Tag: Making

  • What Happens When We Start Making the Work Visible – Teaching in Higher Ed

    What Happens When We Start Making the Work Visible – Teaching in Higher Ed

    This post is one of many, related to my participation in  Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop.

    Jarche informs us that when we narrate our work, we don’t experience knowledge transfer, but what we do get is greater understanding. Our individual, self-directed learning is difficult to codify, he explains, and is more focused on relationships and expertise. When we narrate our work, focusing on decisions and processes, we make that work more visible to others. This means we can experiment and share knowledge, learning together in real time. The results of this thinking together results in enterprise curation, where we can more easily codify knowledge and experience the results of our earlier efforts.

    network era knowledge flow individual mastery informs knowledge management Personal knowledge mastery (PKM) requires tools and time to seek, sense, and share knowledge

    The value of social bookmarks are hard to see, at first. However, over time, especially when combined with the use of feed aggregators and readers, we eventually get to witness the power of PKM as a discipline. I’ve been using Raindrop.io bookmarks for years, now, and enjoy having shareable bookmarks (which I can surface, when a situation encourages that practice), yet most of my collections are private. One that is now public is my growing collection of AI articles, in both an RSS feed and just a browsable page.

    I do find myself cringing a bit as I save items there, knowing that I certainly don’t endorse each link I save and the topic of AI is so controversial and polarizing. I’ve got everything up there from the world as we know it is crumbling to its core to fun hacks to use AI to build you a rocket ship to the moon (or load your dishwasher) or some such thing.

    Jarche states that our emphasis when we narrate our work should be on making our thinking accessible, but to avoid disrupting people with what we choose to share. He writes:

    The key is to narrate your work so it is shareable, but to use discernment in sharing with others. Also, to be good at narrating your work, you have to practice.

    One practice Jarche mentions under his tips and links section is to keep a journal. While I’ve not been good at this practice since my teenage years long ago, I did find many of these 6 Ways Keeping a Journal Can Help Your Career compelling. In Episode 425 of Teaching in Higher Ed, I share Viji Sathy’s and Kelly Hogan’s suggestion to keep a “Starfish” folder. There are variations of the beloved story of the starfish, including this Tale of the Starfish page from the Starfish Foundation with a powerful video describing the power in making a difference for a single starfish, even if we can’t rescue them all.

    I have kept up with digital encouragement folders for years now, both on my email accounts, as well as in my file directories (across my personal and professional domains). While not a journal, exactly, these stories and words can bring me encouragement during difficult times.

    I’ve been paying for the Day One Journal App for years now, though entirely languish in my practice of journaling. I would switch over to Obsidian, which has the benefit of future proofing any notes I take using Obsidian, since they are just text files sitting wherever I want them to be (as in if the app went away, the text files are still there and readable).

    However, Day One brings together all the TV and movies that I’ve watched, all my social media posts and images, and all the videos I’ve favorited on YouTube. I use Sequel to track what I want to watch, which then optionally integrates with the free Trakt service, which allows for an IFTTT rule to add an entry to Day One each time I mark something as watched in Sequel. In case you’re wondering about how I accomplish this, I found these two automations on IFTTT and never had to change a thing.

    Perhaps someday I’ll go down a rabbit trail of trying to figure out a longer-term, non-subscription based model for collecting all those memories across all those different services and not locking myself into DayOne. For now, I’m enjoying revisiting this glimpse of these two upside down kind of people from 2017….

    Two kids stand on their heads, upside down in a cushioned swivel chair

    …and then having this song from Jack Johnson start playing on the soundtrack of my mind for what I’m sure will last at least a few hours.

    Source link

  • Making the Most of College Fairs and High School Visits

    Making the Most of College Fairs and High School Visits

    A Practical Framework for Admissions Leaders to Reach More Students, More Meaningfully

    College fairs and high school visits have long been the bread and butter of admissions outreach. But are they still relevant in a digital age saturated with webinars, virtual tours, and TikTok campus tours?

    The answer is a resounding yes! The 2025 E-Expectations survey of college-bound high school students shows they rate these experiences as helpful and impactful, with fairs standing out as one of the most widely used resources in the college search (RNL, Halda, & ModernCampus, 2025).

    Here is the catch: just showing up is not enough. The latest research tells us that the true impact of fairs and visits depends on how thoughtfully they are designed, where institutions decide to spend their travel dollars, and, maybe most importantly, whether the students and families who need access the most are actually being reached (Huerta, 2020; Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2021).

    This blog brings together three key perspectives, each offering a piece of the puzzle:

    • The student voice: What the latest E-Expectations data reveals about how students use and value fairs and visits.
    • Practice-level insights: What enrollment professionals and researchers like Huerta (2020) have learned about structuring these events so they support, rather than overwhelm, students.
    • Policy and systems view: How institutional budgets, recruitment, travel, and school selection practices shape which communities are included, or left out (IHEP, 2021; Niche, 2023).

    By weaving these perspectives together, my goal is simple: to offer admissions leaders a practical framework, a clear and actionable checklist, for designing and delivering college fairs and high school visits that truly serve the full range of students and families you want to reach.

    What students say about fairs and visits

    2025 E-Expectations Trend Report: Explore the online experiences, behaviors, and expectations of college-bound high school students2025 E-Expectations Trend Report: Explore the online experiences, behaviors, and expectations of college-bound high school students

    In the 2025 E-Expectations survey, 80% of respondents attended a college fair, and 85% of those found it helpful (RNL, Halda, & ModernCampus, 2025). Helpfulness peaks in 10th grade but stays strong from 9th (82%) through 12th (85%). First-generation students also find fairs helpful (86%).

