Tag: Experience

  • What the experience of neurodivergent PhD students teaches us, and why it makes me angry

    What the experience of neurodivergent PhD students teaches us, and why it makes me angry

    by Inger Mewburn

    Recently, some colleagues and I released a paper about the experiences of neurodivergent PhD students. It’s a systematic review of the literature to date, which is currently under review, but available via pre-print here.

    Doing this paper was an exercise in mixed feelings. It was an absolute joy to work with my colleagues, who knew far more about this topic than me and taught me (finally!) how to do a proper systematic review using Covidence. Thanks Dr Diana TanDr Chris EdwardsAssociate Professor Kate SimpsonAssociate Professor Amanda A Webster and Professor Charlotte Brownlow (who got the band together in the first place).

    But reading each and every paper published about neurodivergent PhD students provoked strong feelings of rage and frustration. (These feelings only increased, with a tinge of fear added in, when I read of plans for the US health department to make a ‘list’ of autistic people?! Reading what is going on there is frankly terrifying – solidarity to all.) We all know what needs to be done to make research degrees more accessible. Make expectations explicit. Create flexible policies. Value diverse thinking styles. Implement Universal Design Principles… These suggestions appear in report after report, I’ve ranted on the blog here and here, yet real change remains frustratingly elusive. So why don’t these great ideas become reality? Here’s some thoughts on barriers that keep neurodivergent-friendly changes from taking hold.

    The myth of meritocracy

    Academia clings to the fiction that the current system rewards pure intellectual merit. Acknowledging the need for accessibility requires admitting that the playing field isn’t level. Many senior academics succeeded in the current system and genuinely believe “if I could do it, anyone can… if they work hard enough”. They are either 1) failing to recognise their neurotypical privilege, or 2) not acknowledging the cost of masking their own neurodivergence (I’ll get to this in a moment).

    I’ve talked to many academics about things we could do – like getting rid of the dissertation – but too many of us are secretly proud of our own trauma. The harshness of the PhD has been compared to a badge of honour that we wear proudly – and expect others to earn.

    Resource scarcity (real and perceived)

    Universities often respond to suggestions about increased accessibility measures with budget concerns. The vibe is often: “We’d love to offer more support, but who will pay for it?”. However, many accommodations (like flexible deadlines or allowing students to work remotely) cost little, or even nothing. Frequently, the real issue isn’t resources but priorities of the powerful. There’s no denying universities (in Australia, and elsewhere) are often cash strapped. The academic hunger games are real. However, in the fight for resources, power dynamics dictate who gets fed and who goes without.

    I wish we would just be honest about our choices – some people in universities still have huge travel budgets. The catering at some events is still pretty good. Some people seem to avoid every hiring freeze. There are consistent patterns in how resources are distributed. It’s the gaslighting that makes me angry. If we really want to, we can do most things. We have to want to do something about this.

    Administrative inertia

    Changing established processes in a university is like turning a battleship with a canoe paddle. Approval pathways are long and winding. For example, altering a single line in the research award rules at ANU requires approval from parliament (yes – the politicians actually have to get together and vote. Luckily we are not as dysfunctional in Australia as other places… yet). By the time a solution is implemented, the student who needed it has likely graduated – or dropped out. This creates a vicious cycle where the support staff, who see multiple generations of students suffer the same way, can get burned out and stop pushing for change.

    The individualisation of disability

    Universities tend to treat neurodivergence as an individual problem requiring individual accommodations rather than recognising systemic barriers. This puts the burden on students to disclose, request support, and advocate for themselves – precisely the executive function and communication challenges many neurodivergent students struggle with.

    It’s akin to building a university with only stairs, then offering individual students a piggyback ride instead of installing ramps. I’ve met plenty of people who simply get so exhausted they don’t bother applying for the accommodations they desperately need, and then end up dropping out anyway.

    Fear of lowering ‘standards’

    Perhaps the most insidious barrier is the mistaken belief that accommodations somehow “lower standards.” I’ve heard academics worrying that flexible deadlines will “give some students an unfair advantage” or that making expectations explicit somehow “spoon-feeds” students.

    The fear of “lowering standards” becomes even more puzzling when you look at how PhD requirements have inflated over time. Anyone who’s spent time in university archives knows that doctoral standards aren’t fixed – they’re constantly evolving. Pull a dissertation from the 1950s or 60s off the shelf and you’ll likely find something remarkably slim compared to today’s tomes. Many were essentially extended literature reviews with modest empirical components. Today, we expect multiple studies, theoretical innovations, methodological sophistication, and immediate publishability – all while completing within strict time limits on ever-shrinking funding.

    The standards haven’t just increased; they’ve multiplied. So when universities resist accommodations that might “compromise standards,” we should ask: which era’s standards are we protecting? Certainly not the ones under which most people supervising today had to meet. The irony is that by making the PhD more accessible to neurodivergent thinkers, we might actually be raising standards – allowing truly innovative minds to contribute rather than filtering them out through irrelevant barriers like arbitrary deadlines or neurotypical communication expectations. The real threat to academic standards isn’t accommodation – it’s the loss of brilliant, unconventional thinkers who could push knowledge boundaries in ways we haven’t yet imagined.

    Unexamined neurodiversity among supervisors

    Perhaps one of the most overlooked barriers is that many supervisors are themselves neurodivergent but don’t recognise it or acknowledge what’s going on with them! In fact, since starting this research, I’ve formed a private view that you almost can’t succeed in this profession without at least a little neurospicey.

    Academia tends to attract deep thinkers with intense focus on specific topics – traits often associated with autism (‘special interests’ anyone?). The contemporary university is constantly in crisis, which some people with ADHD can find provides the stimulation they need to get things done! Yet many supervisors have succeeded through decades of masking and compensating, often at great personal cost.

    The problem is not the neurodivergence or the supervisor – it’s how the unexamined neurodivergence becomes embedded in practice, underpinned by an expectation that their students should function exactly as they do, complete with the same struggles they’ve internalised as “normal.”

