The Texas Tech University System has ordered all faculty to refrain from classroom discussions of transgender identity, The Texas Tribune reported.
In a letter to the leaders of the five universities in the system, Texas Tech Chancellor Tedd Mitchell wrote that the institutions must comply with “current state and federal law,” which “recognize only two human sexes: male and female.“ He cited Texas House Bill 229, which defines sex strictly as determined by reproductive organs, a letter from Texas governor Greg Abbott directing agencies to “reject woke gender ideologies,” and President Trump’s January executive order—which is not a federal law—declaring the existence of just two genders.
“While recognizing the First Amendment rights of employees in their personal capacity, faculty must comply with these laws in the instruction of students, within the course and scope of their employment,” Mitchell wrote.
Mitchell’s letter provided little guidance for faculty about how to implement the new policy, suggesting it presents certain challenges.
“This is a developing area of law, and we acknowledge that questions remain and adjustments may be necessary as new guidance is issued at both the state and federal levels,” he wrote. “We fully expect discussions will be ongoing.”
Trust is fundamental to all of our relationships, and it is vital for meaningful relationships.
It can be an anchor in uncertain times, as explored in this special edition of the International Journal of Academic Development. Within higher education, trust underpins our diverse institutional relationships with students, and their families, friends and supporters; colleagues, regulatory bodies, employers, trade unions, students’ unions, prospective students and schools, international partners as well as local communities and many other groups. These individual interactions combine to build a complex matrix of relationships in which trust originates, takes form or develops.
Or sometimes, it doesn’t. Uncertainty and complexity can stifle relationships, suppressing trust as partners hold back or withdraw, leading to a crisis in confidence. A lack of trust can derail any relationship, well intended institutional narrative or strategy.
Having trust often means believing that you matter in some way to a person, or to the people working in an organisation, or system, enough for them to care about your experiences and feelings. It’s possible to trust without being highly engaged, but it’s difficult to get engaged without having trust.
Trust matters in higher education because universities are there to support individuals to achieve their goals, whether these are in teaching or research. Those individuals need to feel that people and systems are designed to include and support them. Trust has to be earned and it can easily be lost. Reflecting on the many challenges for the UK higher education sector and the multifaceted priorities and constraints it will be impossible to meet the expectations and aspirations of our students, colleagues and partners unless there is trust at every level.
When we encounter media articles like this one from the Guardian, we are asked to consider the possibility that trust in the whole system of higher education is beginning to fail – perhaps a consequence of massification and a loss of faith in education for its own sake, rather than as a passport to a shrinking pool of traditional jobs. We need to talk about why higher education remains worthwhile, and how we can work together to maintain trust in it and to ensure that students feel their own value as part of its systems.
Nurturing relationships
When we build trust we are also building partnerships. When we recognise an institution as trustworthy, we are frequently noting that it delivers on what it has promised and that it values relationships with its stakeholders; it holds itself accountable. And it is not just about the large-scale sector wide challenges, it is also about considering how we build trust through the average everyday experiences of our diverse student and colleague communities.
Creating trustful spaces in the classroom is one element of this. Teachers’ perception of trust-building has shown that trust is based on teachers’ care and concern for students as much as on their subject knowledge and teaching ability. Research on how students in engineering perceive trust-building efforts also shows that they value attention to them as individuals most highly. They also use their trust in the institution to mitigate perceived problems with individual colleagues or services, believing that the university, or their department, makes student-centred decisions with respect to recruiting and training lecturers and professional services staff, and accepting that occasionally, they may not find an individual teacher trustworthy.
Trust and accountability also underpin meaningful cultural change in uncomfortable spaces and sensitive areas. When we trust each other we can have difficult conversations and begin to accept the existence of hidden barriers across our diverse colleague and student groups. Inside the university, teams must trust each other, empathising with each other’s views and values – 2024’s report from AdvanceHE and Wonkhe showed that trust is paramount when leading strategic change in challenging times. Because of this, trust underpins institutional sustainability; particularly within a sector that is currently responding to rising costs and income constraints.
Nurturing relationships through difficult choices about resources and provision requires a fine balance, transparency, and accountability if trust is to be maintained and difficult decisions explained. Few people would continue a relationship in which trust has broken down or with someone or something that they would describe as untrustworthy, but many of use will recognise the situation where this has happened and all parties feel powerless to rebuild the trust.
What can individuals and leaders do?
Trust can be expressed in many forms: You can trust me, I trust you, you can trust yourself, you can trust each other. Within a complex array of opportunities and challenges which call for attention, HE institutions will benefit from finding the most appropriate strategies, performance indicators and (regulatory) endorsements which will create trust and accountability in their provision to build their reputation. As leaders, how do we show colleagues that we trust them? How do we encourage others to show that they trust us? What do we do to ensure that we are trustworthy?
