Tag: Graduate

  • Trends in Hiring, 2025 Graduate Readiness for the Workforce

    Trends in Hiring, 2025 Graduate Readiness for the Workforce

    The Class of 2025 is prioritizing location, job stability and benefits when considering their first job postgraduation.

    SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images 

    Commencement season brings excitement to college campuses as community members look to celebrate the accomplishments of the graduating class and usher them into their next chapter of life.

    The Class of 2025, however, is gearing up to enter a challenging environment, whether that’s a competitive application cycle for gaining admission to graduate school or a tighter job market compared to previous years.

    Inside Higher Ed compiled 25 data points regarding the Class of 2025 and the workforce they will enter, including levels of career preparedness, challenges in the workplace and the value of higher education in reaching career goals.

    1. Over half of seniors feel pessimistic about starting their careers because they worry about a competitive job market and a lack of job security.
    2. Seventy-eight percent of students rank job stability as a “very important” attribute in potential employers, followed by a healthy workplace culture.
    3. Eighty-eight percent of college juniors and seniors believe their coursework is adequately preparing them for entry-level roles in their chosen fields.
    4. Eight out of 10 soon-to-be graduates plan to start work within three months of graduating.
    5. Hiring for college graduates is down 16 percent compared to last year, and 44 percent below 2022 levels.
    1. Starting salaries are up 3.8 percent year over year, outpacing inflation’s growth of 2.4 percent, as of March.
    2. Seventy-nine percent of young adults say health benefits are a “high” or “very high” priority for them when considering a job opportunity.
    3. Desired location is a top priority for 73 percent of 2025 graduates in deciding which jobs to apply for, followed by job stability (70 percent). Over two-thirds said they’re looking for a job near their family.
    4. If they choose to relocate for work, cost of living is the most pressing issue for new graduates (90 percent), followed by a diverse and tolerant community (64 percent). Ninety-eight percent of young adults say cost of living is their No. 1 money stressor, as well.
    5. Flexibility remains key for graduates, with 43 percent looking for hybrid work, defined as being on-site for two or three days a week. Forty-four percent cited the ability to work from home as an important benefit, and over half want more than two weeks of vacation or paid time off in their first year of work.
    1. Roughly half of entry-level job postings employers plan to create will be hybrid, and about 45 percent will be for fully in-person roles.
    2. Engineering students are expected to be the highest paid of all the majors pursued by the class of 2025, earning an average of $78,731 this year.
    3. Recent college graduates who participated in experiential learning while in college earn on average $59,059, compared to their peers without internships, who earn an average of $44,048.
    4. As of last fall, only half of first-generation students in the Class of 2025 had completed an internship, compared to 66 percent of their peers.
    5. About 12 percent of students have not participated in an internship and do not expect to do so before finishing their degree—lower than the average of 35 percent of workers who enter the workforce without an internship or other relevant work experience.
    1. Ninety-eight percent of employers say their organization is struggling to find talent, but nearly 90 percent say they avoid hiring recent grads—in part, as 60 percent noted, because they lack real-world experience.
    2. One-third of hiring managers say recent graduates lack a strong work ethic, and one in four say graduates are underprepared for interviews.
    3. Over half (57 percent) of HR departments expect to increase spending on training and development in the year ahead.
    4. As of March, nearly 6 percent of recent graduates (ages 22 to 27 who hold a bachelor’s degree or higher) were unemployed, compared with 2.7 percent of all college graduates. The unemployment rate for all young workers (ages 22 to 27) is approximately 7 percent.
    5. Twenty-five percent of young adults are struggling to find jobs in their intended career fields; 62 percent aren’t employed in the career they intended to pursue after graduation.
    6. Nearly 90 percent of students chose their major with a specific job or career path in mind.
    7. Finding purposeful work is critical to Gen Z’s job satisfaction, and more than half say meaningful work is important when evaluating a potential employer.
    8. One-quarter of young adults already have a side hustle, and 37 percent of Gen Z want to start a side hustle.
    9. Ninety-seven percent of human resources leaders say it’s important that new hires have a foundational understanding of business and technology, including in such areas as artificial intelligence, data analytics and IT.
    10. Gen Y and Gen Z workers are more likely than their older peers to worry they will lose their job or their job will be eliminated by generative AI.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Why Timing Matters: Enhancing Graduate Recruitment Strategies with Prompt Communication

    Why Timing Matters: Enhancing Graduate Recruitment Strategies with Prompt Communication

    Graduate enrollment is more competitive than ever. As an admissions leader, you’re not just striving to hit enrollment targets––you’re also navigating the complex needs of prospects who are balancing careers, families, and other responsibilities. It’s no small task. 

    Our recent collaboration with UPCEA confirmed something many of us already suspected: Timely, meaningful communication is the key to standing out in a crowded market. 