    I want to hold on to this idea for a moment, because maybe you recognise some of these supervisors:

    • The Hyperfocuser: Expects students to match their pattern of intense, extended work sessions. This supervisor regularly works through weekends on research “when inspiration strikes,” sending emails at 2am and expecting quick responses. They struggle to understand when students need breaks or maintain strict work boundaries, viewing it as “lack of passion.” Conveniently, they have ignored those couple of episodes of burn out, never considering their own work pattern might reflect ADHD or autistic hyper-focus, rather than superior work ethic.
    • The Process Pedant: Requires students to submit written work in highly specific formats with rigid attachment to particular reference styles, document formatting, and organisational structures. Gets disproportionately distressed by minor variations from their preferred system, focusing on these details over content, such that their feedback primarily addresses structural issues rather than ideas. I get more complaints about this than almost any other kind of supervision style – it’s so demoralising to be constantly corrected and not have someone genuinely engage with your work.
    • The Talker: Excels in spontaneous verbal feedback but rarely provides written comments. Expects students to take notes during rapid-fire conversational feedback, remembering all key points. They tend to tell you to do the same thing over and over, or forget what they have said and recommend something completely different next time. Can get mad when questioned over inconsistencies – suggesting you have a problem with listening. This supervisor never considers that their preference for verbal communication might reflect their own neurodivergent processing style, which isn’t universal. Couple this with a poor memory and the frustration of students reaches critical. (I confess, being a Talker is definitely my weakness as a supervisor – I warn my students in advance and make an effort to be open to criticism about it!).
    • The Context-Switching Avoider: Schedules all student meetings on a single day of the week, keeping other days “sacred” for uninterrupted research. Becomes noticeably agitated when asked to accommodate a meeting outside this structure, even for urgent matters. Instead of recognising their own need for predictable routines and difficulty with transitions (common in many forms of neurodivergence), they frame this as “proper time management” that students should always emulate. Students who have caring responsibilities suffer the most with this kind of inflexible relationship.
    • The Novelty-Chaser: Constantly introduces new theories, methodologies, or research directions in supervision meetings. Gets visibly excited about fresh perspectives and encourages students to incorporate them into already-developed projects. May send students a stream of articles or ideas completely tangential to their core research, expecting them to pivot accordingly. Never recognises that their difficulty maintaining focus on a single pathway to completion might reflect ADHD-related novelty-seeking. Students learn either 1) to chase butterflies and make little progress or 2) to nod politely at new suggestions while quietly continuing on their original track. The first kind of reaction can lead to a dangerous lack of progress, the second reaction can lead to real friction because, from the supervisor’s point of view, the student ‘never listens’. NO one is happy in these set ups, believe me.
    • The Theoretical Purist: Has devoted their career to a particular theoretical framework or methodology and expects all their students to work strictly within these boundaries. Dismisses alternative approaches as “methodologically unsound” or “lacking theoretical rigour” without substantive engagement. Becomes noticeably uncomfortable when students bring in cross-disciplinary perspectives, responding with increasingly rigid defences of their preferred approach. Fails to recognise their intense attachment to specific knowledge systems and resistance to integrating new perspectives may reflect autistic patterns of specialised interests, or even difficulty with cognitive flexibility. Students learn to frame all their ideas within the supervisor’s preferred language, even when doing so limits their research potential.

    Now that I know what I am looking for, I see these supervisory dynamics ALL THE TIME. Add in whatever dash of neuro-spiciness is going on with you and all kinds of misunderstandings and hurt feelings result … Again – the problem is not the neurodivergence of any one person – it’s the lack of self reflection, coupled with the power dynamics that can make things toxic.

    These barriers aren’t insurmountable, but honestly, after decades in this profession, I’m not holding my breath for institutional enlightenment. Universities move at the pace of bureaucracy after all.

    So what do we do? If you’re neurodivergent, find your people – that informal network who “get it” will save your sanity more than any official university policy. If you’re a supervisor, maybe take a good hard look at your own quirky work habits before deciding your student is “difficult.” And if you’re in university management, please, for the love of research, let’s work on not making neurodivergent students jump through flaming bureaucratic hoops to get basic support.

    The PhD doesn’t need to be a traumatic hazing ritual we inflict because “that’s how it was in my day.” It’s 2025. Time to admit that diverse brains make for better research. And for goodness sake, don’t put anyone on a damn list, ok?

    AI disclaimer: This post was developed with Claude from Anthropic because I’m so busy with the burning trash fire that is 2025 it would not have happened otherwise. I provided the concept, core ideas, detailed content, and personal viewpoint while Claude helped organise and refine the text. We iteratively revised the content together to ensure it maintained my voice and perspective. The final post represents my authentic thoughts and experiences, with Claude serving as an editorial assistant and sounding board.

    This blog was first published on Inger Mewburn’s  legendary website The Thesis Whisperer on 1 May 2025. It is reproduced with permission here.

    Professor Inger Mewburn is the Director of Researcher Development at The Australian National University where she oversees professional development workshops and programs for all ANU researchers. Aside from creating new posts on the Thesis Whisperer blog (www.thesiswhisperer.com), she writes scholarly papers and books about research education, with a special interest in post PhD employability, research communications and neurodivergence.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • St. Catherine University Partners with Collegis Education to Advance Technology Strategy and Student Experience

    St. Catherine University Partners with Collegis Education to Advance Technology Strategy and Student Experience

    The strategic partnership will strengthen the University’s student-centered mission through agile technology, operational innovation, and a shared commitment to community.

    St. Paul, Minn. – (May 5, 2025) St. Catherine University (St. Kate’s) and Collegis Education announced today that they have entered into a strategic partnership to enhance the University’s delivery of IT services.

    The decision to seek external IT support was driven by the University’s growing need to accelerate progress on strategic technology initiatives that had slowed within the existing tech infrastructure. The University recognized the need for a partner with the expertise, agility, and shared mission to help build a more responsive, future-ready infrastructure.

    “We realized that the pace of change in technology—and the expectations of our students—were outpacing what our internal systems and structures could support,” said Latisha Dawson, Vice President of Human Resources and Project Lead. “Our institution is centered around student connection and academic excellence. But to uphold that mission, we needed a partner with the technical expertise and scalability to move faster, innovate more nimbly, and help us deliver a modern student experience. Collegis allows us to do just that, so we can spend less time managing systems and more time serving our students.”

    In this partnership, Collegis will provide day-to-day IT operational support, a dedicated Chief Information Officer (CIO), and technological infrastructure that supports the university’s forward progress on strategic projects, while upholding strong data governance and enabling real-time responsiveness.

    As part of the deal, St. Kate will gain access to Collegis Education’s Connected Core®, a secure, composable data platform powered by Google Cloud. As a tech-agnostic solution, Connected Core unifies siloed systems and data sets, enables real-time and actionable institutional intelligence, produces AI-powered data strategies, and delivers proven solutions that enhance recruitment, retention, operations, and student experiences — driving measurable impact across the entire student lifecycle.