At a larger scale, a trustworthy research partner shares ideas, makes it easy to distribute funding between institutions, invites contributions from stakeholders, colleagues working in the field, and students. A trustworthy community partner supports students and employees from the local area, ensuring that they feel welcome and valued, and uses local services. A trustworthy internationalised university supports cultural diversity and makes both moving to and working with research and teaching easier by explaining practical and organisational differences. By considering how long-term relationships are built and maintained, we can develop a track record of ‘quality’ provision and demonstrate that they are ‘worth it’ to students, colleagues, funders, regulatory bodies, employers and other partners.
When trust in leaders or institutions is lost, the response is often rapid and drastic, with changes in staff and policies having the potential to create further turbulence. As the research with students showed, trust in institutions and systems can survive individual lapses. Maybe a first step should always be to try to rebuild relationships, making oneself, the university, or the system slightly vulnerable in the short term as we work to show that higher education is a human activity which may sometimes not work out as planned, but which we believe in enough to repair.
We can work at all kinds of levels to build and foster trust in our activities. Public engagement has the power to counter hostile narratives and build trust and so does effective partnership work with our local communities, students and Students’ Unions. Working together, listening to and valuing our partners’ perspectives enables us to identify and mitigate the impacts of challenges and take a constructive and nuanced approach to build both trust and inclusive learning communities. If we are to tackle our current pressing sector challenges and wicked problems such as awarding gaps when trust in public institutions is low, it has never been more important to collaborate with our partners, be visibly accountable and focus on equity.
So how can we work together to offer a holistic view of the benefits and value that focusing on trust building can bring? We are keen to build a community of practice to systematically strengthen trust across the HE sector. Join us to develop a trust framework which will explore environments that increase or decrease trust across stakeholder groups and consider how to encourage key trust behaviours such as sharing, listening, and being accountable in a range of professional contexts.
If you are interested, get in touch and let us know what trust in higher education means to you: Claire HamshireRachel Forsyth. Claire and Rachel will be speaking on this theme at the Festival of Higher Education on 11-12 November – find out more and book your ticket here
The pace of change in marketing technology can be dizzying, particularly for colleges and universities that are navigating enrollment challenges, digital transformation, and shifting student expectations. As your institution evaluates its tech stack, partners, and strategic priorities, fluency in key marketing technology (MarTech) terms isn’t just helpful. It’s essential.
This glossary highlights 33 of the most relevant MarTech buzzwords for 2025 and beyond. Each term is defined with higher ed in mind, helping you decode the jargon and focus on what matters: reaching, enrolling, and retaining students more effectively.
The language of modern higher ed marketing
Consider this your cheat sheet for decoding today’s higher ed marketing terminology. Browse the buzzwords below, organized by topic.
Data & identity terms
First-party data Information collected directly through your institution’s digital properties — like your website, CRM, or application portal — used for personalized and compliant outreach.
Zero-party data Data students or prospects intentionally share, such as preferences, interests, or intended major, often gathered via forms or surveys.
Third-party data Data acquired from external providers to supplement internal profiles, which is increasingly less reliable due to privacy regulations and cookie deprecation.
Cookieless tracking Alternatives to third-party cookies, using first-party data or contextual signals to measure behavior and personalize experiences.
Student digital twin A virtual representation of a student that consolidates academic, behavioral, and engagement data to personalize support and anticipate needs. Learn more.
Unified data architecture An integrated framework that brings together siloed systems (CRM, SIS, LMS) into a cohesive data environment for analytics and action.
Data pipeline / ETL “Extract, transform, load” (ETL) processes that move and prepare data between systems, ensuring accurate and timely flow across platforms.
Data trust/data hygiene Ensuring your data is clean, consistent, and reliable — a foundation for accurate analytics and effective campaigns.
Data compliance Adhering to legal and ethical standards for data collection, usage, and storage, which is critical for maintaining trust and avoiding penalties.
Data governance The policies and standards that ensure institutional data is accurate, secure, and compliant with regulations like FERPA and GDPR.
GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) A European Union regulation that sets strict guidelines for collecting and managing personal data, influencing privacy standards worldwide.
AI & automation terms
Generative AI Artificial intelligence that creates content (text, video, imagery) based on prompts and data inputs, increasingly used for marketing and student engagement.
Predictive analytics Data models that forecast future behaviors, such as enrollment likelihood or student success risk, using historical and behavioral inputs.
Predictive modeling A subset of predictive analytics that builds statistical models to anticipate outcomes, such as course success, stop-out risk, or inquiry-to-application conversion.
Lead scoring Assigning values to prospective students based on behaviors and attributes to prioritize outreach and improve conversion.
Marketing automation Tools that automate tasks like email sends, lead nurturing, and retargeting to deliver timely, personalized communication at scale.
Conversational AI Chatbots and virtual assistants that engage users in real time, guiding inquiries and collecting data while reducing staff workload.
AI-driven personalization Using machine learning to tailor experiences (like web content or email) based on user data and behavior.
Engagement scoring Measuring how actively a student or lead is interacting with content to gauge interest and inform next steps.