    To dig deeper, we enlisted Kate Monteiro, associate director of communication strategy at Collegis Education, to share her perspective on why prompt, responsive interactions matter. Her insights reveal how intentional communication builds trust and drives results. 

    3 key benefits of effective, early communication 

    “Plans and interests can change as quickly as they develop,” Monteiro explains. “Capitalizing on a prospective student’s excitement early can help you keep their momentum going — and dramatically improve their likelihood of enrolling.” 

    From that very first touchpoint, graduate students are evaluating your institution. Are you responsive? Are you supportive? These early interactions set the tone for how they perceive your school will engage with them once they are enrolled – and this can make or break their decision. Here’s why they matter so much: 

    1. Making a strong first impression 

    Your first interaction says a lot. A quick, thoughtful response shows students that their time and interest matter. “Quick responses instill confidence,” Monteiro shares. “They signal that your institution is organized, efficient, and genuinely cares—all of which are qualities students associate with the experience they’ll have if they enroll.” 

    2. Alleviating anxiety and uncertainty 

    Navigating graduate admissions can be overwhelming, especially for students juggling applications to multiple institutions. A delayed response could be viewed as a red flag by students who feel overlooked or unworthy of attention. 

    On the flip side, timely and helpful communication reassures students that they’re a priority. That sense of trust could be the difference between a completed application and a missed opportunity. 

    3. Setting the tone for future interactions 

    “Students notice when there’s a lack of responsiveness,” Monteiro cautions. “If their early experiences are stressful or unclear, they’ll assume that’s what they can expect moving forward.” 

    Consistency is key. A reliable, nurturing communication strategy not only establishes trust but encourages forward momentum toward enrollment. 

    The data on communication preferences 

    If you’re wondering just how much communication matters, numbers tell the story. A 2023 Ruffalo Noel Levitz study found that 65% of enrolled students identified personalized attention as a critical factor in choosing their school. 

    And when it comes to how students want to connect, the data from our survey with UPCEA confirms that email is the clear favorite for all stages. Email was reported as preferred by 47% of students for initial inquiries, 67% for follow-ups, 74% when approaching application, and 69% for application decision notifications.  

    “Email provides a professional yet low-pressure way to engage,” Monteiro adds. “It’s also something students can reference later, which helps minimize miscommunication or misunderstanding.” 

    This data emphasizes a key takeaway: Schools that respond quickly and deliberately, particularly through the channels students prefer, are the most likely to earn trust and secure enrollments. 

    5 strategies to master timely communication 

    A thoughtful approach to communication doesn’t just make a good impression—it sets your team up for long-term success. Here are five strategies to help you get there: 

    1. Develop a structured outreach plan 

    Without a clear communication plan, students can easily fall through the cracks. Monteiro often sees institutions struggle here: “A lot of schools don’t have an outlined communication plan or fail to hold their staff accountable to it. By having a clear and structured plan, you ensure students receive the outreach they need at the right time.” 

    Your outreach plan should have a strategic mix of emails, calls, and texts, with pre-written templates, clear timelines, and designated responsibilities outlined for your team. This ensures consistent, proactive communication with prospective students throughout the funnel. 

    2. Leverage technology 

    Technology is your ally in timely communication, but its effectiveness depends on the strength of your data foundation. CRM systems, AI chatbots, and automated workflows streamline outreach while keeping things personal—provided your data is accurate and well-organized. 

    Automated emails can deliver the communication students prefer, and chatbots can address frequently asked questions 24/7, ensuring students get quick answers—even outside standard business hours. However, without a solid data infrastructure, these tools may fall short. While not a replacement for human connection, they can provide efficient support when and where students need it most—if your data house is in order. 

    3. Foster collaboration across teams 

    Admissions, marketing, and academic teams all play a role in student outreach. Monteiro highlights the disconnect she often sees: “Each team assumes the other is responsible. But ultimately, prospective students are everyone’s responsibility.” 

    Breaking down silos between teams ensures consistent messaging and a seamless student experience. 

    4. Use data to inform strategies 

    Data can reveal what’s working in your current graduate recruitment strategies—and what isn’t. For example, if students are engaging more with email than phone calls, it might be time to shift your focus toward crafting compelling email campaigns. Data can also provide insights into how long students typically take to move through the admissions funnel, allowing teams to optimize communication frequency, timing, and format. 

    5. Balance speed with personalization 

    Quick responses powered by automation are essential, but it’s the personal touch that leaves a lasting impression. Pairing automated emails with personalized follow-ups—whether by phone, text, or email—ensures your outreach feels both efficient and authentic. 

    Level up your graduate recruitment strategies 

    Improving communication isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s a need-to-have for institutions looking to thrive in today’s competitive graduate market. With a structured plan, the right tools, and data-driven insights, you can build trust and guide more students to enrollment. 

    “Our Collegis Enrollment Specialists hear it all the time from the students at our partner institutions: The level of support and responsiveness is what ultimately compels them to move forward.” 

