This week on the podcast we examine what the rise of Reform UK – and new insight into its prospective voters – might mean for universities, international education, and the wider public legitimacy of higher education.
Plus we discuss Skills England’s new guidance on local skills improvement plans – and the move to place higher education, up to postgraduate level, at the heart of local skills ecosystems – and a new study of student working lives that reveals how paid employment alongside full-time study is reshaping participation, wellbeing, and outcomes.
With Sam Roseveare, Director of Regional and National Policy at University of Warwick, Alex Favier, Director at Favier Ltd, Jen Summerton, Operations Director at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.
In polls and focus groups across the country, Reform voters have been singing from the same hymn sheet. They share a deep sense of national and local decline. They view the country through a lens of crumbling high streets, strained public services, and an economy seemingly trapped in a doom loop.
In this environment, they have developed a corrosive scepticism towards the modern university model, judging it a failed investment that saddles their children with debt for a degree that is only good for getting through graduate recruiters’ first sift of CVs. They demand contraction, utility, and accountability for a system they believe serves neither the student nor the economy.
To delve into these views, Public First conducted focus groups with those who currently intend to vote Reform UK in university towns in England. This revealed a surprising chink of light in an otherwise very gloomy outlook on universities: focus group participants were broadly very positive about international students.
Foreign subsidy as necessary evil
This needs to come with a heavy caveat: when we polled Reform voters, we found that 63 per cent agree that the UK government should restrict international student numbers in order to cut net migration. Cutting net migration remains a top priority for these voters, and for many, it appears that this should be done by any means necessary.
However, when confronted with the economics, Reform voters we have spoken to reveal a sophisticated and transactional view of international student recruitment. For them, students from overseas are not a problem to be solved, but a “great business.”
They see international recruitment as a clear, contained, and mutually beneficial transaction: the UK offers a world-class education (a product) and, in return, receives a higher rate of tuition fee (a profitable revenue stream). The students come to study, they contribute economically, and then – the crucial expectation – they either contribute to the UK economy or they leave.
This isn’t merely tolerance; it’s a qualified acceptance rooted in financial necessity. In these voters’ minds, these lucrative international fees act as the foreign subsidy that keeps the entire system afloat. As one participant noted, “If universities can’t stay open because they haven’t got any foreign students, then that is a detriment to UK students.” The implication is clear: to maintain a domestic higher education offering, the international revenue stream must be protected.
The conditions for goodwill
This surprising goodwill, however, is fragile and rests on extremely strict conditions. Voters grant the sector a licence to recruit internationally only as long as two core boundaries are strictly maintained.
No back doors: The arrangement must remain a transactional exchange, not a migration loophole. Support instantly evaporates when student visas are perceived as a “back door” into the country, particularly when students bring dependents or “disappear” into the country during the degree programme, or after graduation. The transaction is valid only if the purpose is learning, not permanent residency. “If you’re coming to learn, then you come to learn. You don’t bring your family, your dog, your cat and your goldfish,” argued one voter.
No crowding out: Crucially, if voters feel that their children are being denied places in favour of higher-paying overseas customers, the economic argument collapses under the weight of perceived injustice.
Despite the conditional acceptance of international fees, the core challenge for universities remains their perceived lack of utility to their students, and in their local communities. While Reform voters are pragmatic about international revenue streams, they are profoundly sceptical about the value of many domestic degrees that this income subsidises, and they see very little economic spillover in their towns: “…the areas outside of the city centre, I can’t see what benefit [universities] have.”
The sector cannot win over these key voters – and thus cannot escape the threat of cuts from political parties who want their support – by simply defending the status quo. Making the case to this influential group of voters requires clearly showing how international students are paying for local resources and subsidising domestic places, while demonstrating robust checks that ensure the system is not abused.
More widely, universities need to move beyond abstract civic rhetoric and show tangible value, taking concerted action to ensure and evidence that all degree courses benefit the student, the community and/or the country at large.
The support for international students presents a unique opportunity. It is the one pillar of the current HE model that Reform voters’ economic logic allows them to broadly accept, even if this acceptance is currently secondary to the desire to cut net migration.
The sector must leverage this pragmatic lifeline to pave the way to a secure future, while not telling but showing voters that their domestic offering is part of the solution to the UK’s economic doom loop.
Berenschot (2017) Van toezicht naar verantwoording: rapportage hoger onderwijs [From Supervision to Accountability: Higher Education Report]. Utrecht: Berenschot.
Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur (2013) Een lastig gesprek: rapport van de Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur [A Difficult Conversation: Report of the Committee on Proper Governance]. The Hague: Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur.
Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur (2013) Een lastig gesprek. Over de (interne) dialoog in semipublieke instellingen [A Difficult Conversation: On the (Internal) Dialogue in Semi-Public Institutions]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.
Commissie onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis (2012) Autonomie verplicht: Rapport onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis [Autonomy required: Report on the financial problems at Amarantis]. Den Haag: Commissie onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis.
Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025) Post-16 Education and Skills. White Paper CP 1412. London: HM Government.
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (2021) Evaluatie wet versterking bestuurskracht [Evaluation of the Law to Strengthen Governance]. Brief regering, Kamerstuk 34 251, Nr. 95. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.
Rijksoverheid (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verantwoorde invulling van rijksinspecties [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Responsible Role for National Inspectorates]. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verantwoorde invulling van rijksinspecties [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Responsible Role for National Inspectorates]. The Hague: WRR.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verruimd perspectief op rijkstoezicht [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Broadened Perspective on National Oversight]. Den Haag: Amsterdam University Press.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2014) Van tweeluik naar driehoeken: Versterking van interne checks and balances bij semipublieke organisaties [From Diptychs to Triangles: Strengthening Internal Checks and Balances in Semi-Public Organisations]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2015) Improving internal checks and balances in semi-public organisations: synopsis of WRR report no. 91 [Van tweeluik naar driehoeken]. The Hague: WRR.
In today’s fiercely competitive higher education landscape, enrollment leaders are being asked to do more with less. That means more inquiries, more conversions, and more starts, all while working with fewer resources and a shrinking pool of students actively seeking traditional degree paths.
What separates the institutions that are growing from those that are treading water? In my experience, it’s the willingness to question the status quo. The leaders seeing results are the ones taking a hard look at internal processes and policies and making bold decisions to remove what’s in the way of progress.
The urgency to remove enrollment barriers
Many institutions face enrollment plateaus not because they lack student interest, but because of self-imposed friction. Burdensome application requirements, slow review cycles, and legacy processes that haven’t evolved with changing student expectations can all stand in the way of progress.
Students today expect seamless, responsive experiences. They compare your enrollment process not only to peer institutions but also to the intuitive digital experiences they encounter every day. If your application process is full of red tape or requires too many steps, students will disengage and likely move on to a more accessible option.
Colleges and universities that want to stay competitive need to start clearing the path. By taking the time to understand how your enrollment process actually operates and identifying where students tend to get stuck, you can make meaningful changes that increase both efficiency and enrollment success.
Start with a map: Uncovering friction through process review
The first step to solving an enrollment slowdown is understanding where it’s happening. That’s where process mapping comes in.
At Collegis, we partner with institutions to conduct comprehensive process assessments. We document and analyze every step of the applicant journey, from inquiry through registration, to uncover inconsistencies, delays, and points of friction that may be limiting your enrollment funnel. We often find that a student’s experience varies widely depending on who they interact with or when they enter the process, revealing a need for greater consistency and coordination.
In many cases, we find students getting stuck at multiple points across the enrollment journey, starting with the application itself. Lengthy or confusing questions, lack of helpful guidance, and irrelevant fields can all create unnecessary complexity early on. Students may also encounter inconsistent or impersonal communication, making it unclear what to expect next or where they stand in the process.
Further down the funnel, delays often occur during application review, sometimes taking a week or more due to internal handoffs or manual processes. In some cases, applications sit idle because there’s no system in place to move files forward or flag them for outreach. These gaps add up, slowing momentum and causing potential students to disengage.
When you can see the entire process visualized, it becomes easier to ask the right questions:
Is the application process intuitive and easy to navigate, or are we introducing unnecessary complexity?
Are there clear next steps and calls to action for students at each stage?
Do students receive consistent, timely communication that reflects where they are in the journey?
Is the messaging and cadence of our marketing and operational emails aligned with what students hear from admissions counselors?
Are there opportunities to streamline handoffs, automate manual steps, or standardize the process to ensure every student receives a cohesive experience?
Process mapping isn’t just a troubleshooting exercise. It’s a strategic investment in institutional agility and student-centered design. Institutions that complete this type of review often uncover both quick wins and opportunities for deeper transformation.
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.
Rethink the rules: Policies that reduce friction and drive results
Some of the most impactful improvements we’ve seen don’t require major investments or cutting-edge technologies. More often, they come from rethinking the policies that shape your admissions process and how those policies either support or hinder the student experience.
When we conduct policy reviews with our partner institutions, we often find that some admissions requirements add more complexity than value. It’s crucial to determine whether each requirement is truly essential to making an informed admissions decision. By removing or refining requirements that no longer serve a clear purpose (such as excessive documentation or overly rigid review criteria) institutions can streamline internal workflows and reduce avoidable delays. These targeted adjustments not only improve operational efficiency but also create a more accessible and student-centered experience.
