student recruitment and retention as two unrelated silos. But one of the biggest factors in student retention is the shape of the incoming class. It is vital for campuses, when recruiting, to extend their concept of the funnel past the initial enrollment state and through the career of the student. By determining which students not only have the desired characteristics you want, but also the best chance to persist and success, your entire campus benefits.
Are you curious about how institutional choice plays into student satisfaction (the idea that students have enrolled in the college they want to attend), along with importance factors in the decision to originally enroll and how satisfied students are with financial aid? (All of these are links between recruitment and retention efforts). If yes, I invite you to download the 2025 National College Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report.
If you are looking for support with data collection, data analytics and/or understanding what opportunities exist for your campus in the area of student success, contact me to learn more.
Thanks to my former colleague Tim Culver for the original development of this content.
Senior year is not just another academic milestone. It is the moment when everything you have done so far must come together in a clear, credible way. Colleges are no longer evaluating potential alone—they are evaluating readiness, follow-through, and direction.
At this point, small choices matter more than big promises. Admissions officers want to understand how you think, how you respond to pressure, and how you make decisions under time constraints. That is why senior-year applications are less about adding more and more and more about refining what already exists.
For students in San Diego and across Southern California, this often means balancing demanding school schedules with extracurricular commitments, part-time work, family responsibilities, and competitive peer environments. The students who stand out are not the busiest—they are the most intentional.
The goal now is clarity. A clear story. A clear plan. And a clear sense of who you are becoming as you step into college.
Choosing colleges with strategy, not stress
One of the fastest ways seniors lose confidence is by building a college list that creates pressure instead of momentum. A strong list should help you move forward, not leave you stuck second-guessing every decision.
At this stage, your list should reflect three things:
Schools where your academic profile aligns realistically
Programs that make sense for your interests and strengths
Deadlines and requirements you can manage without rushing
Southern California students often apply to a mix of UC, CSU, and private universities, each with very different expectations. Treating them all the same is a mistake. Each application type requires its own approach, timeline, and level of detail.
Instead of asking, “Is this school impressive?” ask:
Can I clearly explain why this school is a good fit for me?
Do I have sufficient time to complete this application?
Would I be excited to attend if admitted?
When your list is built around fit and feasibility, your writing improves, your stress drops, and your applications feel more confident.
Making your activities work harder for you
Many seniors underestimate the power of the activities section. This is where colleges learn how you spend your time when no one is grading you.
You do not need to hold formal titles or run large organizations. What matters is how you show responsibility, initiative, and growth. Admissions readers are trained to look for substance, not labels.
Strong activity descriptions focus on:
Jobs, family responsibilities, long-term commitments, and community involvement are significant for students in diverse regions like San Diego. Supporting a family business, caring for siblings, or working long hours during the school year can demonstrate maturity and time management when clearly explained.
Senior year involvement still counts. Colleges recognize that leadership may emerge late, especially when students assume larger roles as others graduate. What matters is honesty and impact, not length alone.
Writing essays that sound like a real person
The best essays do not sound impressive—they sound true. Admissions officers read thousands of polished essays every year. What catches their attention is a voice that feels genuine and self-aware.
When deadlines are close, the most effective essays usually:
Focus on a specific moment instead of a broad theme
Show thinking, not just events
Reveal growth without spelling it out
End with forward motion
Avoid trying to cover your entire life story. One meaningful experience, explored thoughtfully, does more work than a long list of accomplishments. If a reader can understand how you think, they can imagine you on their campus.
Supplemental essays become easier when you stop treating each one as brand new. Build strong core responses about your interests, goals, and values, then adjust them to reflect each school’s programs and culture. This keeps your writing consistent and saves time without sounding repetitive.
Staying organized when everything is happening at once
Strong applications are rarely the result of last-minute effort. They are the result of systems that keep things moving even when life gets busy.
Successful seniors usually have:
One master list of deadlines
Clear weekly goals
Draft versions saved and labeled
Recommendation plans set early
Teacher recommendations deserve special care. Choose teachers who know how you think, not just how you perform. Provide context on your goals and remind them of projects or moments that reflect your strengths. This helps them write in greater detail rather than offer general praise.