    – Kate Monteiro, Associate Director of Communication Strategy

    To learn more about how Collegis Education can help enhance your graduate recruitment strategies, explore our Enrollment and Recruitment Services page. For more actionable insights on engaging and enrolling graduate students, request your copy of the report below.

    Optimize Your Enrollment Funnel

    Get the latest on graduate student enrollment trends. Download the full report now.

    Source link

  • Graduate Student Insights and Perspectives

    Graduate Student Insights and Perspectives

    Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.

    Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.

    Source link

  • The Graduate Route — the most undervalued tool at the Treasury’s disposal to drive growth in the UK.

    The Graduate Route — the most undervalued tool at the Treasury’s disposal to drive growth in the UK.

    The HEPI blog was kindly authored by James Pitman, Chair of IHE and Managing Director U.K. and Ireland, Study Group

    The Graduate Route has been extraordinarily powerful in driving international education value in the UK. Although all the surveys show students choose universities and courses for their reputation or fit, the opportunity to translate this into a first job in another country to strengthen English language skills as they earn is evidenced by what happens as soon as that is taken away.

    The correlation between removing the Post Study Work Visa scheme on the back of statistically invalid analysis and the drop in international students choosing the UK in 2012 is irrefutable. This is strengthened by the significant international student growth linked to the re-introduction of the Graduate Route in 2021.

    Why is the graduate route visa such a powerful incentive for some international students to come and study in the UK? The simplest explanation came from an agent in India, who explained:

    ‘An Indian student can recoup much of their investment in a UK degree over a few years of employment in the UK when it would take several decades to do the same back in India.’

    International students contribute a net £100,000 to the UK economy during their degree study. A degree is required to enter the Graduate Route. Therefore, one could consider the ‘entry ticket’ for a Graduate Route visa to be a £100,000 investment in the UK – which may be worth up to £30,000 to the exchequer. From a Treasury growth perspective, international students drive employment and economic benefit in every constituency of the UK, especially in university towns and cities. I doubt the mandarins at the Treasury could think of a more cost-effective measure that seeds prosperity right across the country while building connections and loyalty that last a lifetime amongst the very group who will, in years to come, shape societies and build companies.

    Oxford Economics concluded that every 10 international students supports 6 jobs, with half in Higher Education and half in the local economy. If this remains accurate, the reported loss of approximately 10,000 jobs in Higher Education last year, mainly attributed to the decline in international students, should correspond to a similar loss in local economies across the country.

    And yet this is economic harm proactively driven by policy choices which raised uncertainty regarding the future of the Graduate Route.  If you were thinking of making a £100,000 investment, uncertainty would not exactly be conducive to choosing to invest in the UK. As one local businessman in Sheffield put it, “If you walk past a shop window swinging a baseball bat for a couple of weeks, it doesn’t matter if you never hit it, the people inside will still get worried.” Even just the threat of future policy changes creates “a massive amount of uncertainty, and uncertainty for students is a big problem.” 

    Subsidising the domestic tax payer

    Students on the Graduate Route, like all international students, pay the Immigration Health Surcharge (currently £776 p.a. for students and £1035 p.a. for graduates on the Graduate Route).  The actual costs according to the Department of Health and Social Care in 2018 were £480 p.a. including dependants.  Given the restrictions on dependants, a shift in the mix (until recent restrictions) to shorter PG courses, the prevalence of private insurance that many students have and the reality of waiting times for treatment, this is a subsidy to the NHS.

    Another subsidy is less well known, but any student on the Graduate Route employed at any salary level, high or low, is actually subsiding the UK tax payer. In comparison with a domestic employee at the exact same level of remuneration, international students pay the same income tax and National Insurance, but critically, they can only access less than half of the services that those taxes pay for. International students on the Graduate Route are barred from benefiting from services provided in the areas of Education, Social Protection, and Housing, and they already subsidise the NHS, as shown above. Those four areas account for c.65% of public sector expenditure on services (PESA 2023/4).  Another way of putting this is that international students employed on the Graduate Route are effectively paying income tax at double the rate of a domestic equivalent worker.  

    The dependants dilemma — a third way

    However, the Migration Advisory Committee has argued that there is a subsidy element for international students. This seems to be based on the fact that international students could, until last year, bring unlimited numbers of dependants and that any child dependants had access to free education at the UK taxpayer’s cost. This option was then removed with a devastating knock-on impact for university finances.

    However, it is instructive to note that the options considered around this issue were binary — either close the dependants route (the approach taken for any students other than for those on research-intensive PG courses) or leave the system as was. What was not considered was adapting the dependants’ visa by removing access to free childhood education but leaving the route, which would have caused far less damage to international student recruitment in 2024. Instead, removing the dependant’s route caused significant damage that disadvantaged female students and students from cultures where chaperones are required. I know the options considered, because the Home Office responded to an FOI on this matter. Let us also remember that dependants have always been (as the name implies) dependant on the international student that they accompany, not the UK tax payer.

