Tag: Market

  • Planning with Purpose: Designing Certificate Programs That Align with Market and Mission

    Planning with Purpose: Designing Certificate Programs That Align with Market and Mission

    Higher education is seeing a surge of interest in non-degree credentials. Learners are seeking faster, more affordable pathways to workforce advancement. Employers are increasingly open to (and in some cases requesting) alternatives to traditional degrees. And with new federal policy expanding Pell Grant eligibility to non-degree programs, institutions are feeling the urgency to act.

    But not all certificate programs are created equal. And while the trend line is clear, the strategy behind how institutions respond is anything but. This moment presents an opportunity, but only for those willing to plan with purpose and set realistic expectations.

    What’s driving demand for short-term credentials?

    Recent data underscores a clear increase in interest:

    • Undergraduate certificate enrollment grew 33% and graduate certificate enrollment grew 21% from Fall 2020 to Fall 2024, according to National Student Clearinghouse data.
    • Google search volume for certificates has increased 19% from 2020 to 2025, according to Google Trends data.

    Today’s learners are drawn to programs that offer accelerated timelines, reduced costs, and clear pathways to meaningful career outcomes. Many working adults are looking to upskill or pivot careers, and a certificate can be a more practical option than a full degree.

    On the employer side, organizations want proof of skills and are increasingly willing to collaborate with institutions on curriculum design. In fact, according to a 2022 employer survey from Collegis and UPCEA, 68% of respondents said they would be interested in teaming up with an institution to develop non-degree credentials to benefit their workforce.

    Certificates are a piece of the puzzle — not the whole strategy

    Despite the interest, many institutions struggle to meet enrollment goals for certificate programs. Strong market trends do not automatically translate into high enrollment volume. The reality is that most certificates serve niche audiences and deliver modest numbers. When treated as stand-alone growth drivers, they often fall short.

    The institutions that see the most strategic value from certificates do so by positioning them within a larger enrollment and academic ecosystem. For example, we’ve helped our partner institutions find success in using certificate interest as a marketing funnel to drive engagement in related master’s programs. Once a prospective student engages, enrollment teams can advise them on the best fit for their career goals, which, for some students, is enrolling in the full degree program.

    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.

    What a strategic certificate model looks like

    A certificate program with purpose isn’t just a set of courses — it’s a product with clear value to both learners and the institution. Key elements of a strategic approach include:

    1. Workforce alignment: Programs must be rooted in real-time labor market data. What skills are employers seeking? Which certifications are valued? Aligning with reputable industry certifications is a proven way to ensure relevance and employer recognition.
    2. Accessibility: Pricing should reflect the certificate’s value relative to degree programs, and eligibility for financial aid must be prioritized. Lack of aid is a significant barrier to enrollment for many prospective learners.
    3. Laddering and stackability: Certificates should not be terminal unless intentionally designed that way. They should stack into larger degree pathways or offer alumni incentives for continuing their education.
    4. Delivery speed and flexibility: Busy adult learners expect quick starts, clear outcomes, and minimal red tape. Institutions need streamlined onboarding and agile curriculum design.
    5. Internal collaboration: Designing certificates in isolation often leads to friction. Academic, enrollment, and marketing teams must be aligned on purpose, target audience, and outcomes.
    6. Employer engagement: Employers want to be part of the development process and seek assurance that certificate programs teach the skills they need. Their involvement enhances the recognition and credibility of the credential.

    The role of institutions: Balance mission with market

    Certificate programs are not a shortcut to growth. But they can be a smart strategic lever when grounded in data and designed to complement an institution’s broader mission. They offer colleges and universities an opportunity to:

    • Expand access to underserved learners
    • Respond more nimbly to labor market shifts
    • Strengthen ties with regional employers
    • Drive awareness and enrollment for degree programs

    The key is alignment. When certificate offerings reflect both market demand and institutional mission, they can play a powerful role in expanding reach and impact.

    Plan with purpose, execute with intent

    Certificates are more than just a trending credential. They’re a tool to serve learners in new ways. But institutions must resist the urge to chase quick wins. Success requires thoughtful design, realistic expectations, and cross-functional collaboration.

    With the right foundation, certificate programs can do more than fill a gap. They can open doors for learners, employers, and institutions alike. Collegis supports this effort with integrated services in market research, instructional design, and portfolio development — empowering institutions to make informed, mission-aligned decisions that deliver impact.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Amber Arnseth oversees program and market research as a skilled problem-solver with an ability to integrate and contextualize data for partners into actionable recommendations. The research she and her team conduct help inform and strengthen our partners’ strategic portfolio and program decisions.

    Source link

  • The white paper kept quiet on market exit

    The white paper kept quiet on market exit

    The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s annual report in early July said that the government was working on a legislative programme to “ensure higher education sector access to an insolvency regime.”

    Yet for all that Monday’s post-16 white paper compiled together much of the ongoing work that had been trickling out of Whitehall for the previous 12 months, such plans were notable by their absence.

    Similarly, the Office for Students’ 2025–26 business plan said it was putting together proposals for a system whereby a “validator of last resort” for the English sector, which would protect students if the provider that validates their degree exits the market, as well as a possible “bespoke clearing system” for students in the event that their institution closes.

