Tag: Evolving

  • Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Last time we checked in with Lee Bradshaw, the founding CEO of Rhodes Advisors, he shared insights into how universities might grow online programs without breaking the bank. As a follow-up, I wanted to pick Lee’s brain about what he is hearing from the higher education leaders he works with on the evolving online program landscape.

    Q: As the online program ecosystem has grown and a few large universities have invested heavily in scaling their offerings, do you still see room for colleges and universities to enter the online degree market?

    A: Yes, the demand is still there, but the landscape has changed. We’re supporting universities launching new programs that achieve substantial first-term numbers—even in saturated markets. Growth is happening, but expecting 1,000 percent five-year ROIs like a decade ago isn’t realistic. Universities must temper expectations and/or focus on innovative, sustainable wins. That said, as we address in your third question later, I’m unaware of many investments an institution can make that carry a 275 percent ROI over five years. 

    If institutions want to launch online degrees that start strong and stay strong, here are four things they should prioritize.

    1. Market research that drives big decisions. Legacy OPMs excelled at data-driven market research before launching a program. Universities taking control of their growth need to do the same. Predictive, high-quality market research isn’t cheap or easy, but it’s indispensable. I’m bullish on how AI-facilitated deep research is advancing—within two years, I expect the cost to drop by 90 percent or more. However, the need for sound, evidence-based planning remains the same.
    2. Regionalization for most institutions. The earliest entrants focused on scaling national brands. But for universities growing in-house, regional strategies pay off, too. Think targeted regional marketing, employer partnerships tied to local workforce needs and even weaving apprenticeships or other learn-and-earn models directly into degree pathways. It’s not about being everywhere—it’s about playing to your strengths in your region.
    3. Breaking down silos to build relevant programs. One trend I like and am supporting is cross-campus collaborations leading to hybrid or interdisciplinary graduate programs. Northeastern’s combined majors model is well-known in undergraduate circles. We’re seeing more deans replicate that at the graduate level—joint programs, additional tracks and revenue-sharing agreements between schools. They’re savvy partnerships that pull together institutional strengths rather than competing internally.
    4. Scrutinize your tech stack. When I started the company, I assumed going inside universities would be illuminating. I wasn’t prepared for the delta in capability between OPM and campus technology stacks. Technology should be frictionless to the point that it’s invisible. And you should feel your stack moving from software as a service to results as a service. Before spending hundreds of thousands or millions in digital marketing to grow, I suggest a rigorous evaluation and professionally led tech discovery phase before doing any significant online endeavors. We’ve begun doing assessment and development work on Salesforce, Slate, WordPress, Drupal and more to unlock technological gains for our partners. Candidly, it wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card. But it’s critical work, so we had to add it as a service.

    Q: Given the pricing pressures on online degrees, with some well-known universities offering sub-$30,000 online master’s, how might institutions unable to offer lower-cost online degrees compete?

    A: Josh, I founded my first business in high school and my second in college—so I always nerd out on the entrepreneurial edges of higher education. And, of course, I’m in favor of lowering the cost of degrees while preserving quality. Some innovative higher education leaders and friends I deeply respect have entered the low-cost arena. They’ve gone to market with the support of MOOC platforms, which point millions of course takers’ eyes to the programs. 

    And if you’ve spent enough time around John Katzman, you’ve probably heard him say, “Low cost generally means low faculty.” That’s stuck with me. So, if that’s the architecture, we need to ask ourselves where the “low-faculty” model can work before stripping away any components required for quality learning outcomes. For example, I wouldn’t point that strategy at clinical nursing, education or health sciences degrees anytime soon. And frankly, we haven’t seen rigorous, long-term research on these $30,000 degrees yet, outside of self-published enrollment and graduation rates. Before diving in headfirst, I’d argue it’s worth conducting objective studies on the ROI for learners.

    To your question about institutions that might not have access to that scale, I’d advise them to call me. My team will sign an NDA and pressure-test their plan as a favor. I won’t tiptoe around this: I predict a MOOC-fed degree correction within a year from now. So, Rhodes Advisors is architecting solutions that leverage a next-gen course platform, AI-guided admissions and fresh tactics to drive lead volume, should that correction happen.

    MOOC platforms (and, to an extent, significant B2B relationships) are the only proven route for low-cost degrees to compete at scale in the hand-to-hand combat environment of online degree growth. Why? Fundamentally, platforms reduce your marketing overhead and let you tap into sophisticated conversion practices they’ve been working hard on.