    Cost-benefit analysis

    In reality, in economic terms, international graduates are more akin to tourists, having no recourse to public funds (apart from the historical significant exception of child dependants) and bringing resources into the UK to sustain themselves. However, unlike tourists, they do have to pay the Immigration Health Surcharge.

    To give an indicator of the cost to the UK of restricting international students coming to study in the UK over that period, I compared the government-published data on value and growth rates of international education from 2010 to 2024 to the equivalent global international student mobility value growth rates published by Holon IQ (part of the QS Quacquarelli Symonds, group).  It is only an indicator, but against the UK having been permitted by government to grow at the same growth rate as the global market (which I doubt many in the sector would have bet against), cumulative loss to GDP over that period was £66 billion, implying a cumulative loss of income to the exchequer of £23 Billion. How many hospitals, schools and roads would be in better shape today if that scale of investment had been funded by international education?  What a wasted opportunity, and for what purpose?

    Now, the Prime Minister tells us his priorities are security and growth. On both, international students can be a key part of a progressive policy shift. And yet it is sad to say that our new government, whilst saying the right things, has not yet done anything to undo the damage of the past. If reports are to be believed, they are even being tempted to impose even more restrictions on international students in the Immigration White Paper to be published this month, preceding the new iteration of the International Education Strategy in April.  

    Once again, it appears that those who are tasked with reducing immigration are acting in direct opposition to the avowed growth agenda of the Treasury, the Department of Business and Trade, the Department for Education and others and, quite frankly, considering the above, against the demonstrable interests of the UK.

    Rethinking terms

    I have a clear understanding of the root cause of this ambivalence towards international students, and I direct any interested readers to the HEPI blog ‘When is an Immigrant not an Immigrant’. Allpolling of the general public (most recently by Public Future) shows that they recognise international students are not immigrants, and a strong majority cannot comprehend why they are categorised in the same way. If our government is serious about growth, I urge them to separate international students from immigration immediately.

    Finally, again, to demonstrate the value of international students, we should consider the increasingly dangerous situation we find ourselves in and the government’s commitment to ramp up defence spending. That incremental 0.2% GDP or £6 billion spend, announced recently, could have avoided the contentious cut in the overseas budget.  

    Why didn’t the Treasury consider international education instead? With no investment needed beyond the political will to enhance the UK’s international education offering, we could provide high-quality education to an additional 175,000 international students (that’s merely, on average, 1,250 per university). At current rates, this would generate around £6 billion for the exchequer from each cohort while also supporting the creation of approximately 50,000 jobs in higher education and another 50,000 jobs for hard-pressed families in local communities across the UK. Furthermore, it would significantly enhance the UK’s soft power in the long term.

    Many in the international education sector believe that our ability to welcome students is, in financial terms, as near as our country can get to a golden goose, although not one that will live forever. The Graduate Route is a key golden lever in its nest.  International students bring huge investments in order to access the benefits of the Graduate Route, subsidise the UK taxpayer while they are on it and can only remain in the UK after that with another category of visa.

    Source link

  • AI tools deepening divides in graduate outcomes (opinion)

    AI tools deepening divides in graduate outcomes (opinion)

    Since OpenAI first released ChatGPT in November 2022, early adopters have been informing the public that artificial intelligence will shake up the world of work, with everything from recruitment to retirement left unrecognizable. Ever more cautious than the private sector, higher ed has been slow to respond to AI technologies. Such caution has opened a divide within the academy, with the debate often positioned as AI optimism versus pessimism—a narrow aperture that leaves little room for realistic discussion about how AI is shaping student experience.

    In relation to graduate outcomes (simply put, where students end up after completing their degrees, with a general focus on careers and employability), universities are about to grapple with the initial wave of graduates seriously impacted by AI. The Class of 2025 will be the first to have widespread access to large language models (LLMs) for the majority of their student lives. If, as we have been repeatedly told, we believe that AI will be the “great leveler” for students by transforming their access to learning, then it follows that graduate outcomes will be significantly impacted. Most importantly, we should expect to see more students entering careers that meaningfully engage with their studies.

    The reality on the ground presents a stark difference. Many professionals working in career advice and guidance are struggling with the opposite effect: Rather than acting as the great leveler, AI tools are only deepening existing divides.

    1. Trust Issues: Student Overreliance on AI Tools

    Much has been said about educators’ ability to trust student work in a post-LLM landscape. Yet, when it comes to student outcomes, a more pressing concern is students’ trust in AI tools. As international studies show, a broad range of sectors is already placing too much faith in AI, failing to put proper checks and balances in place. If businesses beholden to regulatory bodies and investors are left vulnerable, then time-poor students seeking out quick-fix solutions are faring worse.