Retention risk scoring Modeling that identifies students likely to stop out based on early indicators, enabling timely support and intervention.
Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?
Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.
Performance & optimization terms
Attribution modeling Techniques for assigning credit to marketing touchpoints across the funnel, helping determine what’s driving conversions.
Return on investment (ROI) Measuring the effectiveness of marketing efforts by comparing cost to revenue or outcomes generated.
Funnel optimization Improving each stage of the enrollment funnel (from awareness to application) to increase yield and reduce friction.
A/B testing Running controlled experiments between two versions of content or creative to identify what performs best.
Lift analysis A method of measuring the incremental impact of a campaign or intervention by comparing it to a control group.
Real-time analytics Instant access to performance data, allowing teams to adjust campaigns or communications on the fly.
Brand equity The perceived value and trustworthiness of your institution’s brand, which influences enrollment decisions and marketing ROI. Learn about its importance in higher ed.
Experience, search & strategy terms
System integration Connecting technology platforms (CRM, SIS, LMS, CMS) so data can flow across systems and support a seamless user experience.
Program viability modeling Using market, enrollment, and financial data to assess which academic programs to invest in, optimize, or sunset. Learn more about academic portfolio strategy.
Behavioral segmentation Grouping users based on their actions (like clicks, visits, or engagement) to enable more precise targeting.
Semantic search Search engines increasingly rely on meaning and intent rather than keywords, making content structure and clarity more important than ever.
Structured data/schema markup Code that helps search engines understand and categorize your content, improving visibility in search engines and AI search.
Cross-lifecycle marketing Coordinating engagement strategies across the entire student lifecycle (from prospect to alumni) to build long-term relationships and lifetime value.
Looking ahead
Understanding MarTech terms isn’t about chasing trends. It’s about equipping your institution to make informed, future-ready decisions about technology, data, and strategy. Use this glossary as a reference point as you audit your tech stack, plan campaigns, or vet potential partners.
Ready to go deeper? Partner with Collegis to unlock the full power of your data and technology. Our marketing services and data expertise enable institutions to build smarter strategies, streamline their systems, and drive measurable growth in enrollment and student success.
Innovation Starts Here
Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Nearly 4 in 5 surveyed Americans, 78%, said a college education is somewhat or very important to a young person’s success, according to a new poll from researchers at Vanderbilt University.
Despite increasing polarization around higher ed, a significant majority of both Democrats and Republicans — 87% and 68%, respectively — said a college education was at least somewhat important.
The broadly favorable public sentiment comes amid the federal government’s allegations of “violations, shortcomings and biases” at colleges, John Geer, head of the nonpartisan Vanderbilt Project on Unity & American Democracy, said in a Wednesday press release.
Dive Insight:
The Trump administration has increasingly targeted higher education, decrying colleges as hubs of liberal indoctrination and wastes of federal funding. Against this backdrop, Vanderbilt researchers polled 1,030 adults in English and Spanish from Sept. 5 to Sept. 8.
“Higher education has undoubtedly been a primary concern for President [Donald] Trump’s administration,” Geer said. “Certainly, people expressed areas of concern and viewed certain institutions as more problematic than others, but support for colleges and universities remains substantial, even in the midst of these many criticisms from Washington,” he said.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 65%, said colleges have a positive effect on society. A large majority of Democrats agreed with this statement, as did most of the “traditional” Republicans surveyed, according to the Wednesday release.
A deeper schism emerged from Republican respondents who identified with the Make America Great Again movement. Among those supporting MAGA ideology, 65% said colleges have a negative effect on the U.S.
In a February poll,Vanderbilt found that a majority of Republicans surveyed, 52%, identified with the MAGA movement — though slight, it was the first majority since researchers began asking the question in June 2023.
The September survey also found a broader skepticism of some aspects of higher education that transcended political divides. Among the overall respondent pool, 67% said ideological or political bias is at least somewhat of a serious problem at colleges. Within that share, 35% said bias is a problem at most institutions.
However, the respondents who said political bias exists on campuses did not broadly fault academic instruction.About 2 in 5, or 43%, blamed administrative decisions, while 16% cited what is being taught in the classroom.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents, 71%, said colleges should not “take official positions on controversial political issues.” Broken down by political party, 83% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats concurred with that statement.
“That mix of skepticism and expectation underscores how difficult it will be for colleges to persuade the public that they are neutral arbiters in a polarized environment,” Vanderbilt said.
The public showed mixed opinions on different types of institutions, the poll found.
For instance, 70% of respondents expressed confidence in community colleges. Vanderbilt researchers noted that community colleges “have largely avoided the controversies embroiling larger, wealthier institutions.”
But that confidence level dropped sharply for Ivy League institutions. Less than half of those surveyed, 48%, expressed a somewhat or very favorable opinion of those eight universities.
What’s more, respondents’ view of the Ivies varied significantly by their political party. Among Democrats, 72% approved of Ivy League universities, compared to just 33% of Republicans.