    If you’re using a low-cost degree to serve a mission-driven purpose, you don’t need millions of learners from a platform. I’d suggest covering the delta in tuition with a foundation or donor. And I’d focus heavily on messaging and positioning so learners see you’ve struck the right balance between value and price. Rhodes Advisors is often brought in to do that work, too.

    Q: Let’s talk numbers. Say a university wants to build a new online master’s degree or certificate program. How much money does developing, launching, recruiting and running that program cost? To set some boundaries, let’s say that the online master’s tuition is about $50,000 and the target enrollment at steady state is 150. Help us understand the economics of the online learning business.

    A: I prefer talking numbers and using them to cut through the noise, so I’m glad you went there. We’ve recently run this analysis for several universities evaluating alternative revenue strategies. I’ll extend this answer beyond the basic analysis data and into some significant trends I’m seeing that your readers will find helpful. 

    But first, any degree analysis requires a few caveats—there are a lot of variables when estimating costs to launch a stand-alone program. But assuming you have a competent tech stack, a skilled team and you’re building something the market favors, you can launch a 30-credit online master’s degree for roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million in the early years before breaking even as enrollment comes in. As your readers know, most of those costs fall into course development, faculty compensation and marketing/enrollment services. Assuming steady demand, the five-year ROI will land around 275 percent, or about $3.7 million. Anyone quoting a smaller up-front investment number is likely at a small private with fully centralized operations—or running programs with a few dozen students, not 150-plus as you asked about. And anyone quoting a significantly larger ROI has been lucky enough to find a niche.

    On the certificate side, launching a 12-credit stand-alone certificate typically requires $200,000 to $400,000 up front, with a best-case five-year ROI of around 70 percent or $500,000 total return. But certificates face steeper competition: They’re up against degrees in the digital keyword bids, and the market heavily favors industry certifications (Google, Microsoft, etc.) or programs offered by elite universities in business, tech, or licensure-required fields. So, while master’s degrees demand more up front, long-term economics almost always favor them.

    Reducing costs while maintaining growth has never been more critical than it is in 2025. Improving ROI, especially in new ventures, requires scrutinizing every operational lever—especially in learning design, marketing and enrollment management. There are two things I’m seeing play out that have a material impact on efficiency:

    1. Integrating core online and in-person program operations and functions like admissions, recruitment, student services, alumni affairs and career services has become essential. When universities unify these areas, they eliminate redundancies, lower operational costs and deliver a seamless experience for students moving between all modalities. That said, I typically see skill and knowledge gaps surface quickly when tasking a residentially focused function with online program efforts, so we’ll usually dedicate capacity-building and training efforts during a transitional period.
    2. Anywhere AI can streamline effort or lower direct costs should be surfaced immediately and prioritized. For instance, we’ve worked closely with the University of Virginia this year, and they have been able to drive down centralized course production directionally by applying AI tools in specific and strategic ways. Another partner is preparing to launch a master’s degree in our co-pilot DIY model, intentionally designing enrollment operations to be AI-first. Applicants interact with an AI chat bot to handle basic program details before reaching a human adviser. Early signs suggest that approach will cut costs by more than 50 percent—though we’ll let the data speak as it matures.

    I hope this check-in was helpful. And I’d love to come back and share more as we continue down an exciting and fulfilling path at Rhodes Advisors!

    Source link

  • How can evolving student attitudes inform institutional Gen-AI initiatives?

    How can evolving student attitudes inform institutional Gen-AI initiatives?

    This HEPI blog was authored by Isabelle Bristow, Managing Director UK and Europe at Studiosity.

    In a HEPI blog published almost a year ago, Student Voices on AI: Navigating Expectations and Opportunities, I reported the findings of global research Studiosity commissioned with YouGov on students’ attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI). The intervening year would be considered a relatively small time period in a more regular higher education setting. However, given the rapid pace of change within the Gen-AI sphere, this one year is practically aeons.

    We have recently commissioned a further YouGov survey to explore the motivations, emotions, and needs of over 2,200 students from 151 universities in the UK.

    Below, I will cover the top five takeaways from this new round of research, but first, which students are using AI?

    • 64% of all students have used AI tools to help with assignments or study tasks.
    • International student use (87%) is a staggering 27% higher than their domestic student counterparts (60%).
    • There’s a 21% difference between students who identify as female who said they have never used AI tools for study tasks (42%) compared with those identifying as male (21%).
    • Only 17% of students studying business said they have never used it, compared with 46% studying Humanities and Social Sciences.
    • The highest reported use is by students studying in London at 78%, and conversely, the highest non-use was reported by students studying in Scotland at 44%.