    High school visits tell a similar story. Niche (2023) reports that over 70% of students say meeting an admissions representative at their school influenced their decision to consider a college. Campus visits are even more powerful: 85% said a visit nudged them to apply or enroll. The message is clear: students want in-person engagement even in the digital age.

    However, college recruiters visit suburban and affluent schools more often, leaving rural, urban, and first-generation students with fewer recruiter visits (Niche, 2023). If your travel schedule seems stuck on the same comfortable zip codes year after year, you are seeing this problem play out firsthand. The right students are not always getting the right opportunities.

    Reimagining college fairs for equity

    College fairs and campus visits are only helpful when they reach the students who actually need them. Huerta (2020) does not sugarcoat the gaps: “traditional college fairs often disproportionately serve White and affluent students, while low-income, first-generation, and students of color are left out of these critical opportunities for exposure and access” (p. 3).

    How can fairs and visits have a greater impact? Preparation is everything, especially for first-generation students. The right support before the fair can make all the difference. Huerta (2020) says it plainly: “Pre-fair activities such as setting up professional emails, preparing questions, or even taking short career tests equip students to maximize the limited time they have with recruiters” (p. 5). With a plan, the fair is less overwhelming and more empowering.

    What about addressing affordability questions during these activities? Huerta (2020) is clear: “Workshops on financial aid, scholarships, and affordability should be at the center of college fair programming, not optional add-ons” (p. 6). Put cost and aid front and center, and you not only build trust, you tackle one of the biggest barriers families face. If you have ever watched a parent’s shoulders relax after a frank talk about financial aid, you know this is not just theory—it is practical, high-impact work.

    Now picture a fair that feels like a true community event, a place where everyone belongs. Huerta (2020) recommends an equity checklist: multilingual resources, childcare, transportation, and intentional outreach. Suddenly, the fair is not just another recruitment event; it is a space where families actually feel welcome (p. 7). You are not just handing out brochures, you are opening doors.

    Enrollment and admissions implications

    • Go beyond the usual feeder and affluent schools and make a conscious effort to reach overlooked students.
    • Prepare students and families with guides and resources before the visit.
    • Strengthen access with multilingual support, childcare, and transportation options.
    • Measure success by engagement of underserved groups of students, not just attendance.

    Rethinking recruitment policies through the institutional lens

    Zooming out, let us talk about how big-picture policies and budgets shape everything from your team’s travel routes to who gets a seat at the table.

    Travel budgets shape access

    Recruitment travel is costly and eats up a large chunk of resources. Public institutions report spending a median of $536 per recruited student and close to $600,000 a year on enrollment management vendors (IHEP, 2021). Almost one-fifth of recruitment budgets go toward travel for high school visits and college fairs (p. 9). Every travel dollar is a map, deciding which schools and communities get face time with colleges.

    Over-investment in feeder and affluent schools

    IHEP (2021) does not mince words: colleges target suburban and affluent schools, reinforcing privilege, while rural, low-income, Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and AAPI students are left seeing fewer recruiters (p. 11). Nearly nine million students live in rural areas, but cost and assumptions about mobility keep colleges away (IHEP, 2021, p. 11). If you have ever skipped a rural or urban school because “it is too far” or “students from there do not enroll anyway,” you are not alone, but the pattern has real consequences.

    The “iron triangle” of prestige, revenue, and access

    IHEP (2021) calls the balancing of academic profile, revenue, and access the “iron triangle” of recruitment. Too often, access gets squeezed out by prestige or dollars. One example? The out-of-state recruitment push for higher tuition, which can crowd out in-state, low-income, and racially diverse students—the very populations public institutions were built to serve (IHEP, 2021, p. 10). There is a real tension here: the pressure to chase rankings and revenue versus the public mission to expand access.

    Enrollment and admissions implications

    Audit travel strategies so you don’t overlook rural, urban, and high first-generation schools.
    Resist the urge to chase rankings or revenue at the cost of access.
    Measure equity ROI to look at who you reached and not just enrollment numbers.
    Honor the public mission—for public institutions, especially, recruitment travel should put in-state, underrepresented, and transfer students first.

    The “Comprehensive Equity Checklist” for college fairs and high school visits

    (Adapted from Huerta, 2020; IHEP, 2021; Niche, 2023)

    If you are looking for a place to start, here is a checklist you can use to make sure your next fair or visit is as equitable and impactful as possible:

    Access and Inclusion

    • Provide multilingual materials (flyers, signage, applications, financial aid guides).
    • Offer live interpretation services for families with limited English proficiency.
    • Ensure transportation options (buses, metro passes, shuttles) for students and families.
    • Provide childcare or family-friendly spaces so parents and guardians can attend.
    • Make fairs and visits physically accessible (ADA-compliant venues, inclusive spaces).

    Student and Family Preparation

    • Equip students with pre-fair tools: professional email setup, question prompts, résumé templates, and career interest surveys.
    • Offer prep sessions for families on navigating fairs, admissions language, and understanding financial aid.
    • Provide clear expectations before high school visits (e.g., topics covered, documents to bring).

    Financial Aid and Affordability Resources

    • Make financial aid and scholarship workshops central, not optional, at fairs.
    • Ensure recruiters can clearly explain the cost of attendance, aid packages, scholarships, and ROI.
    • Share state aid and local scholarship resources during visits.
    • Provide simple, multilingual financial aid guides for families to take home.

    Recruiter Diversity and Training

    • Send representatives who reflect racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity.
    • Train recruiters in cultural competency, equity, and family engagement strategies.
    • Encourage authentic, student-centered conversations rather than scripted pitches.
    • Pair senior admissions leaders with feeder schools while ensuring new schools also receive attention.