Other colleges earned a similar approval rating as the Ivies but with a smaller political divide.
Just 2 in 5 respondents expressed overall confidence in colleges in the Southeastern Conference,which includes the University of Georgia, the University of Tennessee andMississippi State University among its 16 members.
About half of Republicans, 51%, expressed a favorable opinion of those institutions, as did 33% of Democrats.
Public perceptions of college have been declining over the past decade, but the role of postsecondary education as a training ground for the workforce remains clear, according to employer surveys.
Recently published data from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and College Board found that a majority of hiring managers say high school students are not prepared to enter the workforce (84 percent) and that they are less prepared for work than previous generations (80 percent).
Similarly, a survey from DeVry University found that 69 percent of employers say their workers lack the skills they need to be successful over the next five years.
The trend line highlights where higher education can be responsive to industry needs: providing vital skills education.
Methodology
DeVry’s survey, fielded in summer 2025, includes 1,511 American adults between the ages of 21 and 60 who are working or expect to work in the next 12 months, and 533 hiring managers from a variety of industries.
The Chamber of Commerce report was fielded between May 20 and June 9 and includes responses from 500 hiring managers at companies of all sizes.
Cengage’s State of Employability includes responses from 865 full-time hiring managers, 698 postsecondary instructors and 971 recent college graduates. The study collected data in June and July.
Investing in education: Nine in 10 respondents to the Chamber of Commerce’s survey indicated that trade school graduates and four-year college graduates with industry-recognized credentials were prepared to enter the workforce. About three-quarters said college graduates without industry-recognized credentials were prepared for the workforce.
According to Devry’s data, three-fourths of hiring managers believe postsecondary education will continue to be valuable as the workplace evolves over the next five to 10 years.
A 2025 report from Cengage Group found that 71 percent of employers require a two- or four-year degree for entry-level positions, up 16 percentage points from the year prior. However, only 67 percent of employers said a degree holds value for an entry-level worker—down from 79 percent last year—and fewer indicated that a college degree remains relevant over the span of a career.
The Chamber of Commerce’s survey underscored the role of work-based learning in establishing a skilled workforce; just under half of employers said internships are the top way for students to gain early-career skills, followed by trade schools (40 percent) and four-year colleges (37 percent). This echoes a student survey by Strada Education Foundation, in which a majority of respondents indicated paid internships had made them a stronger candidate for their desired role.
However, fewer than two in five hiring managers said it’s easy to find candidates with the skills (38 percent) or experience (37 percent) they need. In DeVry’s survey, hiring managers identified a lack of skilled workers as a threat to productivity at their company (52 percent), with one in 10 saying they would have to close their business without skilled talent.
Looking to the future, 80 percent of the hiring managers DeVry surveyed said investing time and money in education is worthwhile in today’s economy; a similar number said education would advance a worker’s professional career as well.
Needed skills: Nearly all hiring managers said they’re more likely to hire an entry-level employee who demonstrates critical thinking or problem-solving abilities, compared to a candidate without those skills. Ninety percent consider effective communication skills a top quality in an applicant.
DeVry’s survey showed that skills have impact beyond early career opportunities; 70 percent of employers said durable skills are a deciding factor in promotions, with critical thinking (61 percent), self-leading (50 percent) and interpersonal communication (50 percent) as the top skills needed for the future.
A majority of educators polled by Cengage said postsecondary institutions should be responsible for teaching industry-specific skills, with 60 percent placing the onus on instructors and 10 percent on campus advisory services or programs. Employer respondents said they expect recent graduates to bring job-specific technical, communication and digital skills to the table when hired.
The Chamber of Commerce survey underscored a need for early education, with 97 percent of respondents saying high school courses should teach professional career skills. Even so, 87 percent of respondents still believe work experience is more valuable than formal education.
Do you have a career-focused intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
Serving approximately 100,000 students each year, Maricopa County Community College District is one of the nation’s largest community college districts. Many bachelor’s-granting institutions seek to recruit Maricopa students, but these institutions often fall short in serving them effectively by not applying previously earned coursework, overlooking their specific needs or failing to accept credit for prior learning in transfer. After years of requesting changes from transfer partners without seeing adequate response, Maricopa Community Colleges determined it was time to take action by establishing clear criteria and an evaluation process.
A Legacy of Transfer
Since its establishment, university transfer has remained a central pillar of the mission of the MCCCD. Transfer preparation is a chief reason students enroll across the district’s 10 colleges. In fact, 38 percent of students districtwide indicate upon admission that their goal is to transfer to a university.
A significant portion of these students transition to Arizona’s three public universities under the framework of the Arizona Transfer System. Beyond that, Maricopa maintains formal articulation agreements with over 35 colleges and universities, both in state and across the nation, including private and public institutions.