    Again, neither of these ideas got airtime in the white paper, despite skills minister Jacqui Smith having given her endorsement to the latter in comments to the media.

    The white paper in fact steers wholly clear of policy thinking around what would happen in the (ever more likely) event that a large English higher education provider finds itself in severe financial distress threatening its very viability. This omission is even more stark even against a background where we know that this risk has been scored “critical” and “very likely” on the DfE risk register, and the Office for Students has told the Commons education committee that it would be unlikely that it could “secure reasonable outcomes” for students if a large multi-faculty university closed, reeling off a list of all the ensuing risks ranging from students losing access to their academic records to PGRs whose work is tied to a particular supervisor finding transfer “difficult or impossible.”

    Perhaps the government simply wanted to steer clear of any negative news as it seeks to pat itself on the back for putting higher education on a “firm financial footing”, by way of keeping tuition fees at the same level in real terms (as long as inflation forecasts do not prove to be underestimates) while piling on additional costs to universities in areas including national insurance, pensions and a future fee levy. But – especially given that the white paper rounded up almost every policy initiative that is currently underway elsewhere in government, OfS and UKRI – it does feel, rather, that the idea of making legislative change to pre-empt issues around “market exit” has disappeared from the government’s to-do list.

    Pros and cons

    The education committee’s ongoing inquiry into higher education funding, which has the risks around insolvency as one of its central concerns, is shedding some light on the issues involved, both in the written evidence that has come the committee’s way and the first hearing which took place on Tuesday this week.

    Neil Smyth of lawyers Mills & Reeve told the committee that the fundamental answer to the question of what happens to an insolvent university which is not incorporated as a company – a large slice of the sector – is that “no-one quite knows”. He emphasised that there is debate about what the law entails, noting:

    At the moment, it is believed that the only insolvency process that would be available for a royal chartered entity or non-corporate entity would be to be wound up by the court as an unregistered company. That is a terminal process, it is a shutdown process, it is not a process that allows you to continue to trade.

    This uncertainty complicates what advice can be given to university governors about their responsibilities and liabilities – and also makes it difficult to see how student protection can be regulated for in such a situation. Mills & Reeve’s evidence to the committee adds that the unclear dispensations for unsecured creditors has, in their experience, led to something of a “land grab” among creditors:

    Key creditors, including pension providers, have sought to improve their position by demanding legal mortgages over land as these confer the contractual remedy of fixed charge receivership. This leads to highly expensive and time-consuming legal due diligence at just the point where the HEI can ill-afford those costs.

    Smyth, as he has previously argued on Wonkhe, told the committee that the advantages of some kind of restructuring regime being introduced included clarity for governors, confidence for lenders, and – as exists in the relatively new further education special administration regime – the potential for legal protections for students’ academic interests. That said, he warned that he couldn’t see a university coming out intact from such a process, given that student demand would inevitably collapse once the institution went into administration.

    However, Universities UK – represented at the committee hearing by chief executive Vivienne Stern – has moved away from advocating for a special administration regime. As the representative body’s evidence to the committee puts it:

    Universities UK’s current view is that it would be preferable to work with government, regulators and other sector bodies to clarify how existing arrangements can apply to higher education institutions, supported by stronger contingency planning at institutional level, and at the level of government, regulators and funders.

    The consequences of a large scale institutional failure would be so significant that policy effort should be primarily focussed on averting this outcome, rather than on mitigating its impact after the event.

    Stern highlighted the risk that a formal administrative process could be drawn out and expensive, and might even make it more likely that an institution collapses once entry into regime had taken place.

    The committee’s report will make a recommendation – it could be that Universities UK’s line of thinking has already swayed the government away from such a move. Committee chair Helen Hayes hinted that the committee will conclude that formal systems are needed, via her question to the effect of what would happen if there were a slew of insolvencies in short succession which compromised governmental and regulatory capacity to thrash out suitable arrangements behind the scenes.

    Fuzzy logic

    Keeping the threat of market exit – and the massive and unpopular clean-up job that would accompany it – hanging over the government’s head rather than handing off responsibility to a predetermined legal and fiduciary process is, sad to say, probably one of the few trump cards the sector still has to play around advocating for greater government investment.

    The lessons from FE, where a special administration regime has been in place for a few years now, are that the government seems reluctant to let things go as far as formal processes. In higher education, while it would depend on geography and circumstances, the smart money is probably still on Labour stepping in before push came to shove in a similar way to how the SNP felt forced to in Dundee.

    But there won’t be a Labour government forever. Future ministers who were relaxed (on paper) about universities going bankrupt would almost certainly be less keen to have to step in and make the final decisions in the places affected – while perhaps not being so worried if it ended up being purely a matter for the courts and the banks – and so keeping things fuzzy might end up being a sensible long-term strategy for the sector with an eye beyond 2029.

    That said, the apparent move away from government interest in legislating for a higher education insolvency regime doesn’t really explain why the white paper was quite so silent on other mitigating actions and the whole question of student protection (especially given its inclination towards “consolidation”). Is it really betting the house on the magical healing properties of holding tuition fees stable in real terms?