Impact in action: Practical examples of enrollment transformation
These are not just hypothetical improvements. We’ve worked directly with institutions to implement these strategies and have seen the tangible impact they can deliver. Here are a few real-world examples that show how practical adjustments have translated into measurable results:
Waiving letters of recommendation for applicants who meet a defined GPA threshold. This eliminates a common bottleneck while maintaining admissions rigor.
Simplifying transcript requirements by only requesting documentation that includes a conferred degree and any prerequisite coursework required for program entry. Additional transcripts are collected later if necessary, which speeds up the initial review process.
Automating workflows that trigger application reviews as soon as all checklist items are complete. This ensures students move through the process without unnecessary delays.
Setting up notifications to ensure timely engagement. For example, alerts can be set when a new inquiry or applicant hasn’t received contact from an admissions counselor within 24 hours, or when application reviews are taking longer than expected.
These types of changes create a more efficient, student-centered process that helps institutions convert interest into enrollment more effectively.
Don’t just tweak the process, transform it
If your institution is still relying on outdated processes and rigid policies, now is the time to reevaluate. The enrollment environment is only becoming more competitive. But with the right changes, your institution can become more efficient, more agile, and more appealing to today’s students.
This isn’t about cutting corners or lowering standards. It’s about rethinking how your process serves students. Process mapping helps uncover ways to simplify steps, ensure consistency, and build trust through clear communication and meaningful staff connections. The result is an experience that’s more efficient, more personal, and better aligned with your institution’s goals.
Let’s break the bottleneck together
A process mapping assessment is a powerful starting point. At Collegis, we go beyond identifying issues. We work side by side with our partners to solve them. Our approach is collaborative, our recommendations are practical, and our focus is always on impact.
If your institution is ready to accelerate enrollment growth, strengthen internal operations, and deliver a more consistent and personalized experience for your students, let’s talk.
Innovation Starts Here
Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.
Jim Callinan leads enrollment strategy and operational excellence at Collegis Education, where he partners with higher education institutions to design and deploy data-informed admissions and student-journey models. With nearly 20 years of higher education experience, Jim brings deep expertise in aligning cross-functional teams across technology, marketing, analytics, enrollment, and student success to drive growth, streamline operations, and elevate the student and staff experience. His collaborative approach helps institutions align strategy, process, and performance to achieve sustainable success.
California’s community college–to–four-year university transfer pipeline has not delivered the outcomes students need. While 80 percent of community college students intend to transfer, just 19 percent reach a California State University campus within four years. The gap is stark. While there have been numerous statewide efforts to define clear pathways to California State University and the University of California, time and time again it’s taken local innovation and collaboration between sending and receiving colleges to make a real difference.
In Los Angeles, which enrolls a quarter of the state’s students, educators and partners have spent nearly a decade working to support student-centered transfer innovations by focusing attention on implementation of the associate degree for transfer (A.D.T.), a 2+2 pathway intended to offer community college students guaranteed admission to the CSU and an efficient path to graduation. Cross-sector education and workforce collaboratives like the L.A. Compact and the L.A. Region K–16 Collaborative, both convened by UNITE-LA—a nonprofit advancing equitable education and career pathways—have stewarded this work.
In 2017, UNITE-LA brought together leaders from California State University, Northridge; the L.A. Community College District; and other local public and private universities to attempt to solve a common challenge: re-engaging students who stopped out. Recognizing that institutions had a shared responsibility to support this student population, California’s first reverse-transfer program was born.
CSUN Connections went further than traditional reverse-transfer models by helping disengaged students seamlessly transfer their credits to a partnering community college, apply them to an A.D.T. when available and then transfer back to CSUN to complete their bachelor’s with all the benefits of an associate degree. This work required us to take stock of the student data and identify where institutional and systemwide policy barriers, including degree offerings, residency requirements and program misalignments, were costing students additional time and money
Concurrently, campus partners wanted to better understand A.D.T. pathway availability and student outcomes from a regional perspective. Recognizing that the benefits of the A.D.T. unravel when such degrees are not locally available or, when available, rendered inaccessible by enrollment impaction, 16 community colleges and four CSUs engaged in historic data sharing to assemble a clearer picture.
The findings were clear: The A.D.T. was not yielding the desired results. Students who earn the A.D.T. transfer to CSU at half the rate of non-A.D.T. earners. A.D.T. earners often did not complete their degree in two years, and many did not enter CSU in the same field of study. This is due, in part, to the fact that A.D.T.s are not offered locally in many high-paying fields in popular majors like STEM and health. Students of color, especially L.A.’s African American student population, were even less likely to earn the degree, transfer or enter high-demand fields.