    Event and Visit Design

    • Avoid overwhelming “information overload” by structuring fairs with breakout sessions (e.g., Paying for College 101, Essay Writing Tips, Navigating Campus Visits).
    • Set up reflection areas where students can take notes and debrief.
    • Schedule visits that reach all grade levels, not just seniors, to build early awareness (9th–10th grade especially).
    • Balance large-scale fairs with smaller, targeted events for first-generation and underserved students.

    Travel Strategy and School Selection

    • Audit recruitment travel annually: which schools are visited and which are left out (rural, urban, high first-generation, under-resourced)?
    • Intentionally expand beyond feeder and affluent schools to reach underserved communities.
    • Balance in-state versus out-of-state recruitment to honor institutional missions and equity commitments.
    • Use hybrid and virtual visits to reach schools where travel is limited.

    Data, Metrics and Accountability

    • Collect and analyze participation data disaggregated by race, income, geography, and first-generation status.
    • Track equity ROI: not just attendance numbers, but who was reached and how engagement expanded access.
    • Report back annually to leadership with both quantitative metrics (schools visited, demographics reached) and qualitative feedback (student and counselor satisfaction).
    • Equitable recruitment means more than showing up. It requires intentional design, inclusive practices, and accountability. This checklist can help you ensure that your fairs and visits open doors, instead of reinforcing barriers.

    The bottom line: Opportunity by design

    College fairs and high school visits remain powerful entry points for students exploring higher education. The data is clear: students find them helpful, and when done well, these moments spark interest, build trust, and create momentum in the college search process. But as the research shows, the true impact depends on how these events are implemented and who gets to participate. Fairs that overwhelm students or focus only on affluent schools, and travel that bypasses rural or first-generation communities, risk narrowing opportunity rather than expanding it.

    Admissions leaders hold both the keys and the responsibility to change this. Rethink what success looks like. Expand your travel map beyond traditional feeder schools. Center on affordability and preparation on every visit. Use a comprehensive checklist to plan. If you do, you will reach more students, more meaningfully. Measure the value of college fairs and high school visits by the quality of the student and family experience, the strength of your partnerships with counselors, and the breadth of the communities you serve. In doing so, you will not just make the most of fairs and visits, you will reaffirm your mission to open doors of opportunity for every student who is ready to walk through them.

    Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts

    RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges.  Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:

    • Student search strategies
    • Omnichannel communication campaigns
    • Personalization and engagement at scale

    Request now

    References

    Source link

  • Making career readiness meaningful in today’s classrooms

    Making career readiness meaningful in today’s classrooms

    Key points:

    As a high school STEM teacher at Baldwin Preparatory Academy, I often ask myself: How can we make classroom learning more meaningful for our students? In today’s rapidly evolving world, preparing learners for the future isn’t about gathering academic knowledge. It is also about helping all learners explore potential careers and develop the future-ready skills that will support success in the “real world” beyond graduation.

    One way to bring those two goals together is by drawing a clear connection between what is learned in the classroom and future careers. In fact, research from the Education Insights Report shows that a whopping 87 percent of high school students believe that career connections make school engaging–and as we all know, deeper student engagement leads to improved academic growth.

    I’ve tried a lot of different tactics to get kids engaged in careers over my 9 years of teaching. Here are my current top recommendations:

    Internship opportunities
    As many educators know, hands-on learning is effective for students. The same goes for learning about careers. Internship opportunities give students a way to practice a career by doing the job.

    I advise students to contact local businesses about internships during the school year and summer. Looking local is a wonderful way to make connections, learn an industry, and practice career skills–all while gaining professional experience.

    Tallo is another good internship resource because it’s a digital network of internships across a range of industries and internship types. With everything managed in Tallo, it’s easy for high school students to find and get real-world work experience relevant to school learning and career goals. For educators, this resource is helpful because it provides pathways for students to gain employable skills and transition into the workforce or higher education.

    Career events
    In-person career events where students get to meet individuals in industries they are interested in are a great way for students to explore future careers. One initiative that stands out is the upcoming Futures Fair by Discovery Education. Futures Fair is a free virtual event on November 5, 2025, to inspire and equip students for career success.

    Held over a series of 30-minute virtual sessions, students meet with professionals from various industries sharing an overview of their job, industry, and the path they took to achieve it. Organizations participating in the Futures Fair are 3M, ASME, Clayco, CVS Health, Drug Enforcement Administration, Genentech, Hartford, Honda, Honeywell, Illumina, LIV Golf, Meta, Norton, Nucor, Polar Bears International, Prologis, The Home Depot, Verizon, and Warner Bros. Discovery.

    Students will see how the future-ready skills they are learning today are used in a range of careers. These virtual sessions will be accompanied by standards-aligned, hands-on student learning tasks designed to reinforce the skills outlined by industry presenters. 

    CTE Connections
    All students at Baldwin Preparatory Academy participate in a career and technical education pathway of their choosing, taking 6-9 career specific credits, and obtaining an industry-recognized credential over the course of their secondary education. As a STEM teacher, I like to connect with my CTE and core subject colleagues to learn about the latest innovations in their space. Then I connect those innovations to my classroom instruction so that all students get the benefit of learning about new career paths.

    For example, my industry partners advise me about the trending career clusters that are experiencing significant growth in job demand. These are industries like cybersecurity, energy, and data science. With this insight, I looked for relevant reads or classroom activities related to one of those clusters. Then, I shared the resources back with my CTE and core team so there’s an easy through line for the students.