    Source link

  • In “Rocky” Labor Market, Your College Major Matters

    In “Rocky” Labor Market, Your College Major Matters

    A new report analyzes earnings for college graduates from different majors.

    Nuthawut Somsuk/Getty Images

    Despite mounting public skepticism about the value of a college degree, the data is still clear: Over all, college graduates have much higher earning potential than their peers without a bachelor’s degree. But the limits of those boosted earnings are often decided by a student’s major.

    American workers with a four-year degree ages 25 to 54 earn a median annual salary of $81,000—70 percent more than their peers with a high school diploma alone, according to a new report that Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce published Thursday. However, the salary range for workers with a bachelor’s degree can span anywhere from $45,000 a year for graduates of education and public service to $141,000 for STEM majors.

    And even within those fields, salary levels have a big range. Humanities majors in the prime of their careers earn between $48,000 and $105,000 a year, with a median salary of $69,000. Meanwhile, business and communications majors earn between $58,000 and $129,000 a year, with a median salary of $86,000.

    “Choosing a major has long been one of the most consequential decisions that college students make—and this is particularly true now, when recent college graduates are facing an unusually rocky labor market,” said Catherine Morris, senior editor and writer at CEW and lead author of the report, “The Major Payoff: Evaluating Earnings and Employment Outcomes Across Bachelor’s Degrees.”

    “Students need to weigh their options carefully.”

    The report, which analyzed earnings and unemployment data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey from 2009 to 2023, also documented rising unemployment for recent college graduates. In 2008, recent graduates had lower unemployment rates relative to all workers (6.8 percent versus 9.8 percent). But that gap has narrowed over the past 15 years; since 2022, recent college graduates have faced higher levels of unemployment relative to all workers.

    Morris attributed rising unemployment for recent college graduates to a mix of factors, including increased layoffs in white-collar fields, the rise of artificial intelligence and general economic uncertainty. At the same time, climbing tuition prices and the student debt crisis have heightened consumer concern about a degree’s return on investment.

    “Over the past 15 years, there’s been more and more of a shift toward students wanting to get degrees in majors that they perceive as lucrative or high-paying,” Morris, who noted that STEM degrees, especially computer science, have become increasingly popular. Meanwhile, the popularity of humanities degrees has declined.

    But just because a degree has higher earning potential doesn’t mean it’s immune to job instability. In 2022, 6.8 percent of recent graduates with computer science degrees were unemployed, while just 2.2 percent of education majors—who typically earn some of the lowest salaries—were unemployed.

    “The more specific the major, the more sensitive it is to sectoral shocks,” said Jeff Strohl, director of the center at Georgetown. “More general majors actually have a lot more flexibility in the labor market. I would expect to see some of the softer majors that start with higher unemployment than the STEM majors be a little more stable.”

    And earning a graduate degree can also substantially boost earnings for workers with a bachelor’s degree in a more general field, such as multidisciplinary studies, social sciences or education and public service. Meanwhile, the graduate earnings premium for more career-specific fields isn’t as high.

    “About 25 percent of bachelor of arts majors don’t by themselves have a positive return on investment,” Strohl said. “But we need to look at the graduate earnings premium, because many B.A. majors don’t stand by themselves.”

    Although salaries for college graduates are one metric that can help college students decide on a major, Morris said it shouldn’t be the only consideration.

    “Don’t just chase the money,” she said. “The job market can be very unpredictable. Students need to be aware of their own intrinsic interests and find ways to differentiate themselves.”

    Source link

  • Loan Caps Could Force Students Into Private Market

    Loan Caps Could Force Students Into Private Market

    At least a quarter of students across a broad range of graduate and professional programs could need private loans, which tend to come with higher interest rates, in order to pay for their education once new caps on federal loans take effect next summer, multiple studies show. For some, the loans could become so costly as to make earning a master’s or doctoral degree unattainable.

    Currently, this group can borrow federal loans up to the total cost of attendance thanks to a program known as Grad PLUS. But starting July 1, students will max out at either $20,500 or $50,000 per year depending on whether they enroll in a graduate or professional program, respectively. And those in graduate programs will only be able to take out $100,000 over all, while students in professional programs will be limited to $200,000. Congress made the changes as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed earlier this summer.

    The caps mean that the median borrower in four of the nine largest professional programs likely will need to find other financing to pay tuition bills, according to a recent analysis from the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. Borrowers in the 75th percentile exceed the cap in six of the nine fields.

    And it’s not just the most costly doctoral programs such as medicine and dentistry in which students will face such a challenge, PEER notes. Out of the 30 master’s degree programs with the highest loan volume, 50 percent of students exceed the cap in nearly half of them.

    Many of these students could struggle to find a private lender to make up the difference, potentially forcing them to drop out or not enroll in the first place, policy experts at PEER and other research groups say. And even if a student finds a lender, taking out a private loan could lead to steep, sometimes predatory, interest rates that take decades to pay off. (Research shows that low-income individuals particularly struggle to secure private financing because of a range of factors such as low credit scores, a lack of assets or an inconsistent flow of income.)