In response, UNITE-LA convened a 2021 community of practice focused on improving transfer pathways in the region, asking, to what extent do our educational systems yield inequities in transfer, and for whom? Why is this happening? And how might we bring change? The group surfaced systemic challenges and also revealed that meaningful solutions must be developed at the campus level.
From 2022 to 2024, UNITE-LA piloted a new approach: the Student-Centered Transfer Redesign Process. In partnership with California State University, Dominguez Hills; Cal Poly Pomona; and their feeder community colleges, campus administrators and staff in academic affairs, student services and enrollment management worked together alongside faculty to diagnose barriers and design strategies to improve transfer and bachelor’s attainment.
The process went beyond policy change—it built campus capacity. Participants gained deeper understanding of equity gaps, stronger cross-campus relationships and hands-on tools for problem solving. Empathy interviews with transfer students shifted the focus from what students did or didn’t do to what they experienced, learned and overcame. This perspective is critical to making a student-ready system instead of making students conform to existing policies that don’t serve them.
For example, through the Transfer Redesign Process, CSUDH looked at data-backed recommendations of the statewide AB 928 Committee and assessed the viability of expanding its campus emergency aid program for prematriculated transfer students. Such aid could help incoming transfer students navigate unexpected expenses associated with transfer, such as moving costs, childcare costs and additional transportation expenses like up-front parking or transit pass fees.
In another example, Cal Poly Pomona sought to partner with a feeder community college to implement eTranscript in order to create faster and more consistent transcript and data-sharing processes to support transfer student success. As noted in a recent study of five public institutions in California, despite improvements in available technology, transcript sharing remains a highly manual process that can delay transfer students in receiving final credit-evaluation decisions that are needed for accurate advisement and on-time course registration.
These efforts underscore a core lesson: Localized collaboration is essential for effective implementation of state policy, to diagnose new challenges as they arise, to develop responsive solutions from the ground up and then to advocate for the scaling of innovations that work. The size of California’s higher education systems and complexity of degree pathways require more robust investments to support this type of cross-campus work. State-funded initiatives like the K–16 Collaboratives have provided flexible funding to make it possible in places like Los Angeles. But sustained, dedicated funding is key to turning localized innovation into statewide reforms that reach all Californians. With the state’s Cradle-to-Career Data System, the new Master Plan for Career Education and proposed Education Interagency Council, California has an opportunity to embed these lessons statewide.
Los Angeles is fortunate in that it has a coalition of education leaders willing to cut through the bureaucracy and advance change for the well-being of students. It’s taken data sharing, relationship building, intermediaries and a creative blend of funding, but our students deserve systems that work. Campuses deserve resources to improve them. By aligning funding, policy, practice and partnership, we can ensure their success—and, in turn, the prosperity of our communities and our state.
Adam Gottlieb is the director of postsecondary strategy and policy at UNITE-LA.
As part of National Transfer Student Week, hundreds of college campuses are hosting public celebrations to uplift their transfer student communities, including many in our home state of California. While these celebrations are important to increase visibility and a sense of belonging, transfer students warrant our attention and support year-round. The data demonstrate why: While 80 percent of community college students nationally aspire to earn a bachelor’s degree, just 17 percent of community college students in California reach that finish line within six years. Moreover, sizable inequities by race and ethnicity, income, and age point to the need for drastic change.
As former transfer students from the California Community Colleges who have worked in various capacities to improve transfer, including working directly with students through admissions, partnering with higher education system leaders to implement statewide legislation like Assembly Bill 928 and educating lawmakers and system leaders on the gaps that persist as policy fellows with the Campaign for College Opportunity, we know these challenges firsthand. Reflecting on our own transfer journeys and professional experience, we have identified three priorities that must be addressed to improve transfer student outcomes.
Align and streamline transfer pathways to create flexibility for learners.
When we began our community college journeys, we had no idea where the road might lead us: to a California State University, a University of California or a private nonprofit institution. Like many first-time students, we explored our options and built contingency plans. Yet California’s transfer pathways are not designed to provide such flexibility. Eligibility requirements vary across systems, with CSU and UC maintaining their own preferred pathways.
Adding complexity, individual campuses and academic programs also impose local requirements, as documented in a recent study of five public institutions in California. This means that the same community college class can be treated differently by every campus, even in the same system, and may not end up applying to the intended major. As Just Equations further documented, the campus- and major-specific requirements are especially complicated for math.
To avoid wasting time and credits, transfer students must commit early to a specific path. Making sense of these requirements, however, falls largely on students. One resource that helped us navigate course transfer in California is ASSIST.org. Nancy was able to use this tool to decide that the flexibility afforded by the general education transfer curriculum recognized by all CSU and UC campuses would be the best path for her. Meanwhile, both Brianna and Carlos relied on the tool to understand which math classes to take for their intended majors. Brianna discovered that the business calculus class she planned to take at American River College would work at her target CSU campus but would disqualify her from every UC campus.