    As educators, our role extends beyond teaching content–we’re shaping futures. Events like Futures Fair and other career readiness programs help students see the relevance of their learning and give them the confidence to pursue their goals. With resources like these, we can help make career readiness meaningful, engaging, and empowering for every student.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • From Task Completion to Cognitive Engagement: Making the Case for the Hourglass Paradigm of Learning – Faculty Focus

    From Task Completion to Cognitive Engagement: Making the Case for the Hourglass Paradigm of Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • From Task Completion to Cognitive Engagement: Making the Case for the Hourglass Paradigm of Learning – Faculty Focus

    From Task Completion to Cognitive Engagement: Making the Case for the Hourglass Paradigm of Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Making grants and the levy work

    Making grants and the levy work

    Opinions vary about the desirability of the levy on international student fees, and the value of the promised return of targeted maintenance grants.

    Rightly so. The announcement and the descriptions of policies within, were political in nature. They were made at a party conference rather than a ministerial statement or consultation document – they were designed to please some, challenge others, and above all to start a debate.

    And as such, all these opinions are valuable. The government will listen to representations, seek commentary and challenge, and eventually start to spell out some more of the detail and implementation.

    Implementation couldn’t care less about opinions or political expediency. Implementation is a matter of whether something can actually be done, and how.

    My number one priority

    Let’s take the simplistic approach, and call the income the government gets from the levy something around £620m (more on that later).

    In the grand scheme of things that’s not a huge amount of money – we paid out more than £8bn on maintenance loans in 2023-24. However, the much-maligned magic money twig (the OfS’ funding for student access and success) is currently just £273m, and it is ostensibly doing part of the same job as the proposed grants – helping non-traditional students access and succeed in higher education. Of course, it mostly goes on hardship grants these days, which is neither what it is designed for nor any meaningful remedy for a student maintenance system that is not fit for purpose. But that makes the parallel even clearer.

    Any extra money going to students, in this economy and with this level of unwillingness to do anything truly radical about student hardship, is welcome. But the kicker is that it is not enough to be from a deprived background to get the new money – you also need to be studying the right subjects. As we’ve already noted, these are the same “priority subjects” as have been set within the Lifelong Learning Entitlement: vaguely STEMish, but with no medicine but added architecture and economics.

    You survived all you been through

    At the end of every cycle UCAS published data on acceptances using a fine-grained (CAH level 3) subject lens, separated by level of deprivation – which in England means the IMD quintile. From this we learn that in the most recent data (2024 cycle) just under 42 per cent of all England domiciled accepted applicants from IMD quintile 1 (the most deprived group) were accepted onto a “priority subject”.

    [Full screen]

    This is a substantially higher proportion than in any other IMD quintile – it is also a substantially higher number: 39,870. We don’t get quite the same level of subject fidelity for offers and applications, but it appears that quintile 1 applicants are also much more likely to apply to priority subjects than any other group, and slightly more likely to receive an offer.

    In other words, as far as we can tell with the available data, there is not really a problem recruiting disadvantaged young people onto courses in subjects that the government is currently keen on.

    It is possible ministers may be thinking that adding the grants into the mix would drive these already encouraging numbers up even higher (and away from mere dilettante whims like, er, studying medicine, law, or biology). This would appear to ignore a rather expensive and lengthy experiment that has demonstrated that financial concerns (in the form, back then, of the sticker price) do not actually affect applicant behavior all that much, and when applicant behaviour is already trending in the way you might hope there’s maybe not a lot needs to be done.

    But if you assume that the entire annual levy covers a single year of grants for everyone in IMD quintile 1 in a priority subject – and let’s use the exact numbers here – we get 39,870 students sharing £620.52m: £15,560 each.

    That is baking in a bunch of assumptions around the way the levy is implemented, the way grant allocations are determined (is IMD, an area based measure, really the best way to allocate individual grants?), and even whether the entire levy is to be spent directly on grants and nothing else. But if these rather optimistic assumptions are right, we’re slightly above the current maximum loan (£13,762), and beginning to approach the government’s National Living Wage for those aged 18 to 20 (currently just under £18k). It’s not quite enough to live as a student for a year without working at all, but it would mean someone without any other means of support might not have to “work every hour god sends.”

    I’ll let you be my levy

    Let’s say you are an international student looking to study an integrated (4-5 year) Masters’ course in biomedical engineering at the University of Leicester. You’d be charged £25,100 a year (plus £6,275 if you do a year overseas, or £3,765 if you do a year in industry). As you are resident outside of the UK, you’d pay a deposit of £3,000 up front to secure your place. These figures will vary vastly depending on your choice of course and provider, but that gives you an idea of a ballpark figure.

    If you secured your place via an agent, you may have paid a fee up front to them. Your chosen university would also pay a fee to the agent for each successful application – these vary hugely, but let’s say it is 20 per cent of your first year of fees. In some cases, your university would also pay a direct fee to the agent, over and above their percentage of fee income. Combined, these can get pretty intense – far into the millions for providers that use agents, with some pushing £30m

    If you don’t quite meet some of the academic or English language requirements for your course, you may be accepted onto an international foundation year – often offered by another provider, either on behalf of your university or as a stand alone course. There will be fees for this too.

    Of course, before you are accepted onto your course, you’ll need a Tier 4 Student Visa. For all but a handful of countries, you’ll need evidence (the example given by the Foreign Office is a bank statement) that you currently have enough money to cover your fees for your first year plus nine months of living costs. Your visa will cost £524, plus you need to pay a healthcare surcharge (each year) of £776 each year.

    Let’s imagine for a moment that you never made a name for yourself

    If you are looking to design a levy, the first decision that you make will be what constitutes international fee income. Should it be the sticker price – as promoted to students? Should it, for example, include the fees an institution pays to an international agent? Should it include fees that the student pays to another institution for a co-branded international foundation year? Should you factor in that students are already paying a levy of sorts to cover the cost of issuing a visa or of providing access to the NHS? Should it include accommodation fees (or additional course fees) when these are paid directly to the provider?