    This is reflected in what we are seeing on the ground. We were both schoolteachers when ChatGPT launched and both now work in student employability. As is common, the issues we first witnessed in the school system are now being borne out in higher ed: Students often implicitly trust that AI will perform tasks better than they are able to. This means graduates are using AI to write CVs, cover letters and other digital documentation without first understanding why such documentation is needed. Although we are seeing a generally higher (albeit more generic) caliber of writing, when students are pressed to expand upon their answers, they struggle to do so. Overreliance on AI tools is deskilling students by preventing them from understanding the purpose of their writing, thereby creating a split between what a candidate looks like on paper and how they present in real life. Students can only mask a lack of skills for so long.

    1. The Post-Pandemic Social Skills Deficit

    The generation of students now arriving at university were in their early teens when the pandemic hit. This long-term disruption to schooling had a profound impact on social and emotional skills, and, crucially, learning loss also impacted students from disadvantaged backgrounds at a much higher rate. With these students now moving into college, many are turning to AI to try and ameliorate feelings of being underprepared.

    Such a skills gap is tangible when working with students. Those who already present high levels of critical thinking and independence can use AI tools in an agile manner, writing more effective prompts before tailoring and enhancing answers. Conversely, those who struggle with literacy are often unable to properly evaluate how appropriate the answers provided by AI are.

    What we are seeing is high-performing students using AI to generate more effective results, outpacing their peers and further entrenching the divide. Without intervention, the schoolchildren who couldn’t answer comprehensions questions such as “What does this word mean?” about their own AI-generated homework are set to become the graduates left marooned at interview where they can no longer hide behind writing. The pandemic has already drawn economic battle lines for students in terms of learning loss, attainment and the very awarding of student grades—if we are not vigilant, inequitable AI use is set to become a further barrier to entry for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    1. Business Pivots, Higher Ed Deliberates

    Current graduates are entering a tough job market. Reports have shown both that graduate-level job postings are down and that employers are fatigued by high volumes of AI-written job applications. At the same time, employers are increasingly turning to AI to transform hiring processes. Students are keenly attuned to this, with many reporting low morale that their “dream role” is now one that AI will fulfill or one that they can see becoming replaced by AI in the near future.

    Across many institutions, higher education career advice and guidance is poorly equipped to deal with such changes, still often rooted in an outdated model that is focused on traditional job markets and the presumption that students will follow a “one degree, one career” trajectory, when the reality is most students do not follow linear career progression. Without swift and effective changes that respond to how AI is disrupting students’ career journeys, we are unable to make targeted interventions that reflect the job market and therefore make a meaningful impact.

    Nonetheless, such changes are where higher education career advice and guidance services can make the greatest impact. If we hope to continue leveling the playing field for students who face barriers to entry, we must tackle AI head-on by teaching students to use tools responsibly and critically, not in a general sense, but specifically to improve their career readiness.

    Equally, career plans could be forward-thinking and linked to the careers created by AI, using market data to focus on which industries will grow. By evaluating student need on our campuses and responding to the movements of the current job market, we can create tailored training that allows students to successfully transition from higher education into a graduate-level career.

    If we fail to achieve this and blindly accept platitudes around AI improving equity, we risk deepening structural imbalances among students that uphold long-standing issues in graduate outcomes.

    Sean Richardson is a former educator and now the employability resources manager at London South Bank University.

    Paul Redford is a former teacher, now working to equip young people with employability skills in television and media.

    Source link

  • How to Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growth [Webinar]

    How to Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growth [Webinar]

    Your graduate programs should be thriving, but if you’re relying on outdated outreach tactics, you’re leaving enrollments on the table. Today’s grad students expect more personalization, relevance, and connection. And if you’re not aligning with their needs, another institution will. The only way to meet them where they are is by asking the right questions and getting real answers. That’s exactly what Collegis Education and UPCEA did, and now we’re pulling back the curtain to share what we found.

    Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growth
    Proven Strategies for Engaging Graduate Students
    Date    : April 8, 2025
    Time: 2:00 pm (Eastern) / 1:00 pm (Central)

    Tracy Chapman

    Chief Academic Officer

    Collegis Education

    Headshot of Bruce Etter

    Bruce Etter

    Senior Director Research & Consulting
    UPCEA

    Join Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer at Collegis Education, and Bruce Etter, Senior Director of Research & Consulting at UPCEA, for their upcoming webinar “Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growth: Proven Strategies for Engaging Graduate Students.” In this session, they’ll reveal some surprising discoveries about graduate enrollment and the factors that drive impact and growth.

    • Graduate student needs and expectations
    • Why grad students disengage during their enrollment journey
    • What information grad students are willing to give you and when
    • How to best communicate and reach graduate students actively evaluating programs
    • Presidents
    • Provosts
    • Enrollment leaders 
    • Marketing leaders

    At the end, we’ll leave room for questions and conversion, and all attendees will receive a copy of the entire research report. 

    See you on April 8! 