    Before this new law, “students could have just filled out their FAFSA, applied for loans through the Department of Education and been able to borrow up to the full cost of attendance of their program,” said Jordan Matsudaira, director of the PEER Center and a former deputy under secretary at the Department of Education.

    But now, for upward of a quarter of graduate students, it likely won’t be that simple.

    “I think that will come as a surprise to a lot of people,” he said.

    Can Private Lenders Fill the Gap?

    Other researchers at Urban Institute and Jobs for the Future have also crunched the numbers on the loan caps and reached similar findings.

    Jobs for the Future estimated in a report released last month that if this loan cap had been in place for the 2019–20 graduating class, roughly 38 percent of graduate borrowers would have needed to take out more loans beyond the cap. And thanks to the limit, the federal government would have issued $9.7 billion less in loans—a decrease of about 28 percent, according to the report.

    Urban also used data from 2019–20 but broke it down by program, finding that dentistry would have the largest share of students exceeding the cap. About 56 percent would have exceeded the annual limit, and 58 percent blew through the aggregate cap. Other programs with a high share of students that could be pushed into the private market include medicine, at 41 percent, a master’s in public health, at 29 percent, and a master’s in fine arts, at 26 percent.

    Policy experts on both sides of the political aisle tend to agree that the student debt crisis needs to be addressed. But unlike conservative lawmakers and analysts who believe these caps are necessary in order to lessen student debt and encourage colleges to lower costs, some researchers worry the limits are too aggressive and don’t account for nuances like a program’s return on investment.

    “The kind of pain involved here is a little bit bigger than it needed to be to rein in the most egregious abuses in the system,” Matsudaira said. “The better approach over all would have been to adopt an approach where different fields of study had different limits that were scaled with borrowers’ ability to repay.”

    Some questions about how the loan limits will work and which programs they’ll apply to will be answered later this month when the Education Department starts to work through the rule-making process to carry out the law’s provisions. Representatives from nursing, aviation and social work have already started to speak out about why their programs should be considered professional degrees and therefore be eligible for the higher cap.

    “In today’s economy, the majority of graduate education is practical and workforce-aligned, preparing students for jobs in health care, education, counseling, technology and much more,” Stephanie Giesecke, a representative of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, said at a public hearing in August. “The definition that is too narrow risks excluding programs that are vitally important to communities and employers nationwide.”

    Like Matsudaira, Ethan Pollack, a senior director of policy at JFF, said that while he sympathizes with the Republican diagnosis that debt is too high, he probably would have gone about addressing it a different way. But rather than suggesting changes to the cap itself, JFF’s report looked at the financial impact on borrowers and suggested ways that institutions, the government and private lenders can adjust in response.

    One key recommendation was the use of outcomes-based financing for private loans, which would base payments in part on borrowers’ earnings after graduating. Pollack said that this approach could help students who lack strong credit histories or cosigners still pursue well-paying degrees like a juris doctorate.

    But current regulations, like requiring a bank to disclose a flat annual percentage rate, or APR, when offering a loan, make it difficult for some private vendors to explore new models like outcomes-based financing, he explained. If the government were to build on the recent legislation by amending current regulations and introducing new guardrails for private lenders, Pollack added, the OBF model could make nonfederal loans more affordable for borrowers of all backgrounds.

    “The federal government, in some sense, is stepping on the gas and the brake at the same time,” he said. “They’re saying that they want the private market to be stepping up, but at the same time, the federal government is one of the obstacles to the private market being able to step up in the way that we would all like them to, which is to be offering financing with much more student-friendly terms.”

    Matsudaira, on the other hand, was more skeptical.

    “The big question is whether the private sector is really going to be able to come in and fill a hole that big,” he said. “And even if they do, how long does it take for them to spin up to be able to do those kinds of things?”

    Source link

  • International students encouraged to sharpen their skills to stand out in UK job market

    International students encouraged to sharpen their skills to stand out in UK job market

    More than 600 international students studying across the UK came together at Queen Mary University of London last month for the second edition of Leverage Careers Day.

    While a record 758,855 international students were enrolled in UK higher education in 2022/23, a 12% rise on the previous year, rising employer uncertainty, growing graduate anxiety, and an increase in job scams have made students more cautious in their professional choices.

    The event saw students, who are now exploring opportunities in AI, data science, marketing, finance, and more, connect with top employers and industry leaders, to network, explore career pathways, and gain valuable career advice.

    “We saw a remarkable breadth of interest from students across a range of disciplines, with data science and AI standing out as clear frontrunners. Many were especially drawn to AI-layered roles in marketing, creative industries, finance, and healthcare,” Akshay Chaturvedi, founder and CEO, Leverage, told The PIE News.

    “At the same time, digital marketing and content strategy sparked strong interest of their own, driven by rising opportunities in the digital economy. Beyond these, students also gravitated towards specialized tracks for example in biotechnology, luxury management, automobile design, and culinary arts.”

    For many international students, a successful career has long been the ultimate benchmark of achievement, and in the UK, standing out is crucial, with a sponsored job often seen as the true return on their significant investment in tuition and living costs.