    St. Kate’s selected Collegis following a thorough evaluation of potential partners. “A lot of vendors can fill a gap, but that’s not what we were looking for,” said Dawson. “We were looking for someone to meet us where we are, grow with us, and truly enable us to excel. The real differentiator with Collegis was the spirit of partnership, and beyond that, community. From the beginning, they didn’t feel like an outsider. The team has become part of our community, and  a part of helping us advance our mission.”

    “Collegis is honored to join the St. Kate’s community in a shared commitment to the future of higher education,” said Kim Fahey, President and CEO of Collegis Education. “We see technology not as an end but as an enabler, an extension of the institution’s mission to educate women to lead and influence. This partnership is about building agile systems that empower faculty, enrich the student experience, and keep the University ahead of what’s next.”

    The partnership also reflects St. Kate’s strategic priority to build a more nimble technology foundation that shortens the timeline between priority-setting and implementation. The transition enables the university to move away from legacy systems and toward a model that supports real-time innovation, strategic flexibility, and long-term sustainability.

    “Our partnership with Collegis is rooted in our values,” said Marcheta Evans, PhD, President of St. Catherine University. “It allows us to remain focused on our mission while bringing in trusted expertise to support the evolving needs of our students, faculty, and staff.”

    Dawson concludes, “We’ve always been guided by the principle of meeting the needs of the time. Embracing this next level of technology ensures we can continue nurturing the powerful, personal connection between our faculty and students, which is what makes us uniquely St. Kate’s.”

    About Collegis Education

    As a mission-oriented, tech-enabled services provider, Collegis Education partners with higher education institutions to help align operations to drive transformative impact across the entire student lifecycle. With over 25 years as an industry pioneer, Collegis has proven how to leverage data, technology, and talent to optimize institutions’ business processes that enhance the student experience. With the strategic expertise that rivals the leading consultancies, a full suite of proven service lines, including marketing, enrollment, retention, IT, and its world-class Connected Core® data platform, Collegis helps its partners enable impact and drive revenue, growth, and innovation. Learn more at CollegisEducation.com or via LinkedIn.

    About St. Catherine University

    Sustained by a legacy of visionary women, St. Catherine University educates women to lead and influence. We are a diverse community of learners dedicated to academic rigor, core Catholic values, and a heartfelt commitment to social justice. St. Kate’s offers degrees at all levels in the humanities, arts, sciences, healthcare, and business fields that engage women in uncovering positive ways of transforming the world. St. Kate’s students learn and discern wisely, and live and lead justly — all to power lives of meaning. Discover more at stkate.edu. 

    Media Contacts:

    Collegis Education

    Alyssa Miller

    alyssa@ammediaworks.com

    973-615-1292

    St. Catherine University

    Sarah Voigt

    smvoigt133@stkate.edu

    651-690-8756

    Source link

  • Student experience is becoming more transactional – but that doesn’t make it less meaningful

    Student experience is becoming more transactional – but that doesn’t make it less meaningful

    It seems that few can agree about what the future student experience will look like but there is a growing consensus that for the majority of higher education institutions (bar a few outliers) it will – and probably should – look different from today.

    For your institution, that might look like a question of curriculum – addressing student demand for practical skills, career competencies and civic values to be more robustly embedded in academic courses. It might be about the structure of delivery – with the Lifelong Learning Entitlement funding per credit model due to roll out in the next few years and the associated opportunity to flex how students access programmes of study and accrue credit. It might be a question of modality and responding to demands for flexibility in accessing learning materials remotely using technology.

    When you combine all these changes and trends you potentially arrive at a more fragmented and transient model of higher education, with students passing through campus or logging in remotely to pick up their higher education work alongside their other commitments. Academic community – at least in the traditional sense of the campus being the locus of daily activity for students and academics – already appears at risk, and some worry that there is a version of the future in which it is much-reduced or disappears altogether.

    Flexibility, not fragmentation

    With most higher education institutions facing difficult financial circumstances without any immediate prospect of external relief, the likelihood is that cost-saving measures reduce both the institutional capacity to provide wraparound services and the opportunities for the kind of human-to-human contact that shows up organically when everyone is co-located. Sam Sanders

    One of the challenges for higher education in the decade ahead will be how to sustain motivation and engagement, build connection and belonging, and support students’ wellbeing, while responding to that shifting pattern of how students practically encounter learning.

    The current model still relies on high-quality person to person interaction in classrooms, labs, on placement, in accessing services, and in extra-curricular activities. When you have enough of that kind of rich human interaction it’s possible to some extent to tolerate a degree of (for want of a better word) shonky-ness in students’ functional and administrative interactions with their institution.

    That’s not a reflection of the skills and professionalism of the staff who manage those interactions; it’s testament to the messiness of decades of technology systems procurement that has not kept up with the changing demands of higher education operational management. The amount of institutional resource devoted to maintaining and updating these systems, setting up workarounds when they don’t serve desired institutional processes, and extracting and translating data from them is no longer justifiable in the current environment.

    Lots of institutional leaders accept that change is coming. Many are leading significant transformation and reform programmes that respond to one or more of the changes noted above. But they are often trying – at some expense – to build a change agenda on top of a fragile foundational infrastructure. And this is where a change in mindset and culture will be needed to allow institutions to build the kind of student experiences that we think are likely to become dominant within the next decade.

    Don’t fear the transactional

    Maintaining quality when resources are constrained requires a deep appreciation of the “moments that matter” in student experience – those that will have lasting impact on students’ sense of academic identity and connection, and by association their success – and those that can be, essentially, transactional. Pete Moss

    If, as seems to be the case, the sector is moving towards a world in which students need a greater bulk of their interaction with their institution to be in that “transactional” bucket two things follow:

    One is that the meaningful bits of learning, teaching, academic support and student development have to be REALLY meaningful, enriching encounters for both students and the staff who are educating them – because it’s these moments that will bring the education experience to life and have a transformative effect on students. To some degree how each institution creates that sense of meaningfulness and where it chooses to focus its pedagogical efforts may act as a differentiator to guide student choice.

    The second is that the transactional bits have to REALLY work – at a baseline be low-friction, designed with the user in mind, and make the best possible use of technologies to support a more grab-and-go, self-service, accessible-anywhere model that can be scaled for a diverse student body with complicated lives.