Unfortunately, while tools exist, students must independently seek them out and interpret complex rules. This adds unnecessary stress and risk of error. While we each ultimately succeeded in transferring and graduating, too many students are thrown off course. California should cut through this confusion by better aligning curricular requirements across the CSU and UC, and across campuses in the same system, so students have breathing room.
Expand access to accurate and timely advising.
While students in specialized programs often receive consistent advising, all community college students would benefit from personalized, ongoing support. Advising was pivotal for each of us, but only after we made the effort to seek it out and build relationships.
For Nancy, proactively meeting with a transfer counselor every semester at El Camino College ensured that her general education plan and major requirements stayed on track. Brianna initially struggled to connect with advisers, but after joining her college’s track team, she began working with a consistent counselor who understood her long-term goals and helped her recognize that her coursework qualified her for several associate degrees.
Through EOPS and athletics, Carlos met with his counselors multiple times each semester to monitor his progress on his plan to transfer to UCLA for economics. Despite his persistence, he was not informed of the calculus prerequisites until a year into his studies, which delayed his graduation from Porterville College. This gap was not the result of inaction on his part but of advising structures that are too underresourced to keep up with the ever-changing terrain of major requirements and hidden prerequisites.
Together, our experiences highlight both the promise and pitfalls of advising. Consistent guidance turned potential setbacks into opportunities, but these outcomes depended on resources and relationships that are not universally accessible. California can and must do better by guaranteeing timely, accurate advising from the start. That means staffing campuses with sufficient transfer counselors, ensuring continuity with the same adviser, embedding transfer-specific advising across programs, as well as transfer receiving institutions investing more into their future students before the application process begins.
Invest in transfer success and building transfer-receptive cultures.
Admission to a four-year institution is only the beginning of the transfer journey. Just like first-year students, transfer students need resources and communities to thrive at an entirely new school and system. For Nancy and Carlos, UCLA’s Transfer Summer Program provided an early introduction to key campus resources and a strong peer community. That foundation smoothed their transition and reinforced their sense of belonging. With one in three UC undergraduates entering as transfer students, investing systemwide in transfer-specific programming is essential. Summer bridge programs, structured mentorship and visible campus traditions can ensure transfer students feel valued from the first day they enter campus.
By contrast, Brianna entered Pomona College as one of just 20 transfer students. While living with fellow transfer students helped build community, formal support was limited. She stepped up as a student leader, serving as the first transfer community residential adviser and partnering with university leaders to design and implement transfer-specific programming.
These stories illustrate both the power of institutionalizing support services and of recognizing the inherent assets that transfer students bring to the table, because building a transfer-receptive culture must begin with valuing transfer students and treating them as integral contributors to the intellectual and social life of their campuses.
Looking Ahead
Our transfer success stories were possible because of our persistence in seeking tools like ASSIST.org, the guidance of dedicated advisers and the support of peer communities that helped us navigate through an unduly complex and high-stakes process. But no student’s success should depend on luck—our higher education systems need to make sure they are student-ready. California has made important progress through reforms like common course numbering, the Associate Degree for Transfer and Cal-GETC. Now it is time to build on that momentum by aligning and streamlining pathways, expanding access to accurate advising and degree planning tools, and investing in transfer-receptive campuses.
Brianna Huynh is a former policy fellow at the Campaign for College Opportunity. She is completing her M.S. in mathematics at California State Polytechnic University Pomona, and holds an A.S.T. in mathematics from American River College and a B.S. in mathematics from Pomona College.
Nancy Ohia is a current policy fellow at the Campaign for College Opportunity. After graduating from UCLA as a transfer student, Nancy earned her M.P.P. from USC.
Carlos Rodriguez is a current policy fellow at the Campaign for College Opportunity. He earned his A.S. in business management from Porterville College and is a current transfer student at UCLA majoring in economics.
This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.
New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that student suicide rates in England and Wales for the period 2016 to 2023 remain stable – but stability is no cause for complacency. The age-adjusted suicide rate among higher education students stands at 6.9 deaths per 100,000, compared with 10.2 per 100,000 for the general population of the same age group. Over the seven years of data collection, there were 1,163 student deaths by suicide – that is around 160 lives lost every year.
The rate being lower than the wider population is encouraging and may reflect the investment the sector has made in recent years. Universities have developed more visible wellbeing services, invested in staff training and created stronger cultures of awareness around mental health. The relative stability in the data can be seen as evidence that these interventions matter. But stability is not a resolution. Each student suicide is a preventable tragedy. The data should therefore be read not as reassurance, but as a call to sustain momentum and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead.