    The Top Five Takeaways:

    1. There is an 11% increase from last year in students thinking that their university is adapting fast enough to provide AI study support tools.

    Following a year of global Gen-AI development and another year for institutions to adapt, students who believe their university is adjusting quickly enough remain in the minority this year at 47%, up from 36% in 2024. The remaining 53% of student respondents believe their institution has more to do.

    When asked if they expect their university to offer AI support tools to students, the result is the same as last year – with 39% of students answering yes to this question. This was significantly higher for male students at 51% (up by 3% from last year) and for international students 61% (up by 4% from last year). Once again, this year, business students have the highest expectations at 58% (just 1% higher than last year). Following this, medicine (53%), nursing (48%) and STEM (46%) were more likely to respond ‘Yes’ when asked if they expect their university to provide AI tools.

    1. Some students have concerns over academic integrity.

    When asked if they felt their university should provide AI tools, students who answered’ no’ were given a free text box to explain their reasoning. Most of these responses related to academic integrity.

    ‘I don’t think unis support its use because it helps students plagiarise and cheat.’

    ‘I think AI beats the whole idea of a degree, but it can be used for grammar correction and general fluidity.’

    ‘Because it would be unfair and result in the student not really learning or thinking for themselves.’

    Only 7% of students said they would use an AI tool for help with plagiarism or referencing (‘Ask my lecturer’ was at 30% and ‘Use a 24/7 university online writing feedback tool’ was at 21%).

    1. Students who use AI regularly are less likely to rank ‘fear of failing’ as one of their top three study stresses

    We asked all students – regardless of their AI use – of their top three reasons for feeling stressed about studying the responses were as follows:

    • 61% of all UK students included ‘fear of failing’ in their top 3 reasons for feeling stressed about studying;
    • 52% of all students included ‘balancing other commitments’; and
    • 41% of all students included ‘preparing for exams and assessments’.

    These statistics change when we filter by students who use AI tools to help with assignments or study tasks. Fear of failing is still the highest-ranked study stress. The percentage of respondents who rank fear of failing in their top three study stresses by AI use are as follows:

    • 69% for those who never use AI;
    • 62% for those who have used AI once or twice;
    • 58% for those who have used AI a few times and;
    • 50% for those who use AI regularly.

    Looking at the main reasons students want to use the university’s AI service for support or feedback, this year, ‘confidence’ (25%) overtook ‘speed’ (16%). Female respondents, in particular, are using AI for reasons relating to confidence at 29%, compared to 20% for male students. International students valued ‘skills’ the most at 20%, significantly higher than their domestic student counterparts at 11%.

    1. Students who feel like they belong are more likely to use AI.

    We examined the correlation between students’ sense of belonging in their university community, and the amount they use AI tools to help with assignments or study tasks.

    For students who feel like they belong, 67% said they have used AI tools to help with assignments or study tasks; this compares with 47% for students who do not feel like they belong.      

    5. Cognitive offloading (using technology to circumvent the ‘learning element’ of a task) is a top concern of academics and institutional leadership in 2025. However, student responses suggest they feel they are both learning and improving their skills when using generative tools.

    When asked if they were confident they are learning as well as improving their own skills when using generative tools, students responded as follows:

    • 12% ‘were extremely confident that they were learning and developing skills;
    • 31% were very confident;
    • 29% were moderately confident;
    • 26% were moderately confident; and
    • Only 5% were not at all confident that this was true.

    Conclusion:

    Reflecting on the three years since Gen-AI’s disruptive entrance into the mainstream, the sector has now come to terms with the power, potential, and risks of Gen-AI. There is also a significantly better understanding of the importance of ensuring these tools enhance student learning rather than undermining it by offloading cognitive effort.

    Leaders can look to a holistic approach to university-approved, trusted Gen-AI support, to improve student outcomes, experience and wellbeing.

    You can download the full Annual Global Student Wellbeing Survey – UK report here.

    Studiosity is a HEPI Partner. Studiosity is AI-for-Learning, not corrections – to scale student success, empower educators, and improve retention with a proven 4.4x ROI, while ensuring integrity and reducing institutional risk. Studiosity delivers ethical and formative feedback at scale to over 250 institutions worldwide. With unique AI-for-Learning technology, all students can benefit from formative feedback in minutes. From their first draft to just before submission, students receive personalised feedback – including guidance on how they can demonstrably improve their own work and critical thinking skills. Actionable insight is accessible to faculty and leaders, revealing the scale of engagement with support, cohorts requiring intervention, and measurable learning progress.