Developing Strategic Transfer Partnerships
Each university partnership is formalized through a memorandum of understanding that outlines the roles, expectations and mutual responsibilities of Maricopa and the partner institution. Recognizing the need for a more strategic and data-informed approach, MCCCD developed a model years ago to ensure that both potential and existing transfer partnerships align with the district’s evolving strategic priorities. The model provides a structured framework for assessing new and continuing partnerships based on institutional relevance, resource capacity and student need.
A Point of Evolution
In 2022, the district overhauled its partnership model to better meet the needs of today’s learners, who increasingly seek flexible pathways to a degree. Many students now arrive with a mix of traditional coursework, transfer credit and prior learning assessment, including military service, industry certifications and on-the-job training, creating greater demand for clear, consistent and student-centered transfer pathways. The updated model ensures partner institutions complement, rather than counter, MCCCD’s efforts, particularly in recognizing learning that occurs outside the traditional classroom.
The new model sets out the following criteria as minimum requirements:
Accepts and applies credits earned through prior learning assessment: The integration of PLA and alternative credit was a central focus of the redesign, recognizing the unique advantages these offer transfer students. Many students move between institutions, accumulate credits in segments and work toward credential completion. While some follow the traditional route from a two-year college to a four-year university, others take different paths, transferring from one two-year institution to another, or returning from a four-year institution to a two-year college through reverse-transfer agreements. These varied journeys highlight the need to embed PLA fully into the transfer agenda so that all learning, regardless of where or how it was acquired, is recognized and applied toward students’ goals. By making PLA a built-in component of the revamped model, MCCCD and its university partners can better meet learners where they are in their educational journey.
Provides annual enrollment and achievement data: To support this renewed focus, MCCCD asked all university partners to update their MOUs through a new university partnership application. This process gathered key institutional data and ensured alignment with updated partnership criteria and made it mandatory.
Accredited with no adverse actions or existing sanctions against the institution: Partner institutions must hold accreditation in good standing, accept both nationally and regionally accredited coursework, and recognize Maricopa-awarded PLA credit.
Aims to accept and apply a minimum of 60 credits: They are expected to apply at least 60 applicable Maricopa credits, academic and occupational, and accept Maricopa’s general education core.
Has a minimum of 50 students who have transferred at least 12 Maricopa earned credits in the last three years: This requirement is intended to demonstrate need and gauge student interest.
Surveys Maricopa transfer students annually: Partners must commit to administering annual transfer surveys and tracking student outcomes using jointly defined metrics.
Institutions that do not meet this standard are not advanced in the partnership process but are welcome to reapply once they meet the baseline criteria. As a result, more partners are actively engaging and strengthening their policies and processes to gain or maintain eligibility.
Key Findings
Several themes emerged from the first year of implementation:
Since the revamp, MCCCD is seeing promising results. Current and prospective partners have demonstrated strong commitment to the revised partnership model by elevating transfer and PLA practices, expanding pathways that accept 75 to 90 credits and participating in on-campus student support initiatives through goal-oriented action plans. They are using the model to facilitate conversations within their institutions to further advance internal policies and practices.
Post-COVID, demand for online learning and support services remains strong, particularly among working students and those needing flexible schedules, as reflected in survey results. While participation in past transfer experience surveys was low, the district has made this requirement mandatory and introduced multiple survey options to better capture the student voice and experience. These insights enable MCCCD to collaborate with partners on targeted improvement plans.
New criteria MCCCD is considering, several of which some partners have already implemented, include reserving course seats for Maricopa transfer students, creating Maricopa-specific scholarships, offering internships and other work opportunities and waiving application fees.
MCCCD is currently assessing the impact of its revamped partnership model to measure the success of these efforts. Preliminary findings from the three-year review indicate that most, if not all, partner institutions are meeting or exceeding established metrics. These early results reflect a strong commitment to the agreements and reaffirm the value of the updated criteria in fostering more meaningful and impactful partnerships.
A Model for Intentional Partnerships
The Maricopa Community College District’s revamped university transfer partnership model is a strategic effort to keep partnerships active, student-centered and aligned with key institutional priorities. Through intentional collaboration, transparent policies and practices and shared responsibility, Maricopa and its university partners are building more effective, forward-thinking transfer pathways.
The U.K. government has been urged to remove barriers in the visa process for researchers in order to capitalize on new U.S. restrictions imposed by Donald Trump.
The U.S. president last weekend announced a $100,000 fee for applicants to the H-1B visa program, making a vital visa route used by skilled foreign workers in the U.S. inaccessible to many.
The U.K. is reportedly considering removing fees for its global talent visa in response. The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) warned that high visa costs are already a significant barrier but said it is not the only change that needs to be made.
In a new report, CaSE highlights the obstacles presented by the current system, including concerns raised by professionals who handle visa and immigration issues at U.K. research institutions.
It warns that information about who is eligible for the visa route is often ambiguous and hard to navigate. According to the Wellcome Sanger Institute, which contributed to the report, the language around “exceptional talent” can be intimidating for talented applicants, although many institutions also receive a large number of low-quality applications.