Build in buffer time. Submitting early protects you from technical issues and gives you space to review your work with fresh eyes. Calm, organized applicants submit stronger applications—it really is that simple.
How expert guidance supports seniors at the most critical stage
The proper support does not replace your voice or take over your work. It sharpens your thinking, improves your clarity, and helps you avoid common mistakes that cost time and confidence.
For seniors, practical guidance focuses on:
Refining college lists with realism and purpose
Structuring essays without flattening personality
Translating activities into meaningful impact
Managing deadlines and expectations
Preparing for interviews and next steps
In competitive regions like Southern California, many students are academically strong. What separates successful applicants is not intelligence alone, but how well their story is communicated.
Senior year is demanding, but it is also an opportunity. With the proper structure and support, it becomes a focused push rather than a stressful scramble—and the applications you submit will reflect that.
About 40 percent of students participate in work-based learning, but access to such programs is not equitable.
Phynart Studio/Getty Images
A new report found that only one in five California college students were fully satisfied with the career guidance they received, with many saying the help often arrived too late.
The data, released by California Competes, comes as more than 80 percent of first-year college students say obtaining a better job is a very important reason they enrolled in college.
“There’s a real opportunity for higher ed to do better because students want more and there’s a lot of room for improvement,” said Su Jin Jez, chief executive officer of California Competes, a nonpartisan organization focused on research and policy to improve the state’s higher education and workforce development.
“It’s really critical, particularly as more first generation students, more low income students, and more students of color are going to college,” Jez said. “These students are more likely to not have professional networks in their homes and in their families, so they really need guidance from higher ed.”
The research, conducted in collaboration with the College Futures Foundation and Strada Education Foundation, analyzed data from more than 5,000 California college students and recent graduates who responded to the 2023 Strada-College Pulse survey, which examined employment outcomes, student access to quality coaching and work-based learning, and the alignment between postsecondary education and state job requirements.
By examining students’ experiences with career guidance and work-based learning, as well as their early career outcomes, the report found that many lack sufficient preparation for meaningful employment.
The research identified opportunities to strengthen college-to-career pathways and boost economic mobility.
Career Pathways Guidance
About 60 percent of students reported receiving some form of career guidance, and 50 percent said they received information about potential earnings in careers related to their academic programs before the end of their first year.
But only 20 percent reported feeling very satisfied with the career guidance they received.
When asked where they got their career advice, 66 percent said they received it from college faculty and staff, followed by 59 percent who said they relied on family and friends.
“Higher ed makes a lot of sense to be the ones to provide career guidance because they know better than other entities what skills students are learning,” Jez said. “They can help them connect to employers, particularly alumni networks, which are really powerful connectors.”
Work-Based Learning
About 40 percent of near-graduates participated in work-based learning, with internships being the most common type.
The report found that internship participation was associated with better early career outcomes for students, greater satisfaction with their education, and a stronger sense of return on their investment, compared with those who did not intern.
But access to work-based learning remains inequitable, with 50 percent reporting that course loads were too heavy and 48 percent saying they were uncertain about how to find opportunities.
“Colleges should integrate work-based learning into their programs of study, into majors, so that it becomes a real pathway and not just a privilege,” Jez said.
“It makes their heavy course load issue not as critical,” Jez said. “And then, similarly, it takes the burden off of students to find the internship because the university will have already identified the internships that make sense for the students based on their major.”
“They approach employers and think together about where a work-based learning opportunity fits well into their programs because it’s not something that has to be unique to every campus,” Jez said, adding that colleges collaborating on such efforts helps streamline the process for employers who are often approached by multiple institutions.
“Huge kudos to them for tackling this work that’s hard on your own, but even more challenging to do collaboratively,” Jez said.
Early Career Outcomes
The report also found that less than half of recent graduates are highly satisfied with their first job or their career progress.
“This is not a new issue, but I do think that just because it’s not new doesn’t make it not problematic,” Jez said. “I would love for higher ed institutions to really think about this early on.”
She noted that colleges should consider students’ early career outcomes even before they matriculate.
“I think a lot of people will say that higher ed isn’t vocational,” Jez said. “[But] it is the reason why people are going to college today and it has to help students make good transitions into work.”