    Source link

  • Graduate Student Preferences Webinar | Collegis Education

    Graduate Student Preferences Webinar | Collegis Education

    Your graduate programs should be thriving, but if you’re relying on outdated outreach tactics, you’re leaving enrollments on the table. Today’s grad students expect more personalization, relevance, and connection. And if you’re not aligning with their needs, another institution will. The only way to meet them where they are is by asking the right questions and getting real answers. That’s exactly what Collegis Education and UPCEA did, and now we’re pulling back the curtain to share what we found.

    Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growt
    Proven Strategies for Engaging Graduate Students
    Date    : April 8, 2025
    Time: 2:00 pm (Eastern) / 1:00 pm (Central)

    Join Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer at Collegis Education, and Bruce Etter, Senior Director of Research & Consulting at UPCEA, for their upcoming webinar “Unlock Graduate Enrollment Growth: Proven Strategies for Engaging Graduate Students.” In this session, they’ll reveal some surprising discoveries about graduate enrollment and the factors that drive impact and growth.

    Walk away with a clear understanding of:

    • graduate student needs and expectations,
    • why grad students disengage during their enrollment journey,
    • what information grad students are willing to give you and when, and
    • how to best communicate and reach graduate students actively evaluating programs. 

    Who should attend:

    • Presidents
    • Provosts
    • Enrollment leaders 
    • Marketing leaders

    At the end, we’ll leave room for questions and conversion, and all attendees will receive a copy of the entire research report. See you on April 8! 

    Source link

  • Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    “Our universities have a paramount place in an economy driven by knowledge and ideas.”

    These are the opening words of the 2016 white paper Success as a Knowledge Economy, which created the funding and regulatory architecture governing English higher education today. The arrangements are founded on a broad faith in the economic benefits of generating and communicating knowledge.

    This vision assumes that an increasing supply of university graduates and research, coupled with open markets that reward enterprise, leads to endogenous economic growth. That can happen anywhere because ideas are boundless and non-rivalrous, but particularly in England because our universities are among the best in the knowledge business.

    English higher education has grown by integrating the development of specific skills for the workplace alongside universally applicable knowledge. This is clear from the progress of most English universities from institutes established for professional and technical training towards university status, the absorption of training for an increasing range of professions within higher education, and the way in which universities can now articulate the workplace capabilities of all graduates, regardless of their discipline.

    Notwithstanding this, the reforms proposed in 2016 emphasised knowledge more than skills. By that time, most of the cost of teaching in English universities had been transferred to student tuition fees backed by income-contingent loans. So, the reforms mostly focused on providing confidence for the investments made by students and the risks carried by the exchequer. This would be delivered through regulation focused on issues important to students and the government, whilst positioning students as the pivotal influence on provision through competition for their choices.

    Universities would compete to increase and improve the supply of graduates. This would then enhance the capacity of businesses and public services to capitalise on innovation and new technologies, which would yield improved productivity and jobs requiring graduates. That is a crude characterisation, but it provides a starting point for understanding the new imperatives for higher education policy, which are influenced by challenges to this vision of nearly a decade ago.

    From market theory to experience in practice

    Despite an expansion of university graduates, the UK has had slow productivity growth since the recession of 2008–09. Rather than the economy growing alongside and absorbing a more highly educated workforce, there are declining returns for some courses compared with other options and concerns that AI technologies will replace roles previously reliant on graduates. Employers report sustained gaps and mismatches between the attributes they need and those embodied in the domestic workforce. Alongside this, ministers appear to be more concerned about people that do not go to university, who are shaping politics in the USA and Europe as well as the UK.

    These are common challenges for countries experiencing increasing higher education participation. The shift from elite to mass higher education is often associated with a “breakdown of consensus” and “permanent state of tension” because established assumptions are challenged by the scale and range of people encountering universities. This is particularly the case when governments place reliance on market forces, which leads to misalignment between the private choices made by individuals and the public expectations for which ministers are held to account. Universities are expected to embody historically elite modes of higher education reflected in media narratives and rankings, whilst also catering for the more diverse circumstances and practical skills needed by a broader population.

    In England, the government has told universities that it wants them to improve access, quality and efficiency, whilst also becoming more closely aligned with the needs of the economy and civil society in their local areas. These priorities may be associated with tensions that have arisen due to the drivers of university behaviour in a mass market.

    In a system driven by demand from young people, there has been improved but unequal access reflecting attainment gaps in schools. This might not be such a problem if increasing participation had been accompanied by a growing economy that improves opportunities for everyone. But governments have relied on market signals, rather than sustained industrial strategies, to align an increasing supply of graduates with the capabilities necessary to capitalise on them in the workplace. This has yielded anaemic growth since the 2007 banking crash, together with suggestions that higher education expansion diminishes the prospects of people and places without universities.