    Or should a provider pay a proportion of everything it declares as (and auditors agree that is) international student fee income? At what point – when the fee is paid, when the course starts, when it is declared? And is there not a case to look at a levy on agents fees – there is big money to be made by agents, and unlike with providers no counter arguments about the student experience?

    The modelling I’ve done so far is deliberately simplistic – 6 per cent (or whatever is decided on) of declared fee income in the most recent HESA Finance Data. That’s a valid answer, but it is limited – it is not the same effect as you would get if a university had to pay 6 per cent of every international student’s fee at one of the points above. The Home Office modelling noted that in some cases fees themselves may rise to cover the levy, which may have a knock on effect on recruitment – and that in other cases providers themselves would swallow the cost.

    If you think about it like that – and also bear in mind the Public First angle on the types of students more likely to be dissuaded by higher fees – it is difficult not to see the regressive nature of the levy: well-off providers, who recruit well-heeled middle class students from countries where salaries are high, will pay more but will be able to pass the costs on to students. Providers newer to international recruitment, at the price sensitive end of the market, will lose out either way, and will have to work out whether the recruitment drop of a 6 per cent fee hike is worth more than 6 per cent of their current income.

    Such a funny thing for me to try to explain

    What if we don’t take the accountant’s way out? What if we calculate a levy based on what individual students actually pay?

    As noted above we don’t know – either generally or individually – what international students pay as fees. We also don’t really know how many students are currently paying them – HESA student data turns up after a quite considerable lag, and not all undergraduates (and no postgraduates!) show up in UCAS data.

    The closest we get to international student numbers, at all levels, in-year has historically been OfS’ HESES collection (which it uses to allocate OfS grant funding). I say historically because, from 2025-26 the information on domicile (previously used “for planning purposes”) will no longer be collected.

    If you want a levy based on what students actually pay, you need a new data collection covering the students involved and how much they have paid that year (perhaps separated out into qualifying and non-qualifying payments – with all of the early iteration problems that such things bring. Data Futures may eventually get there, but not for a good few years yet.

    Designing a new data collection is not for the faint of heart – we scrapped an entire section of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (the bit dealing with income from overseas) primarily because it is a million times easier to torturously audit other data than to collect something new. It would be expensive, both centrally and for individual providers – and it would be commercially sensitive (not all international students pay the same fee for the same course at the same university).

    Know we’re jumping the gun

    At every point in this article, I’ve tried to get across just how broad brush the current details of this policy are. As my colleague Michael notes elsewhere, there is not even clarity that these two halves of an announcement are a part of the same policy, or that it is possible to irrevocably link an income stream with an outgoing like this in the public accounts.

    It is a political announcement, and as such leaping straight to implementation slightly misses the point – like with the “scrapping” of the “fifty per cent participation target” it might well be that how it lands is more important than how it works.

    But as I’ve also tried to show, implementation has no time for political expediency. Real decisions need to be taken, and the current configuration of the sector, of the application cycle, and of the various data collections need to be taken into account. And there’s a need to consider whether the behavioural changes you are trying to make would undermine the funding flows that you are intending will do so – the more parts to a policy the more unintended consequences there could be.

    Source link

  • Government Shutdown Could Delay ED Rule Making

    Government Shutdown Could Delay ED Rule Making

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    If the government shuts down Wednesday, it’s not clear whether the Department of Education will be able to continue with the meetings it had planned to iron out a batch of regulatory changes this week.

    The advisory rule-making committee began its work Monday and was originally slated to continue through Friday. But at the start of Monday’s meeting, department officials noted that if the government runs out of funding Oct. 1, the remainder of the session would be delayed and the plan would be to resume virtually in two weeks. (This was consistent with a pending notice that was posted to the Federal Register in the morning.) 

    That all changed once again moments before Monday’s meeting ended when Jeffrey Andrade, the deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, said the department was reconsidering its earlier statement and that the negotiated rule-making committee might be able to continue operating in person through the end of the week.

    “There is a possibility that we can work through this,” Andrade said, adding that he had just received word of the possibility himself. 

    The department is planning to furlough nearly 87 percent of its employees, according to its shutdown contingency plan. But officials are planning to keep employees who are working on the rule-making process on board as well as those working to implement Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed in July.

    This rule-making session is focused on clarifying the details of new graduate loan caps and a consolidated version of the multiple existing income-driven repayment plans.

    Going into this week’s meetings, multiple higher education experts said that finalizing new regulations before the caps and repayment plans take effect July 1, 2026, would be difficult no matter what. A government shutdown, one added, could throw a wrench into the already tight timeline.

    “With such a crunched timeline for finishing the rules in the first place, this makes the department’s job much more challenging,” said Clare McCann, managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. 

    One of this week’s rule-making committee members, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity, said that while they were still uncertain how the rest of the week will play out, Andrade’s last-minute announcement gave them hope.

    “I’m not sure what to make of it and will be waiting for clearer answers in the morning,” the committee member said. “But I know the department is working hard to get as much done as possible.”  

    That said, if the session does end up moving online, it wouldn’t be too out of the ordinary for department staff members. All sessions prior to the start of the second Trump administration were held online since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.

    The real challenge, McCann noted, would likely be having enough staff to facilitate the session, regardless of its modality. 

    “Certainly the department will be able to keep some of this moving, but they will undoubtedly also have some employees who are not considered essential and are furloughed during a shutdown,” McCann said. “It takes many people at the department to make a rule making happen, and so any loss of personnel is going to present a challenge, even if they’re able to keep some of the core team that’s involved.”

    Under the contingency plan, student aid distributions will not be paused and loan payments will still be due. The department will, however, pause civil rights investigations and cease grant-making activities, though current grantees will still be able to access funds awarded by Sept. 30.