What the ONS data tells us
The figures highlight some familiar patterns. Male students remain at significantly higher risk than female students, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all suicides. Undergraduate students are at greater risk than postgraduate students, while students living at home have the lowest suicide rate. The data also shows that rates among White students are higher than for Black or Asian students, though the sample sizes are small, so these figures may be less reliable.
In terms of trend, the highest rate was recorded in the 2019 academic year (8.8 per 100,000). Since then, the rate has fallen back but remains stubbornly consistent, with 155 deaths recorded in the most recent year. The ONS notes that these figures are subject to revision due to coroner delays, meaning even the latest year may be under-reported.
The key point is that the problem is not worsening, but it is also not going away.
A changing student demographic
This year’s recruitment trends have introduced a new variable. Several high-tariff providers (universities with the highest entry requirements) have reduced entry requirements in order to secure numbers. This can open up opportunities for students who might otherwise not have had access to selective institutions. But it does raise important questions about preparedness.
Students admitted through lower tariffs may bring with them different kinds of needs and pressures: greater financial precarity, additional academic transition challenges, or less familiarity with the social and cultural capital that selective universities sometimes assume. These are all recognised risk factors for stress, isolation and, in some cases, mental ill-health. Universities with little prior experience of supporting this demographic may find their existing systems under strain.
Building on progress, not standing still
Much good work is already being done. Many universities have strengthened their partnerships with local National Health Service (NHS) trusts, introduced proactive wellbeing campaigns and embedded support more visibly in the student journey. We should recognise and celebrate this progress.
At the same time, the ONS data is a reminder that now is not the moment to stand still. Stability in the numbers reflects the effort made – but it should also prompt us to ask whether our systems are sufficiently flexible and resilient to meet new pressures. The answer, for some institutions, may well be yes. For others, particularly those adapting to new student demographics, there is a real risk of being caught unprepared.
What needs to happen next
There are several constructive steps the sector can take:
Stress-test provision: Assess whether wellbeing and safeguarding structures are designed to support the needs of the current, not historic, intake.
Broaden staff capacity: Ensure that all staff, not just specialists, have the awareness and training to spot early warning signs so that distress does not go unnoticed.
Strengthen partnerships: Align more closely with local NHS and community services to prevent students falling between two in-demand systems.
Share practice sector-wide: Collectively learn across the sector. Good practice must be disseminated, not siloed.
These are not dramatic or expensive interventions. They are achievable and pragmatic steps that can reduce risk while broader debates about legal and regulatory reform continue.
Conclusion
The ONS data shows that student suicide is not escalating. But the rate remains concerningly consistent at a level that represents an unacceptable loss of life each year. The progress universities have made should be acknowledged, but the danger of complacency is real. As recruitment patterns shift and new student demographics emerge, the sector must ensure that safeguarding and wellbeing systems are ready to adapt.
Every statistic represents a life lost. Stability must not become complacency – it should be a call to action, a chance to consolidate progress, anticipate new challenges and keep the prevention of every avoidable death at the heart of institutional priorities.
This HEPI blog was kindly written by Mike Boxall, writing in a personal capacity.
According to the latest survey by PA Consulting, over 90% of university vice-chancellors endorse a call for ‘fundamental system reforms’ to secure the survival of their sector against what they universally regard as an unprecedented combination of existential threats and challenges. Yet the responses seen from across the sector to date have been distinctly conventional and, in a literal sense, conservative: cost-cutting, portfolio rationalisation, recruitment freezes and redundancies, and forgone investments. While undoubtedly necessary in some cases to stave off short-term financial crises, such measures hardly represent transformational innovations; indeed, almost half the survey respondents predicted that their institutions would look and feel much the same in ten years’ time as today. As one vice-chancellor put it:
We have been propping up a 20th-century system that is no longer fit for the purposes of the early 21st century
Meanwhile, policymakers in the Department of Education and the Office for Students are busily preparing contingency measures against the heightened risk of multiple institutional failures and institutions plan for continued retrenchment. Big questions remain unanswered: Why might ‘fundamental system reforms’ be needed? What could (or should) a fundamentally reformed higher education system look like? And how might it be brought about in an era of continued fiscal and policy austerity?
Unlike just about every other sector facing seismic shifts in their markets and operating environments, universities have remained uniformly committed to what many regard as self-limiting and increasingly outdated business models:
Reliance on providing essentially similar subject-based courses to limited cohorts of school-leavers, largely neglecting the more diverse learning needs of much larger populations of in-career professionals and their employers.