“These examples point to a wider issue of confusion and unclear messaging about who is eligible, resulting in missed opportunities and cost inefficiencies,” says the report.
Visa policy is also increasingly complex and can put a significant strain on organizations, according to CaSE.
The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL), a research organization that specializes in molecular plant-microbe interactions, said visa support now demands a full-time employee in human resources as well as external support costing more than $21,000 per year in legal fees.
“The U.K. visa system is becoming increasingly complex, unclear and time-consuming—especially for research institutes like TSL that depend on international talent.
“Policy changes are poorly communicated, portals outdated and guidance inconsistent, requiring our HR to spend extensive time interpreting information.”
TSL said that without a fair and functional visa system, the U.K. risks reaching a “breaking point in our ability to attract global talent and sustain world-leading research.”
Alicia Greated, executive director of CaSE, said U.K. research faces “major challenges” under the current system. She wants to see the government take action that will improve things for skilled workers and those that employ them.
Greated welcomed reports that the Labour administration was considering reducing visa fees for highly skilled researchers, adding, “If these changes happen, they will put the U.K. in a strong position to compete on the global skills market, especially given the changes in the opposite direction in the U.S.”
However, she said that the removal of indefinite leave to remain, or permanent residency, from individuals already settled in the U.K.—as Reform UK is advocating—would be extremely damaging to U.K. R&D and the wider economy, as well as individuals and their families.
“Policy proposals like this also have a negative impact on the attractiveness of the U.K. as a destination for the world’s brightest and best researchers because people may worry their right to be in the country could be taken away.”
Eight in 10 students rate the quality of education they’re getting as good or excellent, according to the first round of results from Inside Higher Ed’s main annual Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 two- and four-year undergraduates with Generation Lab. That’s up from closer to seven in 10 students in last year’s main Student Voice survey, results that are affirming for higher education at a turbulent economic, technological and political moment.
Still, students point to room for improvement when it comes to their classroom experience—and flag outside issues that are impacting their academic success. Case in point: 42 percent of all students, and 50 percent of first-generation students, cite financial constraints as a top barrier to their success. This can include tuition but also living and other indirect expenses. Balancing outside work with coursework and mental health issues are other commonly cited challenges. Taken as a whole, the findings underscore the need for comprehensive wraparound supports and a focus on high-touch approaches in an ever more high-tech world.
About the Survey
Student Voice is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college.
Look out for future reporting on the main annual survey of our 2025–26 Student cycle, Student Voice: Amplified. Future reports will cover cost of attendance, health and wellness, college involvement, career readiness, and the relationship of all those to students’ sense of success. And check out what students have already said about trust—including its relationship to affordability—and about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the college experience.
Some 5,065 students from 260 two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to this main annual survey about student success, conducted in August. Explore the data from the academic life portion of the survey, captured by our survey partner Generation Lab, here. The margin of error is plus or minus 1 percentage point.
Here’s more on what respondents to our main annual Student Voice survey had to say about academic success.
Students across institution types rate their educational experience highly.
Some 80 percent of students rate the quality of their college education thus far as good (50 percent) or excellent (30 percent), compared to last year’s 73 percent of students who rated it good (46 percent) or excellent (27 percent). This is relatively consistent across student characteristics and institution types—though, like last year, private nonprofit institutions have a slight edge over public ones, especially in terms of perceived excellence: In 2025, 47 percent of private nonprofit students rate their education excellent versus 27 percent of public institution students. This can’t be explained by two-year institutions being included in the public category, as community college students are slightly more likely than four-year students to describe their education as excellent (32 percent versus 29 percent, respectively). On community college excellence, one recent analysis by the Burning Glass Institute found that two-year institutions have dramatically improved their completion rates in recent years due in part to a concerted student success effort.
What about four-year college excellence? The Student Voice survey didn’t define quality specifically, but existing data (including prior Student Voice data) shows that students value connections with faculty. And with private nonprofit institutions having lower average faculty-to-student ratios than publics, one possible explanation is that students at private nonprofits may have extra opportunities to connect with their professors. But as other recent analyses demonstrate, private nonprofit institutions, even highly selective ones, do not have a monopoly on delivering life-changing educational experiences for students. Nearly 500 institutions—including community colleges, public universities, religious colleges and specialized colleges—this year achieved a new “opportunity” designation from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, for example, signifying both high levels of access and strong economic outcomes for students.
2.Students want fewer high-stakes exams and more relevant course content, indicating this would boost their academic success.
Like last year’s survey, the top classroom-based action that students say would boost their academic success is faculty members limiting high-stakes exams, such as those counting for 40 percent or more of a course grade: 45 percent of students say this would help. Also like last year, the No. 2 action from a longer list of options is professors better connecting what they teach in class to issues outside of class and/or students’ career interests (40 percent). In Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers, just 20 percent of provosts said their institution has encouraged faulty members to limit high-stakes exams. But artificial intelligence is forcing a broader campus-assessment reckoning—and how to engage students and authentically assess their learning are questions central to those ongoing conversations. Relatedly, 10 percent of Student Voice respondents say promoting AI literacy would most boost their academic success.