    Source link

  • ED Rule Making Will Move Online if Government Shuts Down

    ED Rule Making Will Move Online if Government Shuts Down

    Screenshot/Alexis Gravely

    The Education Department’s current rule-making session, in which committee members are determining how to implement new student loan policies, will be delayed by two weeks if Congress fails to pass legislation to keep the government open, Trump officials announced Monday morning.

    “There is the possibility—which seems to be growing by the hour—of a lapse in appropriations,” one department official said during the rule-making session’s commencement Monday. “Have no fear, however,” he added, “we do have a contingency plan for that.”

    The official, Jeffrey Andrade, deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, went on to explain that if the government does shut down Oct. 1, the remainder of the session would take place online from Oct. 15 to 17. (The plans were also posted to the Federal Register on Monday.)

    Managing a virtual negotiated rule-making session, however, would be nothing new to the department staff, as all sessions prior to the start of the second Trump administration have been held online since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.

    “Again, fingers crossed,” Andrade said. “But the oddsmakers, when I last checked, were in the high 60s in favor of them not passing a continuing resolution in time. So that’s a plan.”

    The department was already facing a tight timeline to negotiate the various regulatory changes, and some are worried that the two-week delay could further complicate the effort.

    “A government shutdown throws a wrench into the rule making,” said Clare McCann, managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. “Even assuming a shutdown is over in two weeks, as the department hopes, almost all of the Education Department’s staff will be furloughed in the meantime and unable to continue working on the draft regulations. With such a crunched timeline for finishing the rules in the first place, this makes the department’s job much more challenging.”

    If the government were to shut down, about 87 percent of the Education Department’s nearly 2,500 employees would be furloughed, according to the agency’s contingency plan. The department is planning to keep on employees who are working on the rule-making process and to carry out other provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law over the summer.

    Student aid distributions will not be paused and loan payments will still be due, but the department will cease grant-making activities and pause civil rights investigations. Grantees, though, can still access funds awarded over the summer and before Sept. 30.

    Source link

  • New Promise Programs Launch for Families Making Under $100K

    New Promise Programs Launch for Families Making Under $100K

    When Jake Winston began looking at colleges in fall 2019, he was primarily looking at public colleges in his home state of North Carolina, as he felt those would be the only institutions he could afford. He was interested in Washington & Lee University, in Virginia, due to its location—far enough for a change of scenery, but not so far he couldn’t visit home—and its rich and complex history. But he didn’t think he could afford the high price tag.

    At a presentation by admissions officials, though, he learned about the W&L Promise, which covers the full cost of tuition for all students whose families fall into a specific income bracket. Once he got his aid offers back from colleges, WLU was the obvious choice, costing him just $5,000 annually, a sum that he paid out of pocket using money he made from summer research jobs.

    “Being able to know I was going to graduate debt-free from the start allowed me to pick what I was passionate in, and that’s teaching, which is not the highest-paying role in the country,” said Winston, who now teaches seventh-grade history in Northern Virginia. “But it is what I wanted to do with my life.”

    WLU has one of the oldest tuition-guarantee programs in the country. It launched in 2014, offering free tuition to students whose families make less than $75,000 each year; now, that number has surged up to $150,000, and students whose family income is less than $75,000 also get free room and board.

    Since then, more and more colleges—especially, but not only, selective private institutions—are offering completely free tuition to students whose families fall under a certain income threshold. Nowadays, that maximum is typically $100,000 annually, an income bracket that includes about 57 percent of U.S. families as of 2024, according to an analysis by the Motley Fool. But some have expanded the offer of free tuition to those whose families make as much as $200,000, encompassing all but 16 percent of American households. (Most programs also require the families to have typical assets, and some are only open to in-state students.)

    In the past year alone, a slew of universities has announced new free tuition programs or expanded their existing programs, including Wake Forest University, Reed College, Emory University, Macalester College, Tufts University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University and Lasell University.

    Administrators at more than half a dozen institutions with promise programs told Inside Higher Ed that they hope that the move will attract low-income students who didn’t realize how financially accessible higher education, even at expensive institutions, can be. It’s also an effort to improve cost transparency—an area that has frequently come under scrutiny as the actual cost of college has become increasingly obscured by scholarships, aid, fees and books and other indirect costs.

    Breaking the Cost Barrier

    For many institutions offering tuition guarantees—also called promise programs—it’s more of a change in rhetoric than in actual financial aid policy.

    Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, for example, announced a program last November guaranteeing free tuition for students with family incomes under $75,000 and promising those with incomes under $100,000 wouldn’t have to take out any student loans to access a CMU education, beginning with the incoming class in fall 2025. But according to Brian Hill, the university’s associate vice provost for student financials and enrollment systems, that’s how the university had already been quietly operating since 2016.

    “In truth, it was to make sure that prospective students knew that CMU was an affordable option for them. That was the primary reason,” he said. “We’ve been saying that we met full demonstrated financial need for our students … [but] a barrier we don’t know if we’d gotten through or not is students that would look at the sticker price [of $67,020 per year] and just completely write CMU off before they even explored it.”

    The surge of these programs comes amid concerns about the growing cost of higher education and that the return on investment of a bachelor’s degree doesn’t warrant the seemingly exorbitant cost; a few institutions in the U.S. now have a sticker price upward of $100,000 a year.

    At the same time, experts argue that the price of higher education has actually gone down when accounting for inflation and the high rate of aid students generally receive. For several decades, higher education has followed a model in which institutions advertise a high cost of attendance but a significant number of students receive large scholarships. This approach helps to make higher education look like a luxury product while students and families feel like they’re getting a good deal. But that strategy has come to bite institutions in the butt, according to W. Joseph King, former president of Lyon College and a higher education consultant, as many low- and middle-income students now feel the high cost of college makes an education unattainable.