Adherence to misleadingly named ‘full-time’ study schedules typically limited to 30 weeks a year or less, with single annual entry points and campuses and facilities largely empty of students and staff for almost half the year.
A deficit-based business model in which devolved expenditure plans are set (and spent) separately from confirmed earnings, often resulting in unexpected year-end shortfalls and relying on cross-subsidies from international student fees to balance budgets.
Over 150 autonomous and self-determining universities competing with one another for shares of largely fixed or even shrinking markets and funding sources, with success judged more in terms of reputational standings than by the quality and social value of their services.
It must be acknowledged that, despite these self-imposed limitations, the current university system has defied repeated prophesies of its demise. It has survived largely intact for many decades, with few provider closures or even forced mergers, and continues to recruit almost 1.5 million domestic and international students each year, generating over £55 billion in revenues. A handful of global institutions with annual incomes exceeding £1 billion or more may be considered too big and important to fail, and indeed these few continue to do relatively well, often at the direct expense of less-favoured rivals. However, many, perhaps even most, others face a future of chronic struggles to cover inexorably rising costs and to protect their shares of markets eroded by new competitors and alternative options for students, employers, knowledge users and public programmes. Survival for these providers through continued efficiency drives might be possible, but it won’t be fun; nor will it be sufficient to secure the pivotal roles of universities in educating and informing an increasingly complex and precarious world.
The roles and contributions of universities in today’s and tomorrow’s learning society are no less important than in the past, but they will be different. In particular, they have a unique responsibility for sustaining human and social intelligence in the face of impersonal AI and related technological advances. To fulfil this role, universities must move beyond the limitations of their legacy models, expanding their roles within national and localised ecosystems to promote:
Lifelong and continuous learning and professional development for all adults, from post-secondary to late-career stages, and from initial formation to periodic upskilling and personal renewal, facilitated and supported through the Lifelong Learning Entitlement and related schemes
Cumulative and personalised learning attainments, embracing the rounded acquisition and development of knowledge, competences, experience and personal development, incorporating micro-credentials and stackable awards on the lines proposed by the OECD
Variety and choice of accessible pathways through different modes of provision for useful learning as and when sought by individuals and employers, embracing universities, colleges, training providers and online services, as is being developed in Greater Manchester
Funding and economic structures based on the value and benefits of different modes of learning provision, shared equitably between individuals, employers, civic authorities and the State, on the lines explored by the UNESCO Innovative Funding for Education project.
While fully articulated and integrated learning and skills ecosystems built on these principles may seem a long way off, the examples cited show that prototypes can already be seen in localised initiatives and emerging proposals across the international tertiary formation landscape. A variety of models built around these principles might emerge, displaying the characteristics of complex adaptive systems: self-organising and dynamic networks of diverse partners and stakeholders, producing emergent results in response to changing experiences.
Unpredictable and sometimes surprising outcomes of these kinds cannot easily be planned or fitted into pre-determined blueprints. They are thus unsuited to the normal pattern of government policy interventions. Rather, the role of government should be to provide the enabling conditions and supportive frameworks (including funds) within which self-organising solutions can emerge. A good start would be to reduce the fragmentation of policy, funding and regulatory constraints to innovation and enterprise across existing learning and skills provision. The Commission on Tertiary Education and Research (Medr) in Wales offers a laudable start towards that end, now being emulated in the Republic of Ireland and in New Zealand.
System-wide reforms on this scale do not in any way diminish the importance or critical roles of universities in serving fast-changing national needs for advanced education and skills. What they would do would be to shift the debate on the health of higher education provision from its current focus on enabling universities to continue doing what they have always done, on their own terms, to redefining and consolidating their roles at the heart of sectoral or place-related advanced learning ecosystems. In spirit, if not in forms, this would represent returns to the principles on which most universities (both pre- and post-1992) were first established and which many would argue are needed even more today.
Back in late 2023, a little known libertarian by the name of Javier Milei was elected President of Argentina with a strong mandate to conquer that country’s hyperinflation. His strategy for doing so was pretty straightforward — freeze public spending, which would mean a big loss in real terms until inflation came down, and then let the free market do the rest.
That was easier said than done. Milei lacked a majority in Congress and all of the legacy parties had some reason to try and preserve the status quo, but more or less, Milei got his way and the public sector, including public universities, have had to shrink enormously as a result. Falling budgets, cratering salaries, the lot.
But now the opposition is starting to gain strength. Over the northern summer, Congress passed a bill meant to roughly double state spending on public higher education. Last week, predictably Milei vetoed the law. We can probably expect a season of protests and strikes to ensue.