    Moreover, with over a quarter of UK employers unaware of the Graduate Route – which allows international students to work sponsor-free for up to two years but is set to be reduced to 18 months under the May 2025 immigration white paper and tied more closely to skill-based jobs – understanding the realities of today’s hiring market has become increasingly important. 

    “Employers aren’t just looking for textbook skills anymore — they’re looking for forward-thinking talent who can bring innovation to the table,” explained Lee Wildman, director, global engagement, Queen Mary University of London, who joined a fireside chat on mentorship, global exposure, and the skills needed in an ever-evolving world, alongside Chaturvedi and Rhianna Skeetes, international careers consultant at QMUL.

    “What ideas do you have to take an organisation to the next level? Be prepared to sell yourself – not just in terms of what you’ve learned, but in terms of how you think.”

    What excites me most is seeing students ask better, sharper questions about their careers – not just what job they’ll get, but how they’ll grow, how they’ll lead, and how they’ll stand out

    Akshay Chaturvedi, Leverage

    Adaptability was also highlighted as the “strongest tool in a student’s back pocket” by Jennifer Ogunleye, B2B communications lead at Google, who delivered a keynote urging students to look beyond job titles, and academic credentials, and focus on building a personal brand. 

    “There isn’t always a straightforward route into tech or any industry today – even those who were most in demand just a year ago are having to pivot,” noted Ogunleye. 

    “What matters more than ever is your personal brand: What are you passionate about beyond your job title? That’s what sets you apart from AI, from competition, from volatility.”

    The event also brought together organisations such as Publicis Groupe, Reed Recruitment, Hyatt Place, Ribbon Global, and GoBritanya, which offered insights into student accommodation services across the UK and Ireland, giving students exposure to careers across creative, corporate, hospitality, and FinTech sectors. 

    The Westminster and Holborn Law Society also provided guidance to aspiring legal professionals on navigating local and international career pathways.

    “Students today aren’t satisfied with just ‘getting a job’ anymore. They’re actively chasing careers that offer international mobility, cross-border exposure, and long-term growth,” stated Chaturvedi.

    “That’s a significant shift, and quite refreshing so, given how only a few years back stability was often the top priority. Now, they want to thrive in industries that are constantly evolving every single day, with technology, globalization, and new market needs at play.”

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    We have a long history of working with Scott Jeffe during his time as the VP of research at RNL. Recently, Scott moved on from RNL to begin working as an independent higher ed market research consultant and adviser to universities. To learn more about the work that Scott does and to hopefully gain some insight into where things may be going with online and graduate programs, we asked Scott the following questions.

    Q: Tell us about what it means to be an independent higher ed market researcher. What sort of projects do you work on? How does what you do for universities differ from the services available from traditional consulting firms?

    A: In higher education, the best market research means more than just gathering data—it means showing up as a consultant. That’s something I’ve really learned throughout my career. Too often, I see research reports that are, frankly, hard to interpret or apply. The data might be sound, but it’s overly complex, the visualizations are unclear or the recommendations are disconnected from the realities of how colleges and universities actually operate.

    I’ve had those moments—looking at a data visualization and spending several minutes just trying to figure out what it’s supposed to say. And I know that no dean, provost or president has the time to do that. I’ve also read plenty of conclusions that are technically accurate but completely impractical in the real-world context of higher ed. That’s the kind of disconnect that leads campus leaders to quietly shelve the report, walk away and think, “Well, that was a waste of money.”

    That is exactly what my work today seeks to avoid. My research and consulting prioritize being more direct, actionable and grounded in higher ed’s current challenges. My work now spans both institutional consulting and national research, and I think that balance is part of what makes my approach effective. For example, I’ve recently completed national studies on graduate student expectations and mentorship, which give me insight into broader trends that I can then bring into highly tailored campus-level work.

    Over the past six months, I’ve developed four core services designed specifically for this moment in higher ed—politically, economically and culturally. They’re affordable, practical and fast to implement. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions, but I do believe institutions deserve work that respects their time, their context and their need to move quickly on what matters.

    That’s ultimately the difference between what I offer and what many vendors often provide. I’m not just delivering a report—I’m helping institutions make real decisions, grounded in both the data and the dynamics of higher ed today.

    Q: What are the most significant challenges and opportunities for universities wanting to grow graduate and/or online enrollment today?

    A: At the graduate level, one of the biggest looming challenges is the likely decline in international enrollment, which has quietly propped up graduate enrollment growth for the past several years. Under the Biden administration, we saw international graduate enrollment rise by more than 117,000 students—reaching over 500,000 total. Just last year, international students made up a full one-third of new graduate enrollments in the U.S., and over 200 institutions reported that international students represented more than 30 percent of their total graduate population.

    But we have to be clear-eyed: Not only is that level of growth not sustainable, but decline is coming. Whether due to shifting geopolitics, visa policy changes or growing global competition, institutions will need to refocus their efforts on the domestic graduate market—and fast.

    That said, there’s opportunity in the challenge. In fact, the current job market will likely nudge more adults to consider graduate study as a buffer or springboard during economic uncertainty. The catch? Institutions are now facing unprecedented competition. By some counts, we’re adding 800 new master’s programs each year. To grow—or even maintain—enrollment, institutions must have an acute understanding of what today’s graduate students expect. That means building a blueprint rooted in student preferences and behaviors and then aligning everything—program design, marketing, recruitment and support—around those insights.