Jez highlighted California’s recent establishment of the California Education Interagency Council, a statewide coordinating body aimed at breaking down silos between higher education and workforce development efforts.
“This is something we’ve advocated for,” Jez said, adding that the council will help set a strategic plan and address cross-sector issues.
“If we’re serious about strengthening the value of higher education, the first step is listening to students’ needs,” Jez said. “They know what they need and they know the struggle they’ve had.”
Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.
An investigation cleared Pines of academic misconduct.
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Maryland College Park President Darryll Pines did not commit academic misconduct, an investigation determined, clearing him of plagiarism allegations that emerged last September.
A joint investigation that involved both the campus and the University System of Maryland but was led by an outside law firm “found no evidence of misconduct on the part of President Pines,” according to an emailed announcement from College Park and system officials sent on Friday.
Last fall, Pines was accused of lifting 1,500 words from a tutorial website for a 5,000-word paper that he co-authored in 2002, and of later reusing that same text for a 2006 publication, according to the initial allegations against him that first broke in The Daily Wire, a conservative website.
Pines disputed the claims from the start, stating that they had no merit.
However, Joshua Altmann, who wrote the text that Pines was accused of lifting, told Inside Higher Ed last year that “I do consider it to be plagiarism, and not worthy of an academic.”
The investigation, which concluded after more than a year, included three rounds of external reviews and was extended to other articles Pines wrote. While it found no evidence of misconduct, investigators noted attribution errors in some works.
“The committee did determine that the two works highlighted last year contained select portions of text previously published by another author in the introductory sections. In a separate text, a discrepancy in assignment of authorship was made. However, President Pines was not found responsible for the inclusion of such text in any of the three works, nor was he found responsible for scholarly misconduct of any kind,” College Park and system officials announced last week.
Officials also expressed confidence in Pines’s leadership going forward.
If you’ve been scrolling “best colleges” lists and feeling more stressed than inspired, you’re not doing it wrong—you’re just starting in a place that’s designed to overwhelm you. Rankings can be interesting later, but they’re not a significant first step because they’re not personal. Your best match is the school that fits your life, learning style, and goals.
Begin with a short list of non-negotiables. Think of these as the filters that keep you from wasting time on campuses that look impressive but don’t actually work for you.
Here are common non-negotiables to choose from:
Distance from home: Staying in San Diego, somewhere in California, or open to out of state
Setting: big city, beach town, suburb, college town, rural
Campus size: small and intimate vs large and energetic
Budget range: realistic yearly cost after aid, not sticker price
Academic direction: undecided, specific major, pre-health, engineering, arts
Support needs: tutoring, advising, mental health resources, disability services
Culture: social scene, Greek life presence, faith-based options, commuter-friendly
San Diego students often have a unique set of priorities—maybe you want to stay close to family, keep a part-time job, or find a campus that feels similar to the Southern California vibe. That’s not “limiting yourself.” That’s being strategic.
Once you have your non-negotiables, add 3–5 “nice to haves.” Examples: study abroad strength, ocean access, strong internships in LA, guaranteed housing, smaller class sizes, or a campus with a big sports atmosphere.
Your goal in this step is clarity. When you know what you need, the search gets calmer because you’re not trying to make every college work.
Build a balanced list with a simple three-bucket system
A lot of stress comes from an unbalanced list—either everything feels like a reach, or everything feels too safe, or you have 25 schools and no idea how to narrow it. A better approach is a list that’s intentionally built to give you strong options no matter what.
Use a three-bucket system:
Likely: you’re confidently in range for admission, and you’d genuinely attend
Target: you’re competitive, and it’s a realistic match
Reach: admission is more selective or unpredictable, but it’s still worth a shot
Try this ratio for a first draft:
3–4 likely
4–6 target
2–3 reach
If you’re applying in California, remember that some schools can be unpredictable even for strong students. That’s normal. The point of a balanced list is that you’re not placing your entire future on a few outcomes.