3.Most students know how and when to use AI for coursework, but there are knowledge gaps between groups.
Upward of eight in 10 students indicate they know how, when and whether to use generative AI for help with coursework. In 2024’s survey, the plurality of students said this was because their professors had addressed the issue in class. This year, the plurality (41 percent) attributes this knowledge to professors including policies in their syllabi (up from 29 percent last year).
Like last year, relatively few students credit a college- or universitywide policy or other information or training from the broader institution. Across higher education, many institutions have held off on adopting broad AI use policies, instead deferring to faculty autonomy and expertise: Just 14 percent of provosts in Inside Higher Ed’s survey said their institution has adopted comprehensive AI governance policies and/or an AI strategy—though more said it has adopted specific policies for academic integrity, teaching and/or research (45 percent).
While classroom-based approaches are clearly evolving, two-year Student Voice respondents report being unclear on how, when and whether to use AI for coursework at double the rate of four-year peers (20 percent versus 10 percent). Perhaps relatedly, community college provosts were most likely to report significant faculty resistance to AI on their campuses, by institution type, at 49 percent versus 38 percent over all. Another difference: 23 percent of adult learners (25 and older) report being unclear, compared to just 10 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds. Both of these gaps merit further research.
4.Students say their institution’s course delivery methods and scheduling fit their needs—with some caveats.
Asked to what extent their institution offers course delivery methods/modalities that meet their learning needs and schedules, about four in 10 students each say very well or somewhat well. Adult learners (50 percent), community college students (49 percent) and students working 30 or more hours per week (45 percent) are especially likely to say their college is meeting their needs here very well—evidence that many nontraditional learners are finding the flexibility they need to balance college with busy lives.
However, students who say they’ve seriously considered stopping out of college at some point are especially unlikely to say their college is serving them very well here (33 percent). Risk factors for stopping out are varied and complex. But this may be one more reason for institutions to prioritize flexible course options. On the other hand, 48 percent of students who have stopped out for a semester or more but then re-enrolled say they’re being very well served by their current institution in this way.
5.Students’ biggest reported barriers to academic success aren’t academic.
From a long list of possible challenges, students are most likely to say that financial constraints (such as tuition and living expenses), needing to work while attending college, and mental health issues are impeding their academic success. None of these is explicitly academic, underscoring the need for holistic supports in student success efforts. Adult learners (51 percent), students working 30 hours or more per week (52 percent), first-generation students (50 percent) and students who have previously stopped out of college (55 percent) all report financial constraints at elevated rates. Racial differences emerge, as well: Black (46 percent) and Hispanic (49 percent) students are more likely to flag financial constraints as a barrier to academic success than their white (38 percent) and Asian American and Pacific Islander (37 percent) peers.
On mental health, women (37 percent) and nonbinary students (64 percent, n=209) flag this as a barrier at higher rates than men (26 percent). Same for students who have seriously considered stopping out of college relative to those who have not: 41 percent versus 30 percent, respectively.
Some of these issues are interconnected, as well: Other research has found a relationship between basic needs insecurity and mental health challenges that is pronounced among specific student populations, including first-generation and LGBTQIA+ students. Another recent study by the National College Attainment Network found that a majority of two- and four-year colleges cost more than the average student can pay, sometimes by as much as $8,000 a year. And prior Student Voice surveys have found that students link affordability to both their academic performance and to trust in higher education.
6. Colleges are meeting students’ expectations for responding to changing needs and circumstances—with some exceptions.
With so many different factors influencing students’ academic success, how are colleges doing when it comes to responding to students’ needs and changing circumstances, such as with deadline extensions, crisis support and work or family accommodations? Seven in 10 students say their college or university is meeting (57 percent) or exceeding (12 percent) their expectations. Most of the remainder say their institution is falling slightly short of expectations. This is relatively consistent across student groups and institution types—though students who have seriously considered stopping out of college are more likely than those who haven’t to say their institution is falling at least slightly short of their expectations (33 percent versus 19 percent, respectively). This again underscores the importance of comprehensive student support systems.
The Connection Factor
While it’s clear that AI and other outside variables are reshaping the academic experience, one mitigating influence may be human connection.
Jack Baretz, a senior studying math and data science at the University of North Dakota, is currently working with peers to develop an AI-powered tool called Kned that can answer students’ and advisers’ basic academic advising questions (think course sequencing, availability and prerequisites). The idea isn’t to replace advisers but rather counteract high adviser caseloads and turnover and—most importantly—maximize students’ time with their adviser so it’s a meaningful interaction.