    That’s where much of my work comes in. Over the last two decades, I’ve helped institutions do exactly this through tools like my Scorecard and Playbook and the Audience Alignment Study, which zero in on how to position programs for today’s increasingly selective learners.

    Now, on the online education side, the landscape is a bit more favorable at the moment—particularly due to the regulatory environment calming down. The Biden administration’s push to more heavily regulate online programs—particularly around OPMs and state reciprocity—has largely been shelved. That’s good news for smaller institutions, where online offerings often represent the best path to enrollment stability or growth. Interestingly, one of the unintended effects of that regulatory scrutiny is that OPM contract terms are now much more favorable than they were a few years ago. Institutions have more leverage.

    In terms of opportunity, there are two major areas I’m watching closely. First, the long-discussed but rarely well-executed effort to serve the 30 to 40 million U.S. adults with some college and no credential is almost entirely an online opportunity. However, most institutions struggle to fully serve this group. The barriers tend to fall into three key areas: restrictive credit transfer policies, pricing models that remain out of reach and a misplaced assumption that these students will return to campus for their courses. Institutions that succeed here build fully online programs with wraparound support—advising, tech help, financial aid guidance—specifically designed for students who haven’t set foot on a campus in years. And when they do that, it doesn’t just help this population—it improves online education quality for everyone.

    The second opportunity is more subtle but just as important: the increased demand from traditional undergraduates for access to online courses. While this isn’t online program growth in the classic sense, it presents a major advantage. A robust online course infrastructure doesn’t just support distance learners—it makes the entire campus experience more flexible, more attractive and more resilient. For institutions, that’s a strategic win across multiple audiences.

    Q: How can universities better choose which programs to start and invest in and then grow enrollments to financially sustainable numbers?

    A: At all levels, I think most institutions are doing a much better job now of integrating market data into their program decision-making. There’s a pretty direct line between the era when those insights were missing and the wave of program cuts we’re seeing now. For instance, Inside Higher Ed recently reported that Indiana’s public institutions have combined or eliminated over 400 programs that weren’t meeting fairly modest graduation thresholds. That’s a clear example of the consequences of earlier decisions made without solid market alignment.

    When I work with institutions on program strategy, my role is really to facilitate a conversation that balances market data and institutional strengths. I bring the external perspective—labor market demand, competitor analysis, growth trends—and they bring the internal knowledge of what they’re truly good at. The goal isn’t just to chase hot programs, but to find areas where there’s strong or emerging market demand and where the institution already has expertise, capacity and visibility. That combination is where real opportunity lives.

    Why take that approach? Because institutions need quick wins. We’re often working with limited time and resources and pressure to show results. If you can build momentum by improving or reconfiguring an existing program—something that already has a foundation—you get to impact faster and more cost-effectively. In fact, across dozens of program prioritization studies I’ve been involved in, I’ve rarely seen a proposed new program with more short- or midterm market potential than several underperforming existing ones. That’s why I usually recommend a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 investment ratio favoring existing programs over net-new launches.

    Once we identify the right programs to focus on, differentiation becomes key—especially in the online space, where commodification is a real concern. Institutions need detailed competitor intelligence, not just high-level benchmarking. We’re looking at how programs are positioned, how they’re structured and what messages they’re putting in front of students. That kind of granularity allows us to develop a true blueprint for differentiation—one that goes beyond clichés like “small class sizes” or “personalized attention” and speaks to what really sets a program apart.

    And finally, with federal regulations increasingly focused on graduate outcomes and return on investment, it’s more important than ever to bake those metrics—job openings, wage growth, projected earnings—into the program planning process from the beginning. We’re entering a new phase where programs will be judged not just on academic merit or enrollment numbers, but on how they impact students’ long-term economic success.

    So to me, the smartest institutions are those that align their strengths with market needs, invest in what they already do well and differentiate with purpose—grounded in real data.

    Source link

  • 1 in 2 graduates say their college major didn’t prepare them for today’s market

    1 in 2 graduates say their college major didn’t prepare them for today’s market

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    As today’s college graduates struggle to start a steady career, 1 in 2 Americans say their college major didn’t prepare them for the job market, according to a June 18 report from Preply.

    Beyond that, 1 in 6 Americans who went to college said they regret it. When thinking about their college experience, college graduates said their top regrets included taking out student loans, not networking more and not doing internships.

    “One of the main concepts of seeking higher education after high school is that college will prepare you for the rest of your life. While some graduates leave their alma mater feeling prepared to enter the workforce and begin their career, others feel underprepared,” according to the report.

    In a survey of more than 1,700 Americans with an undergraduate degree, 29% said they wished they picked a different major, and 18% said they regretted the institution they attended.

    College graduates said they felt unprepared in numerous ways, especially finding a job after graduation and navigating student debt and personal finances. 

    Americans also said they don’t feel college gave them real-world work experience, practical or technical skills or a professional network. In fact, only 5% reported feeling “adequately prepared” for life and the workplace.