    Transactional should not mean ‘one-size-fits-all’ – in fact careful investment in technology should mean that it is possible to build a more inclusive experience through adapting to students’ needs, whether that’s about deploying translation software, integrating assistive technologies, or natural language search functionality. Lizzie Falkowska

    Optimally, institutions will be seeking to get to the point where it is possible to track a student right from their first interaction with the institution all the way through becoming an alumnus – and be able to accommodate a student being several things at once, or moving “backwards” along that critical path as well as “forwards.” Having the data foundations in place to understand where a student is now, as well as where they have come from, and even where they want to get to, makes it possible to build a genuinely personalised experience.

    In this “transactional” domain, there is much less opportunity for strategic differentiation with competitor institutions – though there is a lot of opportunity for hygiene failure, if students who find their institution difficult to deal with decide to take their credits and port them elsewhere. Institutional staff, too, need to be able to quickly and easily conduct transactional business with the institution, so that their time is devoted as much as possible to the knowledge and student engagement work that is simply more important.

    Critically, the more that institutions adopt common core frameworks and processes in that transactional bucket of activity, the more efficient the whole sector can be, and the more value can be realised in the “meaningful” bucket. That means resisting the urge to tinker and adapt, letting go of the myth of exceptionalism, and embracing an “adopt not adapt” mindset.

    Fixing the foundations

    To get there, institutions need to go back to basics in the engine-room of the student experience – the student record system. The student system of 15-20 years ago was a completely internally focused statutory engine, existing for award board grids and HESA returns. Student records is now seen as a student-centric platform that happens to support other outputs and outcomes, both student-facing interactions, and management information that can drive decision-making about where resource input is generating the best returns.

    The breadth of things in the student experience that need to be supported has expanded rapidly, and will continue to need to be adapted. Right now, institutions need their student record system to be able to cope with feeding data into other platforms to allow (within institutional data ethics frameworks) useful reporting on things like usage and engagement patterns. Increasingly ubiquitous AI functionality in information search, student support, and analytics needs to be underpinned by high quality data or it will not realise any value when rolled out.

    Going further, as institutions start to explore opportunities for strategic collaboration, co-design of qualifications and pathways in response to regional skills demands, or start to diversify their portfolio to capture the benefits of the LLE funding model, moving toward a common data framework and standards will be a key enabler for new opportunities to emerge.

    The extent to which the sector is able to adopt a common set of standards and interoperability expectations for student records is the extent to which it can move forward collectively with establishing a high quality baseline for managing the bit of student experience that might be “transactional” in their function, but that will matter greatly as creating the foundations for the bits that really do create lasting value.

    This article is published in association with KPMG.

    Source link

  • What women experience in the university estates professions

    What women experience in the university estates professions

    I am as aware as anyone else of the reputation of AUDE (the Association of University Directors of Estates) for being something of a white male club.

    As the Executive Director of that club, I think the reputation is less and less true with every passing year, though of course I would say that. The association is very much on a journey on EDI issues, but we are doing more than you might imagine.

    Our small office team is undertaking ILM Level 4 training on managing equality and diversity. We are looking at inclusive design and have recently published a new guide to neurodiversity design and management. And we are looking more closely at the association membership itself to read between the lines of the demographic patterns available to us.

    What we found

    Our membership identity data is patchy: we’ve only been measuring this since 2022, and it isn’t compulsory for members to share. 47 per cent of those members we can measure are women. That starts to seem something like parity. But at the most senior level of membership, of those colleagues making it through to a director role, the proportion is more like one in six, significantly below the level in other professional services. We wanted to examine the barriers to women’s progress in estates, and did so in the recently published report Well the assumption is…: Conversations with women leaders in estates and facilities which is available to colleagues across the sector on the AUDE website.

    The report looks at the career experiences of women in estates – colleagues that are leading on the fabric and the development of your campuses today, vital to the successful and financially viable functioning of your institution. And it highlighted a very consistent set of obstacles, including the lack of a visible career path, the constantly undermining nature of casual sexism– anything but casual and at its worst deployed in abhorrent and confidence-wrecking verbal hand grenades – as well as issues around health, maternity and menopause, and more.

    Responses to the report

    It taps into the frustration of women telling us their stories and processes them into an emotive document that is quite unlike the tone of anything we’ve published before. I recommend a read. We’ve had several very consistent reactions to this work.

    The first is most common from women. “Yes”, they have told us, “This is the experience exactly. You haven’t missed anything out. I recognise these stories from my own life”. In private we’ve heard further stories, of things happening now, that would bring many of us to an abrupt and shocked halt, and more than reinforce every word of the report. I’ve spoken to many female members of AUDE, and it doesn’t take much work to uncover experience and attitudes that are damaging and have held us back, or acted as entirely unwelcome and unnecessary obstacles, including several in my own career which are referenced in the report.

    A second common reaction has been from male members of the association scrambling to get past the sheer embarrassment of having it spelt out to them how awful other men can be – in their teams, in their universities, now. This group includes colleagues doing great proactive things to quickly learn from the report and have fruitful conversations with others about what needs to improve. Those colleagues are swotting up on pay gap information, talking to HR about family friendly policy and blind recruitment processes. They are opening their eyes to the issues, seeking a greater level of understanding including within their own teams, challenging the status quo, and taking steps towards becoming EDI allies within their institutions.

    But we’ve also had a reaction which can best be expressed as – and in awareness of a very un-Wonkhe-like word coming up – “Why have AUDE been so arsey about this? AUDE have slightly embarrassed themselves here by being so visibly annoyed. What bad taste they’ve shown. We’re going to stay silent and dignified.”

    For me, it takes a particularly adept form of mental gymnastics to be more annoyed by the tone than by the message. Yes, with the help of the dictionary definition, we have been bad-tempered. Collecting and listening to our report participants’ stories as we did, bad-tempered is what we felt.

    Refreshing honesty

    The entire EDI agenda faces more of a pushback, right now, than for decades. Silence in the face of grotesque disadvantage may seem dignified to some. But to others it will seem altogether darker, a caving into the status quo that is impossible to justify. Many people can see the difference and have thanked us for calling out the unacceptable, and our “refreshing, real, human honesty”.