    Source link

  • How to Be Proactive in an Evolving Higher Education Landscape

    How to Be Proactive in an Evolving Higher Education Landscape

    How can you make the future of your campus more clear and sustainable?

    As colleges and universities continue to rise above the challenges brought on by the pandemic five years ago, it has become clear that the new normal for higher education demands more than resilience—it requires strategic foresight and proactive leadership. Institutions today must navigate shifting policies, demographic changes, public sentiment, natural disasters, economic pressures, compliance mandates, safety concerns, talent turnover, operational efficiency demands, and increasing pressure for measurable results.

    Is your institution prepared to proactively face these challenges, knowing that disruption is not just possible but highly probable?

    • Will your strategic plan ensure financial sustainability if events on the scale of the pandemic disrupt your revenue streams?
    • Does your current enrollment strategy include innovative approaches to capture new market share despite declining numbers of prospective students?
    • Is your institution leveraging artificial intelligence to drive innovation and efficiency?
    • Does your academic master plan align with program demand, employer talent needs, and student success outcomes?
    • Can your organization prioritize limited resources effectively and use data to inform critical budget decisions?
    • Do your stakeholders understand that your institution’s reputation and competitive standing depend on academic innovation, excellence, community engagement, and student success—achieved through accountability, continuous improvement, campus engagement, agility, and clear prioritization?

    If your answer isn’t a confident “YES!”, it’s time to act. Consider investing two days at RNL’s Strategic Planning Executive Forum (April 1–2, Chicago).

    Building a foundation for strategic planning in two days

    RNL quite literally wrote the book—three of them, in fact—on Strategic Enrollment Planning. For decades, RNL has guided institutions in transforming their approach and achieving their missions through a proven, data-informed strategic planning framework.

    Today, institutions discover that this framework goes beyond enrollment—it is adaptable to address every facet of university and college operations, including institutional culture, financial health, academic excellence, technology integration, student success, community engagement, branding, and institutional value. This approach aligns your institution’s goals with the realities of the evolving higher education landscape, ensuring long-term enrollment success and financial sustainability.

    While many institutions simply set goals and outline steps, true strategic planning thrives at the intersection of creativity, critical thinking, data analysis, and action. The RNL Strategic Planning Forum is designed to elevate your institution’s capacity by focusing on essential, foundational steps:

    • Analyzing your institution’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)
    • Identifying key performance indicators (KPIs)
    • Fostering a data-informed decision-making culture
    • Developing actionable strategy plans with clear accountability and measurable ROI
    • Establishing prioritization protocols by assessing risk, resistance, and required effort
    • Implementing, managing, and refreshing dynamic strategic plans through effective dashboards and processes

    What to expect at the forum

    The forum offers practical case studies and shared experiences from transformation leaders. Sessions will highlight best practices in areas such as:

    • Strategic enrollment planning
    • Institutional strategic planning
    • Academic program revitalization

    Breakout sessions will cater to specific institutional needs—whether from two-year colleges, four-year public universities, or private institutions—offering space to share best practices and tackle unique challenges.

    Institutional assessment with expert guidance

    Your leadership team will have the opportunity to complete a strategy assessment and receive live feedback from RNL experts with decades of higher education experience in:

    • Marketing and market research
    • Recruitment and financial aid strategy
    • Student success initiatives
    • Academic program planning
    • Online learning and delivery models
    • Advancement and venture philanthropy
    • Artificial intelligence applications in higher education

    Discussion and collaboration are at the heart of this event. You’ll dive into critical areas of strategic planning while engaging with industry experts, higher education leaders, and peers from other campuses. This will spark meaningful conversations within your own team, setting the stage for momentum and change.

    RNL Strategic Planning ExecutiveForum: A history of driving enrollment and revenue success

    Many institutions that have participated in this event have seen transformative results, including:

    • Record-breaking enrollment growth
    • Enhanced student outcomes
    • Millions in additional revenue generation
    • Stronger community engagement
    • Streamlined operations and improved efficiency

    Equip your institution for future-focused success

    Empower your institution with actionable insights, dynamic strategies, and the tools necessary for growth, resilience, and meaningful impact in today’s higher education environment.

    See the agenda and register for the Forum today. Bring your leadership team and ignite the discussions that will drive action and measurable results for your institution’s future. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more impactful event to propel your institution forward.

    Source link