    On the other side of the hiring table, more than half of hiring managers say recent graduates appear to be unprepared for the workforce, and 1 in 6 say they’re reluctant to hire them, according to a report from Resume.org. Their top complaints included excessive phone use, a lack of professionalism and poor time management skills.

    Within the workplace, executives and workers alike say entry-level workers seem unprepared for their jobs, particularly compared to five years ago, according to a General Assembly report. Although leaders said workers don’t have enough training to be hired, employers also don’t offer adequate training, the report found.

    Source link

  • Student protection through market exit is not a compliance exercise

    Student protection through market exit is not a compliance exercise

    As financial and regulatory pressures on higher education intensify, the once-hypothetical risk of a large-scale provider exiting the market is becoming increasingly likely.

    For government, regulators, providers, and students alike, the implications are far-reaching – and the sector needs to be better prepared.

    The risk is growing

    Following our previous reflections on this issue we received many messages of interest and support for doing some further work in this area. We also felt there was an opportunity to bring together the experiences of colleagues we have worked with on closures and mergers, and to capture the perspectives of receiving providers and learn from their experiences.

    SUMS Consulting reached out to us, offering to support a new project on a pro bono basis. Their expertise in supporting student services and change management, combined with the OIA’s experience of student complaints during provider exits, created a unique opportunity to look at the problem from both a practical and student-centred perspective. We also asked the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) to join the project’s steering group, ensuring governance perspectives were built into the work from the outset.

    The risks we highlighted last year have only intensified for students. At the OIA we have seen further complaints from students at smaller providers which have closed in recent months. In these scenarios we see staff working quickly to try to support students at both closing and receiving providers, but there is little legal scaffolding to protect students caught in these situations often leaving them with limited redress.

    Lessons from experience

    Whilst we recognise that there has been significant positive engagement, discussion and reports in this space, the SUMS and OIA report – Putting Students First – Managing the impact of higher education provider closure – focuses on mitigating the impact on students and specifically learning from the closures and cases the OIA has been involved in. If we don’t take these examples seriously, we risk missing a crucial opportunity to improve outcomes for students.

    Over the course of the project, there has been increasing discussion about these policy issues and a ‘playbook’ for market exit is frequently suggested. Whilst neither the SUMS nor the OIA has the expertise or role to produce something quite this detailed and comprehensive, SUMS have gathered insights from university leaders, students’ unions, experts, and those who have dealt directly with closures.

    Part one of our report provides the context for the study and collates findings on lessons and effective practice for the sector derived from all the research and information gathering for this study. SUMS also provide some conclusions on the gaps identified by the research and make a series of recommendations for Government, regulators and sector bodies and providers to consider to better support providers navigate exit and help mitigate the impact of future closures on students.

    Part two is a separately appended framework (in MS Excel format), which is a summary of the key lessons learnt from the study. The framework is not intended as a comprehensive guide for good institutional governance or achieving financial sustainability. Rather it is intended to provide a checklist of key actions that might be taken by providers to mitigate the risk of exit and, if exit is unavoidable, to help prepare for a managed exit.

    Several consistent themes emerged across our discussions – notably the practical disconnects between the current legal, regulatory, financial, and student protection processes. What’s clear is the value of early engagement – acting early and being transparent can reduce the impact on students – but we recognise this is difficult when reputational and commercial pressures are in play. Also it is apparent that receiving providers and students’ unions often play a vital role but aren’t always given the resources or support they need.

    We found that student protection is too often treated as a compliance task. If the sector is to avoid repeating past mistakes, this mindset must change.

    Moving the conversation forward

    This report is not the final word. We see it as a starting point — a resource that will grow over time, as more providers engage with it and share their own experiences. We hope that going forward the framework will continue to evolve – helping shape a more student-centred response. We also hope it will support other initiatives in this space, such as the forthcoming updates to the CUC Governance Code.

    Above all, we want to encourage providers, governors, and policymakers to engage in open and honest conversations about the risk of market exit — before it becomes an emergency. Used early, the framework can help institutions strengthen their preparedness, build resilience, and ultimately safeguard the student experience.

    What happens next?

    We encourage providers and others to review the framework and checklist with leadership and governance teams, integrate its guidance into risk and student protection planning, share feedback to help develop the next iteration of the work.

    We hope that this work will help enable honest and open conversations about exit, both within and between providers. We all need to understand that student protection isn’t just a compliance issue – it has a very direct impact on the experiences of students in the system, and we must all be ready.

    Ultimately, we need a more collaborative whole sector approach – because when a large-scale provider exits the market suddenly, the impact isn’t isolated – it becomes a sector-wide challenge. Ensuring students are protected must be a shared sector priority.

    Source link

  • Selling Prestige in a Predatory Credential Market

    Selling Prestige in a Predatory Credential Market

    Wake Forest’s online offerings, now delivered in collaboration with Kaplan, are dressed in glowing promotional language. Prospective students are promised access to “a global network of 80,000+ alumni,” “1-on-1 guidance from a dedicated Student Success Manager,” and a curriculum shaped by “a Program Advisory Board of diverse business leaders.” The university assures working professionals that they can “earn a 100% online master’s degree or graduate certificate” on their own terms, with a “streamlined admissions process” and “flexible courses.”