    In a competitive environment, universities may be perceived to focus on recruiting students, rather than providing them with adequate support, and to invest in non-academic services, rather than the quality of teaching. These conditions may also encourage universities to seek global measures of esteem recognised by league tables, rather than serving local people and communities through the civic mission for which most were established.

    Market forces were expected to increase the diversity of provision as universities compete to serve the needs of an expanding student population. But higher education does not work like other markets, even when the price is not controlled as for undergraduates in England. Competition yields convergence around established courses and modes of learning that are understood by potential students, rather than those that may be more efficient or strategically important for the nation as a whole.

    Navigating the new policy environment

    After more than a decade of reforms encouraging competition and choice, there appears to be less faith in well-regulated market forces positioning knowledgeable graduates to drive growth. Universities are now expected to become embedded within local and national growth plans and industrial strategy sectors, which prioritise skills that can be deployed in specific settings ahead of broadly applicable knowledge. This asks universities to consider the particular needs of industry, public services and communities in their local areas, rather than demand from students alone.

    Despite these different imperatives, English higher education will continue to be financed mostly by students’ tuition fees and governed by regulatory powers designed to provide confidence for their choices. We suggest four ingredients for navigating this, which are concerned with strategy, architecture, regulation and funding.

    The government has promised a single strategy for post-16 education and a new body, Skills England, to oversee it. A more unified approach across the different parts of post-compulsory education should encourage pathways between different types of learning, and a more coherent offer for both learners and employers. But it also needs to align factors that influence the demand for graduates, such as research and innovation, with decisions that influence their supply. That requires a new mindset for education policy, which has tended to prioritise national rules ahead of local responsiveness, or indeed coherence with other sectors and parts of government.

    Delivery of a unified strategy is hampered by the fragmented and complex architecture governing post-16 education. Skills England will provide underpinning evidence, both influencing and drawing on Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs), but it remains uncertain how this will be translated into measures that influence provision, particularly in universities. A unified strategy demands structures for convening universities, colleges, employers and local authorities to deliver it in local areas across the country.

    That could be addressed by extending the remit of LSIPs beyond a shopping list of skills requirements and enhancing the role of universities within them. Universities have the expertise to diagnose needs and broker responses, aligning innovation that shapes products and services with the skills needed to work with them. They will, though, only engage this full capability if local structures are accompanied by national regulatory and funding incentives, so there is a unified local body responsible for skills and innovation within a national framework.

    Regulation remains essential for providing confidence to students and taxpayers, but there could be a re-balancing of regulatory duties, so they have regard to place and promote coherence, rather than competition for individual students alone. This could influence regulatory decisions affecting neighbouring universities and colleges, as well as the ways in which university performance is measured in relation to issues such as quality and access. A clear typology of civic impact, together with indicators for measuring it, could shift the incentives for universities, particularly if there is a joined-up approach across the funding and regulation of teaching, research and knowledge exchange.

    Regulation creates the conditions for activity, but funding shapes it. Higher education tends to be a lower priority than schools within the Department for Education, and research will now be balanced alongside digital technologies within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. A new Lifelong Learning Entitlement and reformed Growth and Skills Levy may provide new opportunities for some universities, but any headroom for higher education spending is likely to be tied to specific goals. This will include place and industry-oriented research and innovation programmes and single-pot allocations for some MSAs, alongside the substantial public and private income universities will continue to generate in sectors such as health and defence. In this context, aligning universities with the post-16 education strategy relies on pooling different sources of finance around common goals.

    Closer alignment of this kind should not undermine the importance of knowledge or indeed create divisions with skills that are inconsistent with the character and development of English higher education to date. The shift in emphasis from knowledge towards skills reframes how the contributions of universities are articulated and valued in policy and public debate, but it need not fundamentally change their responsibility for knowledge creation and intellectual development.

    This appears to have been recognised by ministers, given the statements they have made about the positioning of foundational knowledge within strategies for schools, research and the economy. We have, though, entered a new era, which requires greater consideration of the demand for and take-up of graduates and ideas locally and nationally, and a different approach from universities in response to this.

    Source link

  • Inside the Minds of Grad Students: 5 Key Findings from Our Latest Study on Graduate Enrollment

    Inside the Minds of Grad Students: 5 Key Findings from Our Latest Study on Graduate Enrollment

    As a higher education leader, it’s no secret that you’re facing a fiercely competitive graduate enrollment landscape. You know as well as I do that understanding what prospective students want and how they behave isn’t just helpful – it’s crucial to your institution’s success. That’s why we teamed up with UPCEA to conduct a deep dive into today’s post-baccalaureate students, uncovering their unique needs, expectations, and wants.

    We’ve published those insights in our latest report to help colleges and universities fine-tune their graduate enrollment strategies and deliver real results. You can download the complete report here: “Building a Better Pipeline: Enrollment Funnel Needs and Perspectives from Potential Post-Baccalaureate Students“

    Our research focused on individuals who expressed at least some interest in pursuing advanced education, and this study sheds light on what matters most to potential graduate students—everything from program types and communication preferences to application expectations.