    Those women participating in the report’s production were immensely keen to give full credit to the many men who had acted as career mentors and role models. But such solidarity was far from the only experience. People don’t like being forced to confront difficult issues, but it is what we have asked of the AUDE membership with the publishing of this report. This is a difficult issue, and it is right under our noses. If (male) colleagues will not trust the take of our report, trust other things. Speak to the women in your family as your first port of call. Casually undermined at work by men without the experience or the understanding or the insight of the woman in the conversation? That’s the least of it. When was the last time you truly listened to some of the quieter voices in your institution? What would you hear if you did?

    What’s next?

    We fully acknowledge our shortcomings. The report, about women’s experiences, was commissioned by the man that leads our EDI group and written by the man that leads on the association’s comms. Not everyone will like that. We fully understand we haven’t dealt with intersectional experiences in an attempt to understand the differences that faith or disability or sexuality or ethnicity may add to the mix.

    From my perspective the association is late to the party so can hardly expect congratulations on finally arriving; our (construction) industry is behind the times; our colleagues (via a September 2024 benchmarking report on salary and conditions) tell us that the institutional stance on EDI is highly significant in their decision to stay in HE roles; and corporately, buy-in to EDI is expected of us at every level of seniority, and a gap in this area could rightly hamper our promotion prospects.

    Culture change takes a long time. We don’t want to be an obstacle but an enabler. This is exactly where we should be – learning, changing, and bringing others with us whenever we can. I’m proud the association is on this journey.

    Source link

  • Marine, geoscience, engineering students get hands-on experience aboard CSIRO ship

    Marine, geoscience, engineering students get hands-on experience aboard CSIRO ship

    CSIRO staff Dr Ben Arthur, Ian McRobert and
    Matt Kimber in front of the RV Investigator. Picture: Richard Jupe

    Students from 16 Australian universities set sail from Hobart on Saturday for a unique scientific adventure aimed at developing the country’s next generation of marine experts.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • How AI is reshaping the learning experience

    How AI is reshaping the learning experience

    Since late 2022, generative AI has disrupted all levels of education, and higher education must adapt quickly to ensure that the integrity of qualifications is not compromised.

    New technologies can be disruptive and present challenges and opportunities. They influence how we work, interact with others, source information, and learn.

    Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been around for decades, generative AI has emerged as both a risk to traditional learning and an opportunity for students to use new technologies responsibly and ethically. Generative AI is disrupting all levels of education, and higher education must adapt quickly to ensure that the integrity of the qualifications awarded is not compromised.

    Recently, researchers examined policies and guidelines documents from 116 US universities on the use of GenAI. They found a lack of concern in these documents for ethics and privacy associated with using GenAI while encouraging its use by both staff and students. That is, intellectual property and student privacy seem to be an afterthought.

    The introduction of GenAI has added complexity to the detection of plagiarism, and some argue that using GenAI tools should not be deemed academic dishonesty because they enhance the learning experience and improve productivity. 

    In June 2024, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) asked all registered higher education providers for action plans addressing the risk-generative AI in their courses. There was a 100 per cent response rate from providers to this request.

    TEQSA then analysed responses to develop resources to support the higher education sector and released Gen AI strategies for Australian higher education: Emerging practice in late November 2024[1]. This document is designed as a toolkit to assist higher education providers. The toolkit is structured into three key dimensions: Process, People and Practice. The toolkit notes that:

    There is no single form of assessment that can enable students to demonstrate achievement of all learning outcomes or support development of all appropriate uses of gen AI. Similarly, no single tool or technology can be deployed to guarantee assessment security (p43).

    Therefore, the higher education sector needs to be agile and adapt to the ubiquitous adoption of GenAI, so that we can adapt the learning experience so that students meet the learning outcomes of their course. This requires a significant shift for institutions and educators to achieve these objectives in a GenAI world.

    Ensuring equitable access to AI

    A key challenge for integrating GenAI in education is ensuring equitable access to AI-powered tools and resources for all students, regardless of their socio-economic background or geographical location. GenAI’s promise for student learning can only be achieved if students’ and staff’s access to GenAI tools is equitable, inclusive, and free from bias.

    TEQSA cautions that higher education institutions need to carefully consider the needs of diverse student populations and prioritise an inclusive and equitable educational environment when integrating GenAI in teaching, learning and assessment. This includes ensuring everyone recognises their responsibility to implement and engage in culturally safe practices.

    References

    Eden, C.A., Chisom, O.N. and Adeniyi, I.S., 2024. Integrating AI in education: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(2), pp.006-013.

    McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A. and Hingle, A., 2024. Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01659.

    Yusuf, A., Pervin, N. and Román-González, M., 2024. Generative AI and the future of higher education: a threat to academic integrity or reformation? Evidence from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), p.21.

    [1] Available from: https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-11/Gen-AI-strategies-e…


    Hear more from A/Professor Yvette Blount and other education leaders at the Generative AI for Education Leaders Summit 2025 and gain access to cutting-edge insights and strategies that will put your institution ahead of the curve. Learn more.

    To access the detailed conference program, download the brochure here.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email rebecca.cox@news.com.au

    Source link

  • Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    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.

    Download the white paper: Why Unifying Data and Technology is Critical to the Success and Future of Universities

    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.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email rebecca.cox@news.com.au

    Source link

  • The rubbish bin theory of the student experience

    The rubbish bin theory of the student experience

    Students have two kinds of problems.

    There are the big, systemic, institutional policy failures that make their lives miserable. These might be social ills of discrimination and prejudice rendered into the classroom experience. These might be reasonable adjustment policies that turn out to be entirely unreasonable. Or it might be the pecuniary architecture that collapses the student experience into unending part-time work and just about squeezing study in.

    In general students’ unions and universities are set up to address these kinds of challenges. There are committees, policies, liaison groups, central budgets, and a power and decision making architecture which faces these problems. This doesn’t mean they can always solve these issues, if they ever can be solved, but it does mean they are at least positioned to have a go at doing so.

    Power

    In the realm of the fundamentally bad and wrong a senior executive often can make things better. After all, they set institutional budgets, strategies, policies, contracts, and rules that impact every student. However, there is another kind of problem that impacts students where they just have less proximity to the issue.

    Imagine the student where things are basically ok. Life is tough, as it is for many students, but as far as they can tell they do not believe they are being treated unfairly, they seem to be broadly getting the big things they were promised when they turned up, and all available evidence suggests their lecturers are working within a set of policies that seem to be pretty fair. In other words, things aren’t too bad.