    But strip away the buzzwords and what’s left is a degree-granting operation outsourced to a for-profit education company with a controversial legacy. Kaplan, now owned by Graham Holdings (formerly the parent company of The Washington Post), has been at the center of lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, and allegations of exploitative practices in its higher ed ventures—including its role in managing Purdue Global, formerly Kaplan University. The company has a long history of targeting vulnerable populations—especially working-class adults—with high-cost, low-value credentials that often don’t lead to the promised career outcomes.

    So why is Wake Forest—an elite university with a storied reputation—collaborating with Kaplan?

    The answer is simple: profit and scale.

    In an era when even wealthy private universities are looking to expand their revenue streams, online education has become a lucrative frontier. But building and managing online degree programs in-house requires serious investment, time, and expertise. Enter Kaplan, which provides the infrastructure, marketing, enrollment management, and student support—all in exchange for a share of the revenue.

    What does this mean for students?

    It means that Wake Forest’s name is now being used to sell online degrees to mid-career professionals under the promise of prestige, convenience, and upward mobility—without the full intellectual, cultural, or communal experience that Wake Forest once symbolized. The degrees may bear the Wake Forest seal, but they are increasingly indistinguishable from the mass-produced credentials churned out by dozens of other universities that have sold access to their brands through partnerships with Online Program Managers (OPMs) like Kaplan, 2U, Wiley, and Coursera.

    The “1-on-1 Student Success Manager” may sound supportive, but in practice these positions are often little more than call center roles staffed by Kaplan employees trained to ensure retention and upsell future courses—not to engage in meaningful academic mentorship.

    The curriculum may be “developed and led by recognized faculty and industry experts,” but in many cases these are adjunct instructors or contract workers who have limited interaction with students and little say in the structure or pedagogy of the courses. This model contributes to the broader exploitation of contingent academic labor—an issue Wake Forest, like many elite universities, prefers not to discuss.

    And the promise of becoming a leader “from anywhere” with a Wake Forest SPS degree? That too should be questioned. These degrees exist in an increasingly saturated credential market where employers are skeptical, return on investment is uncertain, and students often find themselves saddled with debt and disappointment.

    If Wake Forest were truly committed to ethical leadership, it would take a hard look at the implications of commodifying its brand through a partnership with a company like Kaplan. Instead, it has chosen to chase market share and tuition revenue at the expense of its academic credibility—and at the risk of misleading students who believe they’re buying into the full Wake Forest experience.

    The truth is this: Wake Forest is selling the illusion of prestige, wrapped in a glossy brochure of online convenience and corporate optimism. In reality, it’s another cog in a profit-driven machine that markets higher education as a product rather than a public good. And that’s not transformative change. That’s business as usual in the credential economy.

    Source link

  • A Broader Look at Labor Market Strain

    A Broader Look at Labor Market Strain

    The U‑6 unemployment rate, the broadest measure of labor underutilization reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is showing signs of upward pressure. Unlike the headline U‑3 rate, which only includes those actively seeking work, the U‑6 figure captures a more complete picture of employment. It includes discouraged workers, marginally attached individuals, and those working part-time for economic reasons.

    According to the most recent data from the BLS and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the U‑6 rate inched up from 7.7 percent in June 2024 to a recent peak of 8.0 percent in February 2025. Since then, it has remained elevated, recording 7.9 percent in March and 7.8 percent in both April and May. The June 2025 figure dropped slightly to 7.7 percent but remains among the highest levels seen since 2023.

    The U‑6 rate tends to rise when more people are involuntarily working part-time or when marginally attached workers reenter the job search but fail to secure full-time employment. These dynamics suggest that while headline unemployment may appear stable—hovering around 4.1 percent in June—the underlying labor market may be more fragile than it seems.

    This persistence in underemployment raises concerns about the quality of jobs available, wage stagnation, and economic resilience, particularly for lower-income workers and those in precarious positions. A growing number of Americans want full-time employment but are unable to find it. Others are technically outside the labor force but remain discouraged or marginally attached to it.

    In the broader context, the U‑6 rate serves as a counterbalance to optimistic economic narratives. The apparent stability in the U‑3 rate masks lingering vulnerabilities, especially as sectors like retail, hospitality, and education continue to rely heavily on part-time labor or are facing budgetary constraints. For those watching the post-pandemic economy, particularly in relation to student debt, workforce readiness, and higher education policy, these indicators suggest a structural weakness in job creation and labor absorption.

    The gradual rise of U‑6 is not just a statistical footnote. It signals that the labor market is not fully healed and that a portion of the population remains economically sidelined. It is a metric worth monitoring as debates around economic recovery, fiscal policy, and employment strategies continue.

    For readers of the Higher Education Inquirer, this trend reinforces the need to consider broader employment conditions when evaluating the health of the U.S. economy, particularly for recent graduates, contingent faculty, and other workers navigating a precarious job landscape.

    Sources

    Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), U‑6 Unemployment Rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

    TradingEconomics, U‑6 Unemployment Rate: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/u6-unemployment-rate

    Source link