To keep this step grounded, base your buckets on real indicators:
Recent admitted student averages (GPA ranges, course rigor, test policy if relevant)
Major-specific selectivity (some programs are more challenging to get into than the school overall)
Your transcript strength over time (upward trends matter)
Then add one more filter: Would I actually be excited to attend if it’s the only option I get? If the answer is no, it doesn’t belong on the list.
Research like a detective: look for proof, not vibes
College marketing is excellent at making every campus feel perfect. Your job is to look for evidence that a school will support the life you want.
Think of research in three layers:
1: the basics
Majors and concentrations
Typical class sizes in your intended department
First-year requirements and flexibility to change majors
Housing policies and meal plans
Cost and financial aid clarity
2: the student experience
Clubs and communities related to your interests
Support programs (first gen, transfer support, cultural centers)
Career services and internship pipelines
Safety and transportation, especially if you won’t have a car
3: outcomes
Internship participation and where students intern
Job placement support, career fairs, and alumni networks
Graduate school acceptance support if that’s your path
If you’re in San Diego or elsewhere in Southern California, you can also research a school through a local lens:
Does it connect to opportunities in San Diego, Orange County, or LA?
Are there strong relationships with regional employers?
Is it easy to travel home without stress?
A practical tip: for each college, create a simple note with three headings:
Why it fits me
What I’m unsure about
What I need to confirm
That turns “research” into a decision tool instead of endless scrolling.
Make your campus visits smarter, even if you can’t travel far
Not everyone can fly across the country to tour schools. The good news is you can get a clear sense of fit without spending a fortune.
If you can visit in person, go in with a short plan:
Take a student-led tour
Sit in one class if possible
Walk through the neighborhood just off campus
Eat where students eat
Visit the department you care about (or attend an info session)
Pay attention to things students rarely say out loud:
Are students staying on campus between classes or escaping to their cars?
Do people look comfortable, rushed, social, or stressed?
Does the campus feel navigable and safe for you?
If you can’t visit, use “virtual proof”:
Student vlogs that show ordinary days (not the perfect highlight reel)
Online campus maps and walking tours
Department events or webinars
Student panels where you can ask questions live
Southern California students sometimes underestimate how different campus life can feel outside the region. If you’re considering out-of-state, ask about the weather, housing during breaks, and travel logistics. Those details matter more than people admit, especially your first year.
Compare colleges with a scorecard so decisions feel obvious
When everything starts blending, stress spikes. A scorecard brings things back to reality.
Create a simple rating system from 1 to 5 for categories that actually matter to you. Here are good categories:
Academic strength for your interests
Flexibility if you change your mind
Cost after aid and scholarship opportunities
Campus culture and community
Support and advising quality
Housing and day-to-day comfort
Career support and internships
Location fit (distance, vibe, weather, transportation)
Then add two written prompts for each school:
This is where you’ll notice patterns. One school might score slightly lower academically but feel far more supportive. Another might be impressive on paper but doesn’t offer the environment you need to do your best work.
If you’re feeling torn between two schools, do a “real life week” test: Picture a typical Tuesday. What time do you wake up? How far do you walk? Where do you study? Who helps when you’re stuck? What happens when you’re homesick? The right fit usually becomes clearer when you stop imagining the highlight moments and start imagining the routine.
Reduce stress with a simple timeline and decision plan
The final stress trigger is not the search itself—it’s the feeling that you’re behind, or that one wrong decision will ruin everything. You can calm that down with an easy-to-follow plan.
Here’s a simple structure that works well:
1: Two weeks to build your list
Set your non-negotiables
Draft your likely, target, and reach buckets
Remove any school you wouldn’t attend
2: Two to four weeks to research deeply
Fill in your notes for each school
Attend a webinar or student panel for your top choices
Confirm costs using net price calculators when possible
3: Finalize and prepare
Lock your final list
Track requirements in one place (deadlines, essays, letters, portfolios)
Start essays with stories, not speeches—small moments that show who you are
For San Diego and Southern California students juggling sports, jobs, family responsibilities, or multiple activities, the key is consistency over intensity. A calm college search is usually built with small weekly steps, not last-minute marathons.
One more mindset shift that helps: you’re not searching for one “perfect” school. You’re building a set of great options where you can succeed in different ways. That’s what takes the pressure off.