    However, as time goes on things don’t go badly wrong but they do go a little awry. The common room they went to before lectures doesn’t open until 09:30 in the winter. Their feedback has gone from arriving in six weeks to seven which adds a little bit more pressure on their exams. The library is suddenly much busier as the cold nights have set it. The buses are now much less frequent after a timetable change. The kit they need for their programmes is now more booked up as a new term has brought a new set of modules. And onward and onwards on the ever more bits of bad experience ephemera that clog up students’ lives.

    This is the rubbish bin theory of the student experience. Nobody is doing anything terribly wrong, in fact many people will be doing the right thing in some context and doing the best with the time they have, but the little bit of bad experience builds up and up until the whole student experience stinks. Some of these bits of rubbish are bigger than others, some might even amount to breaches of OfS’s ongoing conditions, but nobody is doing anything which is intentionally malicious.

    The rubbish bin theory of the student experience posits that everyone within a students’ ecosystem can make perfectly reasonable decisions within their own domains, turning down the heating to save on budgets, reconfiguring communal meeting space for staff offices, and changing opening hours of the reception desks might make sense in the context of the university more generally and even for some students some of the time. It is that the university is too big, too bureaucratic, and does not always operate on a small enough level to always take the rubbish out.

    The rubbish bin

    The problem with the smelly rubbish bin is that it’s often only noticed when it’s full. For example, the classic students’ union response is to bring together lots of information from course reps, school reps, committees, and other sources, to then feedback for subsequent years about a different bin, different ways to take out the rubbish, new bin liners (you get it I have tortured the metaphor now). The challenge is that even if you really push down the rubbish in one place it will only pop out in another (ok I am really done this time).

    This is because the issues are often too small-scale to warrant institutional intervention, which the union is well set up to advocate for, and often too local, emerging in programmes or departments, to be wholly made visible to the union or to be wholly made to work with university policy. The bin is able to get more and more full because everyone just flings their bit of rubbish in and it’s not anybody’s job to take it out from time to time (ok, sorry).

    The university incentive is to deal with the regulatory challenges in front of them. And while these are ongoing conditions the information the university can rely on, publish, and collate, is often a retrospective indicator. To take only two examples. NSS reporting encourages universities to deal with the issues of students no longer at the insitution. Graduate Outcomes measure student performance at a point in time in an ever changing labour market.

    This isn’t to say students’ unions don’t do lots of things for individuals, it’s not to say that universities only care about the big issues, that isn’t true, it’s a question of how these two institutions keep an eye on both the structural problems and the emerging challenges.

    Public administration

    There are three interesting public administration and organising theories that might help conceptualise this challenge. Henry Mintzberg, one of the most important public administration theorists of the 20th century, imagines organisation strategy like a potter at a wheel. The raw ingredients exist (staff, committees, students’ unions, money, representatives, and so on), but the shape of the pot only comes into focus when hands are applied to it. This is strategy by doing says that strategic intent only becomes apparent through patterns in retrospect.

    This would mean that students’ unions would have much looser resource allocations and move across departments, programmes, central university structures, representative groups, and ways of working, where the challenges and insight led them. It would mean that universities find the means to have more hands at the wheel. Giving school, departmental, and faculty committees more power, allocating budgets for taking out the rubbish bin, and challenging central structures so they spend more time focussing on emerging problems, not the retrospective ones encouraged by the regulatory reporting cycle.

    Community organising, which is a direction of travel across students’ unions, is slightly different to Mintzberg’s theory of emergent strategy. As imagined by the likes of Saul Alinsky community organising assumes that communities have the solutions but not the positional power to address issues. Emergent strategy places a greater emphasis on cross-organisational actions that can both exist within and between sites of local organising. They are both about allowing ideas to emerge with greater flexibility; it is that ideas of emergent strategy places greater emphasis on the initiation of those ideas and the provision of the materials to affect change within an organisational context. This would hold that rather than having a committee of people to take the rubbish bin out let students do it themselves through helping them organise and giving them budgets and responsibilities.

    The other important theorists here are Denhardt and Denhardt and their idea of New Public Service which sets out organisations to serve rather than steer their stakeholders. In this model universities and students’ unions would spend much less time trying to fix the problems of their students but instead provide the spaces through which students could learn from each other, provide resources through which students could advocate for themselves, and provide insights that would allow students to more effectively make the case for change to the people in power. In this model the emphasis would be on how universities and students’ unions open up bureaucratic spaces to allow a greater plurality of student voices to come forward.

    These are just three models amongst many but they raise the question of the best means of keeping an eye on the accumulation of student issues that lead to generally bad experiences. It comes down to a set of trade-offs which could be brought into sharper relief. The extent to which the universities, students’ unions, and their partners, ultimately develop policy and ways of working to support people to solve their own problems and they extent to which they are better served putting the organisational bureaucracy behind these bigger issues.

    The rubbish bin theory although a metaphor brings into focus the literal problem of how universities value maintenance. The accumulation of student issues are partially addressed by the ongoing commitment to keeping stuff open, working, reliable, and functioning. In general, reward often follows doing a good new thing rather than keeping the good old thing working. The issue of the student experience is intrinsically tied to the recognition and reward of those who take the rubbish out.

    Source link

  • Building a Better Transfer Experience for Modern Learners 

    Building a Better Transfer Experience for Modern Learners 

    In 2022, 36.8 million students under the age of 65 fell into the category of Some College, No Credential (SCNC)–a population that grew by nearly 3% year-over-year by 2024. These learners, who started but did not complete a credential, represent a growing population with significant potential for re-enrollment. Understanding their needs is essential to support their return to higher education.  

    For SCNC students, one key factor can significantly influence their decision to re-enroll—transfer credit policies. The Education Reengagement Report, conducted in collaboration with DegreeSight, provides a comprehensive overview of this subset of modern learners, uncovering key strategies to re-engage these students by addressing their unique needs, particularly surrounding maximization of previously earned credits and awareness of credit transfer policies. Explore the report’s findings to gain deeper insights into how institutions can effectively engage and support SCNC students on their path to completion.  

    Who are Some College, No Credential (SCNC) Modern Learners? 

     SCNC students represent a noteworthy portion of the Modern Learner population, and their unique profile merits deep consideration when developing approaches to re-engagement. For more insights into the challenges faced by stopped-out students and strategies to support their return, read our previous article on addressing their barriers. In the context of the Education Reengagment Report, SCNC students are defined as those seeking reenrollment or who have already reenrolled elsewhere.  Their experiences and motivations reflect diverse life experiences, making them a unique yet significant audience for higher education institutions.  