    “What this led to was almost like an arms race of rising stated tuition numbers and a fall in net tuition numbers. All sorts of groups, including the federal government, have been trying to get to numbers that are more reflective of the actual cost,” he said.

    Promise programs aim to change that narrative by showing low- and middle-income families that getting an education even at a seemingly pricey school can be achievable.

    Colleges have made other attempts to communicate that message to students and parents. That includes developing net price calculators, which often show that low-income students would be paying just a fraction of the sticker price, or announcing that their institution is able to meet all of a student’s demonstrated financial need—a number based on a federal student aid formula that determines how much a family is able to pay.

    But many families have no idea what demonstrated financial need means or are unaware of net price calculators, enrollment professionals say. Simply saying that an institution offers free tuition can be the ultimate tool for price transparency, according to Milyon Trulove, vice president and dean of admission and financial aid at Reed College, which announced plans to expand its regional promise program—currently available only to students in Oregon and Washington—to all students with family incomes under $100,000 in 2026.

    The institution also has a net price calculator, he said. But if presented with both that calculator and the promise of free tuition, the latter will immediately be meaningful to students, whereas the former won’t.

    “[Students] say, ‘This makes sense to me, today, right now … and now I can listen to all the other stuff about fit and anxiety about money is no longer in the way of me fully participating in the college admission process,’” he said.

    Along with institutions offering free tuition to any student who fits within a certain income bracket, even more institutions offer tuition guarantees to students based on grade point average or for transferring from a local community college system.

    ‘Rigorous Financial Planning’

    Most of the university officials who spoke with Inside Higher Ed said that their institution was in a very strong financial position and able to afford to support so many students because of large endowments and generous donations, including fundraising specifically aimed at increasing student aid.

    From 2016 to 2024, Carnegie Mellon, for example, increased its undergraduate financial aid budget 86 percent.

    “We truly made a massive commitment to making affordability a real thing at CMU,” said Hill. “I think we’re in a very positive position in terms of finances, but it took a lot of commitment from … executive leadership to make this a priority.”

    Wake Forest, which announced last week that it will offer free tuition to all North Carolina students with family incomes below $200,000, is one of the few schools that said that its promise program, called the North Carolina Gateway, would substantially increase the total amount of aid it gives out. President Susan Wente said that, similarly to CMU, the funds for the initiative come in large part from a massive fundraising effort that has raised over $150 million for financial aid since 2022.

    “This involved rigorous financial planning and analysis and knowing we could meet the commitment, should we announce it,” she said.

    But not every university with a promise program is leaning on massive donation campaigns. Radford University, a public institution in Virginia, was able to begin offering free tuition to all students from Virginia with incomes below $100,000 simply because of the ample amount of funding it gets from the state, according to Dannette Gomez Beane, vice president for enrollment management and strategic communication.

    Virginia tends to be generous toward higher education, Beane said, but the two regional public universities in southwest Virginia, which has the lowest college-going rate of higher education of any area in the state, receive the most funding. That’s what allowed Radford to begin its promise program, which the institution promoted heavily in the 60-mile radius around its campus, in 2024.

    “With all things higher ed and higher ed financial aid, not everything is sure, and we’re learning that this year more than ever,” she said. “I think that state funding, federal funding—if you have models that are dependent on those, you have to constantly be adjusting your models … there is that vulnerability, but we’re just gracious that we’ve had favor with the state.”

    Boosting Low-Income Enrollment

    Although many of these programs are new, those that have been around for multiple years have seen positive results. At Washington & Lee, Sally Richmond, vice president for admissions and financial aid, said that there have been massive jumps in enrollment of rural students, first-generation students and Pell-eligible students since she joined the university in 2016.

    It’s impossible to say whether those changes can be attributed specifically to the university’s promise program, she noted. But, she said, “our financial aid office, who is certainly on the front line of having these conversations along with our admissions team, speaks to the fact that this concept of the promise is the one that resonates most with our prospective students and families.”

    Reed College, similarly, saw a 25 percent increase in middle-income students in its program’s first year, during which it was only available to students from Oregon and Washington.

    Wente, Wake Forest’s president, said she is eager to see how the university’s newly announced tuition guarantee program will impact low- and middle-income enrollment.

    “As a scientist myself, we’re going to pilot this, look at its impact, look at how we can ensure that it’s really achieving what we hope in terms of offering students greater access,” she said. “In terms of the middle and lower income bands, those are the students who often don’t have as many options. So, how do we give them as many options as possible?”

    Source link

  • High tariff providers may be making medium tariff offers

    High tariff providers may be making medium tariff offers

    There’s only really one headline from this year’s UCAS cycle – and that’s about the recruitment behavior of higher-tariff providers.

    The closest analogue is 2021: the so-called “mutant algorithm” year in which higher-than-predicted A level results (arguably the first accurate and fair set of results for many years, unconstrained by any predetermined curve) meant that traditionally selective providers were contractually obligated to honour a lot more offers than expected.

    But there was no such anomaly in results this year. The cohort did do very slightly better than expected (within the limits of the system), but this was – as it should be – down to their own hard work rather than any external factor.

    The assumption has to be that the growth in numbers at selective providers (those that have traditionally used tough level three requirements as a way of admitting only those with the best results) has to be down to a change in behavior. So what has changed, and why?

    What are we looking at

    Twenty-eight days after A level results day (JCQ results day to use the technical term) isn’t quite the final day of Clearing. You can still apply for 2025 entry up until 6pm on 24 September – which, depending on where you are heading, is pretty much welcome week.