    As we dug into the data, some obvious themes emerged. Here are five key findings that can prepare your institution to stand out in this tight market and guide you in shaping strategies that resonate, engage, and deliver results.

    1. Graduate enrollment is a crowded market—and the stakes are high

    This is no surprise to those working in higher ed in recent years. Graduate enrollment is slowing, with just a 1.1% projected increase over the next five years. Adding to the challenge, 20% of institutions dominate 77% of the market. For everyone else, it’s a fierce battle for a shrinking pool of candidates. To win, you’ll need a sharp, focused approach.

    2. Online programs are the clear favorite

    Did you know that 71% of prospective students are “extremely” or “very” interested in fully online programs? Hybrid formats come in a close second, while traditional in-person options are struggling to keep pace. The data confirms that flexibility isn’t a trend—it’s a necessity.

    3. Program information is a make-or-break factor

    Here’s something we see far too often: quality programs losing prospective students simply because critical details—like tuition costs and course requirements—are buried or missing entirely from the school’s website. In fact, 62% of students indicated they would drop off early in their search for this exact reason.

    The fix? It’s simpler than you might think. By optimizing your program pages and doubling down on SEO, you can turn passive visitors into engaged prospects.

    4. Financial transparency builds trust

    Sticker shock is real. High application fees, vague cost information, and limited financial aid details are among the top reasons students abandon the application process late in the game. By addressing these concerns clearly and directly, you’re not just solving a problem, you’re building trust.

    When it comes to connecting with prospective graduate students, email reigns supreme. Whether it’s inquiring about programs (47%), application follow-ups (67%), or receiving application decisions (69%), email is the channel students trust the most.
    But here’s the catch: your emails have to be timely, personalized, and relevant in order to make an impact.

    The key to graduate enrollment success is just a click away

    The insights highlighted above are just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine what’s possible when you apply them to your graduate enrollment strategy.

    If you’re ready to refine your approach and stay ahead of the curve, we’ve got you covered. Our report dives deeper into the data and uncovers actionable insights, including:

    • Positioning your online and hybrid offerings to meet growing demand
    • Optimizing program pages to emphasize the information students value most
    • Communicating financial information proactively to convert candidates
    • Building email outreach strategies that build trust and keep students engaged

    Grab your complimentary copy of the report today, and let’s start building a better pipeline together!

    Your roadmap to winning in the competitive graduate market.

    Optimize Your Enrollment Funnel

    Get the latest data on graduate student enrollment trends. Download the full report now.

    Source link

  • Scotland eyes new graduate visa for international students

    Scotland eyes new graduate visa for international students

    Speaking at an event in Glasgow this week, John Swinney blasted the UK’s “disastrous” decision to leave the European Union, but suggested a new migration route specifically for students who choose to study in Scotland.

    “Twenty years ago, the Scottish and UK governments worked together to launch a tailored migration route designed to enable international students to stay in Scotland after they graduated,” he said. “I see no reason why this cannot happen again.”

    Under the plans, designed to keep highly skilled graduates in the country, the Scottish Graduate Visa would be linked to a Scottish tax code and be issued on the understanding that recipients would live and work in Scotland. 

    But despite Swinney’s assurances that he was “ready to work with” Downing Street on making the proposal a reality, his idea already appears to have been rebuffed by the UK government.

    A government spokesperson quoted by The Evening Standard indicated that there were “no plans” for a new Scottish visa, citing the UK’s Graduate Route already in place that allows international students to stay in the country for up to two years after they graduate.

    In his speech, Swinney said a new Scottish Graduate Visa would benefit not only the country’s institutions but its economy after international students’ graduation, highlighting that this group contributes £4.75 billion a year.

    “In small but important ways, it would make our economy more robust, and our public services more sustainable. It would play a part in making our communities more prosperous,” he said.

    In small but important ways, it would make our economy more robust, and our public services more sustainable
    John Swinney, Scottish first minister

    Pointing out that Scotland’s projected population is expected to dip for the next two generations, Universities Scotland convener Paul Grice highlighted the benefits a Scottish Graduate Visa could bring the country and said he hoped the proposal would “progress in a meaningful way”.

    “It would be enormously helpful if a policy space could be created between governments to consider greater regional variation of migration within an overall UK framework,” he said.

    “Inward migration will be essential to Scotland’s future and there is a really positive opportunity for Scotland’s universities, as magnets for the attraction and retention of highly-skilled people, to help deliver this as a win-win for the sector and Scotland as a whole. There is a lot to like in this outline proposal.”

    Although it does not appear to welcome the idea of a Scottish Graduate Visa for the time being, the UK government seems to be embracing international students.

    This week, education secretary Bridget Phillipson recorded a video message to international students in the UK promoting the country’s post-graduation work opportunities.

    Source link