    SCNC students comprise of diverse demographic and professional profiles. Most are aged between 25-29 (66%), and a significant portion (33%) identify as first-generation college students. Their employment status also varies, with 59% working full-time, 20% employed part-time, and 16% not currently employed. Many SCNC students were previously enrolled in associate degree programs (43%), while others sought bachelor’s degrees (57%), reflecting a broad range of academic aspirations.  

    SCNC students pursue a wide range of academic interests, with certain fields emerging as particularly popular. The areas of study with the highest levels of enrollment for SCNC students include Business (24%), IT, Computers, and Technology (20%), and Health-related fields (13%). Additionally, learning format preferences reveal a demand for flexibility, with 47% favoring on-campus programs, 29% opting for hybrid options, and 20% preferring fully online programs. These findings emphasize the need for flexible program offerings to meet SCNC students’ varying needs and schedules. 

    Career advancement is a primary motivation for SCNC students when initially enrolling. Sixty percent enrolled in an undergraduate program to improve their earning potential or launch a new career, while 40% sought careers better aligned with their interests. Additionally, 30% pursued a degree as a next step following high school or technical school.  

    However, financial challenges, competing responsibilities, and various program limitations are common reasons for stopping out. Survey results show that the main barrier to continuing education for SCNC students is cost, with 32% citing it as their primary reason for stopping out. Other reasons include Covid-19 related reasoning (20%), lack of flexibility in the program (19%), and inability to use federal financial aid (15%).  Understanding these critical factors is essential for institutions looking to reengage this population. By addressing the root causes of their stop-outs, institutions can better connect with SCNC students and deliver personalized solutions to them. 

    The report surveyed both SCNC and transfer students. While these groups differ in some ways, they share similarities in their focus on career outcomes and expectations for the enrollment process.  

    The key difference to keep in mind include: 

    • Age: SCNC students tend to be older, with a median age of 37 compared to 31 for Transfer students  
    • Motivation: Transfer students top motivation stems from their career aspirations, while SCNC students place greater emphasis on program affordability 
    • Level of study: Transfer students are more likely to pursue bachelor’s degrees, while SCNC students often have a mix of associate and bachelor’s degree goals 

    Despite these differences, both groups share a unifying goal to leverage their existing credits to further their higher education career and achieve their personal and professional goals, making them a significant opportunity for higher education institutions.  

    Why are Transfer Credit Policies So Important for SCNC Modern Learners?

    Many SCNC students have already earned a decent number of college credits, with 32% having completed 16 to 30 credits, indicating that they have completed at least one semester of coursework. This progress underscores the importance of transfer credit policies easing their return to higher education. With the many notable reasons for stopping out, the barrier to re-entry only rises without clear credit transfer or support systems in place. For these students, the financial burden of repeating coursework and the desire for swift completion of their degrees are top priorities.  

    Survey data highlights the overwhelming importance students place on credit transfer policies. Ninety-three percent of SCNC students say that the number of transferrable credits impacts their enrollment decision, with 55% indicating it as a primary factor. Additionally, 36% of students rank credit acceptance as a key consideration in their reenrollment decision, second only to tuition cost (44%) and closely followed by the availability of online programs (35%).  

    Clear and favorable transfer credit policies not only can alleviate the financial pressures of reenrollment but can also expedite the path to graduation. However, navigating these policies is not a simple process for many students. Thirty-five percent of students report that understanding transfer credit policies is the most difficult part of the enrollment process, followed by getting previous credits transferred (34%) and completing financial aid forms (34%). Institutions should view this as a call to action to refine their policies and streamline processes, addressing these critical pain points to better meet student needs and enhance both enrollment and retention outcomes. 

    How Can Institutions Better Support SCNC Modern Learners with Transfer Credits?

    Supporting SCNC students requires institutions to prioritize transparency, personalized support, and flexibility—particularly where transfer credits are concerned.  Many SCNC students face unnecessarily complicated processes during their reenrollment processes, making it imperative for institutions to make their policies accessible.  

    To better meet this demographics’ varied needs, institutions can implement the following strategies to support SCNC students: 

    • Promote Transparent Transfer Policies

    Institutions should make transfer credit policies easy to understand and accessible across websites, marketing materials, and additional platforms. Clearly communicating how previous credits apply to degree requirements empowers students to make informed decisions.  Online tools like credit transfer calculators, chatbots for common inquiries, and infographics can further empower students to understand their credit situation and feel confident making enrollment decisions.  

    • Highlight Cost Savings and Financial Support: 

    To address cost barriers, institutions should clearly communicate how credit transfers reduce tuition expenses and emphasize available financial aid options. Offering flexible payment plans helps students manage their finances more readily, allowing them to focus on their education without financial stress. 

    • Provide Comprehensive Support Services: 

    Having a dedicated credit transfer advisor can make a pivotal difference in the SCNC enrollment experience. These advisors can help guide students in navigating complex processes, equipping them with vital information on financial aid options, available transferrable credits, and program pathways.  Support can be offered through online channels, advising, and assistance with application and registration processes. Partnering with EducationDynamics’ Enrollment Management Team can help institutions scale this support effectively. 

    • Expand Flexible Learning Options: 

    Expanding online and hybrid program offerings is crucial to supporting the growing SCNC population. These flexible formats can better serve SCNC lifestyles, as these students often juggle work and family responsibilities in addition to their course load. Flexible online and hybrid-based programs are imperative to be promoted to this population, as many have changed their learning modality from classroom-based to online or hybrid. By assessing current offerings and identifying areas of expansion, institutions can better support the needs of Modern Learners.  

    Unlock Opportunities for SCNC Student Success

    SCNC students have spoken—there is a clear need for institutions to adapt their policies and support services to meet their unique needs. By prioritizing clear transfer credit policies, personalized support, and flexible learning options, universities can attract this demographic while helping them achieve their academic goals. As institutions continue to navigate evolving enrollment challenges, adapting to the needs of SCNC students will be instrumental in building success and shaping the future of higher education.  

    Ready to reengage SCNC students? Explore how EDDY’s market research services help your institution effectively reach SCNC students and create successful pathways from re-enrollment to graduation.  

    Source link

  • Enrollment Management Software: Enhance Student Experience

    Enrollment Management Software: Enhance Student Experience

    Tune In To Our Audio Blog

     

    Introduction

    Enrollment management is the core function of any educational institution. It involves not merely processing applications but also influencing students’ futures and facilitating a smooth experience from the initial expression of interest in your institution. This work can frequently appear daunting for registrars.