    However, JCQ+28 is the last point at which UCAS releases statistics on applications and acceptances, before we get to the End of Cycle reports through December and January. These are the points where we can get a perspective on how this round of recruitment has gone (for the sector in December, by provider in January).

    But even this isn’t a final number. Many universities and colleges have multiple undergraduate entry points – and of course not all applications go via UCAS. End of cycle UCAS statistics do include the ones that they know about (the “Record of Prior Acceptance”) but the Clearing data does not.

    Volume up

    In most recent years around 10 per cent of applicants overall have been placed via Clearing, including both “direct to Clearing” applications (where someone hasn’t made choices of course and provider on their UCAS form) and standard “Clearing” (where someone has not been accepted, or not accepted a place at their firm or assurance choice). This proportion has grown slightly over the last decade – in 2016 it was nearer 9 per cent.

    [Full screen]

    A part of the reason for this is the introduction of the UCAS “decline your place” option, and the continued improvements in the Clearing system via the “Clearing Plus” tool that matches students with courses and providers based on interests and aptitudes. It is now easier for students to make a change to their plans – to decline a firm (and/or) insurance place even though they met the requirements, and to find another place that suits their needs. As you might guess, this has been a boon for high-tariff providers – who now find it much easier to recruit students who have exceeded results day expectations – but the benefits are wider.

    It is good news for the students in question as well – if you have done particularly well it may unlock a course or university that you wanted to go to but didn’t dare waste an application slot or firm acceptance status on. It might mean a more direct route to a career now you know more about professional requirements, a place nearer home (or further away!), a cheaper part of the country to live in (or an easier one to find term-time work in) or the uni where your friends are also heading. A lot can change in the life of an applicant between putting your form in on 15 January and getting your results in mid-August.

    An element of concern

    So the growth in acceptances at high-tariff providers is partially explained – but not entirely.

    [Full screen]

    You don’t have to spend a long time talking to admissions staff to hear that so-called high-tariff providers are now taking students with less stellar A level results in greater numbers. Making it easier to “trade up” (as the frankly unhelpful discourse would have it) is one thing, lowering the tariff is a different matter.

    The popular perception is that high-tariff providers are better. This is true in that they are better at being high-tariff providers.

    If you’ve done a few open days you will have been made aware that universities are not a homogenous lump. Even on a similarly named course, they will teach differently (more lectures, more tutorial, more blended, more hands on, more theoretical or academic), focus more on different parts of the subject, have different facilities (anything from lab kit to student support services), and even timetable differently. These are the differences that should really be driving applicant decision-making – and a high-tariff provider may not be better for a particular student (whatever their results).

    A choice of university governs a lot more of an applicant’s life than just what they’ll end up putting on their CV and who this might or might not impress – although a lot of popular commentary and ministerial statements take a more simplistic view of “undermatching”.

    Under the bonnet

    Because we get stats on a mostly daily basis, we can get a sense of when the application deals are being sealed. I’ve not plotted every day of data because honestly who has time, but here we have results day, the day after, and the Monday of the next week (traditionally the three big Clearing days) plus day 28 which rounds up most of the rest of the action.

    There’s not much Clearing data in the JCQ results day release: that that is in there is mostly from applicants domiciled in Scotland with SQA results (they get their results a week earlier, the lucky things), mature students, and overseas students. So for 18 year old entry on that day in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland you are just seeing the automatic workings of the UCAS system – where applicants got the grades on the offer they get the place.

    [Full screen]

    And there’s our first clue. The number of initial placements at high tariff providers (England, Wales, and NI domiciled applicants, 18 years old) was higher than the total number of placed applicants last year. Or indeed any year on record.

    You don’t get that by being an aspirational destination, or by being active in Clearing. You get that by lowering the offers you make. We’ll see more in the end of cycle data, but in some cases this would be lowering them by quite a lot. Higher tariff providers didn’t take a lot of students in Clearing (we’re talking about 8,000 of this subgroup in 2025, rather than 7,000 last year or 10,000 in 2019), they took a lot of students.

    Why, though?

    It wasn’t a mistake. There was no underestimation of performance, because performance wasn’t meaningfully different than in any other non-pandemic year.

    And it can’t be pure greed. The best data we have on the cost of educating students (audited, regulated, everything) is TRAC and we know from the last release that selective providers (who tend to be in TRAC groups A and B) tend to recover around 85 per cent of the costs of public funded teaching. If you lose £1,430 on each (price group D) student then if you take more of them that just adds to your deficit?

    There’s a suggestion that some universities are using home students to fill spaces that would previously have gone to (higher fee paying) international students. The thinking being that even some income is better than none, and helps to sustain capacity (departments, courses, jobs) that might otherwise be lost. However, there’s not a massive difference in the number of visas issued by the Home Office, which suggests that there will be a similar number of international students this year as last (still down on 2023 and earlier, mind).

    Any capacity backfilling, in other words, would have happened last year. And there’s been a sharp uptick in the proportion of international students heading to big name destinations this cycle: numbers at selective providers are now at a level above the golden age of the mid 2010s.

    [Full screen]

    The extra students, then, are simply extra students over last year. Growth in numbers, pure and simple. Very few universities have the finances to substantially invest in capacity (staff, estates) – so we have to assume that this means larger classes, less individual attention, more competition for resources, and a tighter accommodation market.

    The most able, and best connected, students will flourish. They pretty much always will – you could lock them in a darkened room for three years and they’d still get a good degree and a good job. It’s the rise in traditionally selective providers recruiting a substantially greater volume of students who have excellent potential but who need extra support and more opportunities to build networks and build confidence, that worries me. I hope these providers are ready to rise to what will be a new and substantial challenge.

    Source link