“There’s a lot of anxiety kids have at this point in their life, where it’s like, ‘I don’t know what I’m going to do next. What would be a good major to make sure I get a job? I don’t want to be jobless.’ Just those conversations—I think that’s where advisers are most effective and probably most content, helping people,” Baretz said.
From left: University of North Dakota students and advising chatbot collaborators Michael Gross, Owen Reilly and Jack Baretz.
Zoom
A prior Student Voice survey found that nearly half of students lack key academic guidance. In this year’s survey, 19 percent of students say channeling more resources to academic advising so they can get more help from their adviser would most boost their academic success. Some 28 percent say the same of new and/or clearer program maps and pathways.
This ethos extends to what Kned collaborator Michael Gross, a junior majoring in finance, said keeps him academically engaged: connection. His most motivating online classes, for example, have had breakout rooms for peer-to-peer discussions. Why? “When you have more than one person working on something, you’re way more likely to contribute and do your best work on it, because there’s other people’s grades at stake, too,” he said. “It’s not just yours.”
Gross added, “One thing I would say is for institutions to encourage discussion on college campuses. The main thing that we’re kind of losing, especially with all this technology, is people are becoming so separated from each other. College is meant to be a place where you can engage your social skills and just learn about other people—because this is one of the last times you can be surrounded by so many people your age, and so many people from different walks of life with so many different ideas, too.”
To this point, 19 percent of Student Voice respondents cite social isolation or lack of belonging as a top barrier to their academic success. Tyton Partners’ 2025 “Time for Class” report also found a jump in both instructor and student preference for face-to-classes, “showing renewed demand for classroom connection.” In the same report, nearly half of instructors cited academic anxiety as a top concern among students, and students themselves reported low motivation and weak study habits as persistent barriers to learning.
Terry McGlynn, professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and author The Chicago Guide to College Science Teaching, agreed that “learning is inherently a social endeavor.” And educators have for the past five years noticed “it’s a lot harder to get students to interact with one another and to show some vulnerability when experiencing intellectual growth.”
Many have attributed this to the effects of the pandemic, McGlynn said. But if higher education is now “heading into this era of AI in the classroom without reintegrating quality social interactions, I’m worried for us.”
He added, “I hope we develop approaches that bring people together rather than providing expectations that we work in isolation from one another.”
This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.
A new report from the Center for American Progress and the Thurgood Marshall College Fund shows that historically Black colleges and universities receive a disproportionately low percentage of federal research and development funding.
While HBCUs make up roughly 3 percent of all four-year higher ed institutions, they’ve received less than 3 percent of R&D funding since at least 2010, according to the report. In recent years, between 2018 and 2023, they were awarded less than 1 percent of R&D expenditures.
Some agencies have given HBCUs a relatively high proportion of R&D funding, including the Department of Education, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Agriculture, which has required allotments for land-grant HBCUs. But the two federal agencies that award the most R&D funding annually, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense, have doled out especially low shares of those funds to HBCUs; in 2023, they awarded 0.54 percent and 0.40 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, 17 of the 43 federal agencies that supply research funding didn’t give HBCUs any R&D funds at all that year.
Sara Partridge, associate director of higher education policy at CAP and co-author of the report, said both Republicans and Democrats have sought to address inequities in R&D funding, but their efforts have been insufficient.
“In order to support these key drivers of scientific achievement and upward mobility, we need federal policymakers to commit to measurable benchmarks for the share of funds awarded to these institutions,” she said in a press release.
Hook is one of dozens of faculty members who have been punished for their comments about Kirk’s death.
Photo illustration by Inside Higher Ed | LeoPatrizi/E+/Getty Images
A South Dakota district court judge ordered the University of South Dakota on Wednesday to reinstate Michael Hook, a tenured professor of art who was put on leave with an “intent to terminate” after he posted comments on his personal Facebook page about Charlie Kirk.
“The court concludes that Hook spoke as a citizen and his speech was on a matter of public concern,” district court judge Karen Schreier wrote. “Defendants note that Hook’s Facebook page identified himself as a professor at the University of South Dakota … but this alone does not show that a post made on his personal Facebook account is speech that arises from Hook’s duties as a professor.”
Hook is one of dozens of faculty and staff members who have been punished for their comments about Kirk’s death. He was put on leave two days after posting, “Okay. I don’t give a flying fuck about this Kirk person,” on his Facebook page on Sept. 10, the day Kirk was shot and killed in Utah.
“Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was,” Hook continued. “I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe.”
Hook later deleted the post and posted an apology.
Hook was informed in a letter from Bruce Kelley, dean of the University of South Dakota College of Fine Arts, that in posting the comment on Facebook he’d violated two university policies. The first dealt with “neglect of duty, misconduct, incompetence and abuse of power,” and the second detailed that when employees speak publicly “they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate when they are not speaking for the institution.”
As part of the temporary restraining order, Schreier ordered that the university may not proceed with a disciplinary meeting between Hook and university officials scheduled for Sept. 29. The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until a preliminary injunction hearing on Oct. 8.