    You are responsible for the daily management of extensive documentation, the navigation of complex systems, and the pursuit of ensuring that each student feels supported and welcomed. Nevertheless, it is clear that a straightforward routine can be transformed into a substantial inconvenience by manual procedures, communication failures, and data management complications.

    Enrollment management software is thus critically essential in this context. This robust solution is engineered to confront the difficulties you encounter directly, facilitating process optimization and improving the student experience. We will be addressing student enrollment issues faced by registrars during registration and investigate how an appropriate software solution might significantly benefit both your staff and the students you assist. Let us engage collaboratively to address these concerns.

     

    Common Pain Points in Enrollment Management

     

     

    Since we are all aware that enrollment management is a genuine challenge, let us discuss some of the most significant sore points you encounter. And rest assured, you are not alone in this. A whopping 67% of registrars report feeling overwhelmed by manual processes and documentation, as indicated by a recent survey conducted by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). We can deconstruct a few of these “student enrollment issues” for you!

     

    Manual Procedures and Paperwork

    Manual data entry can be inordinately time-consuming, as we are all aware. No matter how diligently you propel, you appear to make minimal progress when endeavoring to swim upstream. Disorganized spreadsheets, handwritten notes, and stacks of forms not only impede productivity but also heighten the probability of errors. In reality, organizations that implement manual processes may allocate up to 30% more time to administrative duties than those that adhere to automated systems. Imagining the potential of that additional leisure!

     

    Lack of Real-Time Data Access

    How frequently do you wait for info before making a big decision? Real-time data is essential in today’s fast-paced educational environment. Working with obsolete or delayed data might slow your response to student needs and strategic opportunities. According to a recent research, 56% of registrars said delayed data retrieval hindered decision-making. Yikes!

     

    Communication Gaps

    Communicating can be like playing broken telephone. Departments and students can lose vital information, causing confusion and frustration. Critical updates may not reach the appropriate people at the right time. Eduventures found that 43% of enrollment officers have communication gaps, which affect student happiness and engagement.

     

    Poor Application Tracking

    How often have you yearned for a magic wand to effortlessly track application statuses? Finding a needle in a haystack might be difficult without a system. Incomplete applications, missing paperwork, and inability to track progress can stress registrars and students. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) found that 62% of registrars struggle with application monitoring, delaying admissions and missing student prospects.

     

    Few Reports and Analytics

    Let’s conclude with data analysis—or lack thereof. How can you examine trends and patterns to inform enrollment plans if your reporting capabilities are limited? You must estimate what works and what doesn’t without complete data. According to an AACRAO poll, 70% of registrars want better reporting tools to guide their strategy.

    That’s it. These typical issues can severely affect enrollment management and the student experience. Do not worry! The correct enrollment management software can address these issues. Explore how it can streamline your procedures and improve everyone’s experience.

     

    How Can Universities Reduce Pain Points in the Student Enrollment Process Using Enrollment Management Software?

     

    Say Goodbye to Paperwork with Automation

    It’s no secret that entering data by hand and dealing with piles of papers can be a real pain. By bettering these steps, enrollment management software takes that load off your shoulders. You could save a lot of time if you let the software do the boring work. That way, you could focus on what really matters: helping kids and making their experience better.

     

    Have insights at your fingertips in real time

    Delayed data can make it hard to make quick choices. When you use registration management software, you can get to important data at any time. You don’t have to wait for reports or changes anymore. You can get instant information that helps you make decisions right away.

     

    Talk to people in other departments without any problems

    Communication is very important in a busy registration office, which we all know. These systems come with built-in ways to talk to each other and kids, so everyone stays in touch. There will be less confusion and knowledge will flow more easily, which is good for everyone.

     

    Master Application Tracking

    There shouldn’t be any element of guesswork involved in monitoring applications. Using the application tracking features provided by enrollment management software, you can easily keep tabs on the status of each application in real time.

    The outcome = you can stay organized plus give ultimate experience to applicants that they demand.

     

    Master the Art of Advanced Reporting for Radical Insights

    Data is your greatest ally when enhancing enrollment strategies. Enrollment management software’s powerful reporting and analytics features help you gain valuable insights into patterns and outcomes. This simply implies that you may influence your organization’s success through data-driven decisions.

     

    Advanced Reporting Provides Powerful Insights

    Data is your best friend for enrollment strategy improvement. Advanced reporting and analytics in enrollment management software let you analyze trends and outcomes. You can use data to make decisions that affect your institution’s success.

     

    What Enrollment Management Software Can Do for You, Registrar! Additional Benefits

     

    benefits-of-enrollment-management-software

     

    Easily Create Compliance Reports: No more scrambling during audits. With built-in reporting tools, you’ll have audit-ready reports at your fingertips.

    Create Compliance Reports with No Effort: No more rushing through audits. Built-in reporting features will let you have audit-ready reports right at hand.

    Reduced Human Errors: Automate data entry and tracking to greatly lower errors that might pass through in-hand procedures. 

    Access Real-Time Enrollment Data: Real-time updates will keep you current with enrollment figures, so guiding quick, wise selections.

    Secure Student Data: Forget data breaches. Cloud storage ensures security and compliance, providing you peace of mind.

    Make Reviewing Applications Easy: Let the program indicate critical details so you may focus on the big picture instead of sorting through heaps of papers.

    Get Everyone on One Agenda: Forget about departmental conflicts. Centralized data guarantees that everyone has the same information, so facilitating smooth teamwork.

    Create Methodologies That Fit You: Customize the system to fit the demands of your university so the enrolling process seems seamless, quick, and completely customized.

    Engage Students More: Use the software’s chat features to keep students up to date and interested throughout the whole process.

    Scale operations easily: The software adapts to your needs, so you don’t have to worry about losing accuracy or speed as the number of enrollments goes up or down.

     

    Wrapping It Up: Boost Enrollment Management with the Right Tool from Creatrix Campus

    At the heart of improving the student experience is how well you manage enrollment. We know the pain points—manual processes, communication breakdowns, and keeping track of every application can slow you down. As a registrar, you’re juggling enough already. Why not make things easier?

    Enrollment management software helps. We simplify operations, improve collaboration, and provide real-time data access, so you can focus on delivering a successful student journey. When modernizing your system, Creatrix Campus includes everything a modern registrar needs to ease the process. Contact our staff for more!

    Source link