Returning to the show today to discuss all this is Marcelo Rabossi of the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella in Buenos Aires. He joined the podcast 18 months ago at the outset of Milei’s term to discuss what the President’s agenda was likely to have in store for the higher education sector. Today he’s with us to talk about how the system is surviving what amounts to a massive cut in real pesos, and what the next few months look like as tensions mount between the President and the opposition.
Of particular interest, I think, is where we talk about how, despite Milei’s affinity to the US hard right, he’s avoided Trumpian tactics, like targeted cutbacks through research rescissions and outright institutional extortion.
The World of Higher Education Podcast Episode 4.3 | Crisis or Reform? Higher Education in Milei’s Argentina with Marcelo Rabossi
Transcript
Alex Usher (AU): Marcelo, when we last spoke in January 2024, Javier Milei was newly elected president at the head of La Libertad Avanza. He didn’t have a majority in Congress—still doesn’t. He was elected on a mandate to stop hyperinflation, but his appeal wasn’t just about tighter money. He was a libertarian who wanted to shrink the size of government enormously, which is, in some ways, quite a revolutionary idea in Argentina. Generally speaking, how has his first year and a half in office gone? Is inflation down? Has the size of the government shrunk?
Marcelo Rabossi (MR): From the very beginning, even during his campaign, Milei promised radical changes to literally crash hyperinflation. He aimed to do this by reducing government spending and opening the economy. Inflation has dropped substantially. For example, in December 2023, monthly inflation peaked at 25% and now it’s around 2% for three consecutive months. This is largely due to Milei’s aggressive austerity measures and a very tight monetary policy. He significantly cut federal spending and restored market dynamics.
It’s also true that poverty has declined, from 54% in early 2024 to about 32% in early 2025. On the other hand, economic activity has stagnated, and retirees have lost much of the purchasing power of their pensions. That’s the dark side of Milei’s economic plan.
AU: How has he been able to achieve his agenda without a majority in Congress? What’s the dynamic there? Does he strike deals with conservative parties, or does the presidency give him some ability to rule by decree? How do you get things done when you’re a minority president?
MR: That’s a great question, because I think this is the first party in power with a minority in both chambers of Congress. Milei has relied on emergency executive decrees to bypass legislative opposition or blockages and to implement deep reforms.
Early on, he also struck strategic deals with conservative parties, particularly PRO—the party of former President Macri—and the Radical Civic Union. These strategies helped him pass the “Ley de Bases” in 2024, which was a foundational reform to deregulate the economy.
However, this approach had its limits. He’s now facing growing resistance, even from former allies. Internal divisions and shifting loyalties have made these alliances fragile.
By mid-2025, even some conservative legislators began distancing themselves from Milei’s more extreme measures and aggressive behavior. So I’d say he has governed through a mix of executive power, tactical alliances, and public pressure—but he’s losing that advantage.
AU: My understanding is that Milei’s approach to reducing expenditure and inflation has been simply to freeze spending on government departments. Inflation is lower now than it was two years ago, but it’s still reasonably high, so inflation just erodes the value of that spending.
How has this affected higher education? How big has the cut been to higher education in real terms—that is, after inflation? And is higher education different from other social sectors? Presumably you’d see the same dynamics with hospitals and other services. Is higher education being targeted for bigger reductions, or no?
MR: You’re absolutely right. Spending freezes across all public areas—education, health, infrastructure—have been his primary tool to fight inflation. But as you noted, when inflation remains high, even if it’s slowing, frozen budgets imply reductions in real terms.
Regarding higher education, let me give you some numbers. In 2024, funding for Argentina’s public universities fell by around 30% in real terms and by 2025, the projected university budget is about 35–36% lower than in 2023. According to my analysis, around 80% of higher education spending in Argentina goes to salaries, and those dropped by about 30–35%. Capital expenditures for infrastructure have also collapsed.
But it’s not only university funding. Overall, education has suffered a real decrease of more than 30% between 2023 and 2025. For example, teacher training and technology programs are down 40%, and early childhood education infrastructure is down 60%. Scholarships for low-income students have also decreased by about 40%. I should add that schools are funded at the provincial level, so national cuts didn’t have as large an impact there. But universities, which are funded nationally, were hit hard. Overall, higher education has been one of the hardest-hit sectors.
So, this “freeze strategy,” as I call it, has helped Milei achieve fiscal surpluses and reduce inflation—but it has come at the cost of shrinking real investment in the country’s future.
AU: The president is sometimes seen as Argentina’s Trump—that’s sort of his international reputation. He certainly has admirers on the U.S. far right. Elon Musk even copied him with the chainsaw routine, attacking public finances.
I don’t get the sense that Milei is a friend of higher education. He rants about “woke intellectuals” and that kind of thing, which lines up with the American right. But I don’t get the sense he’s copied Trump in terms of silencing particular lines of research or picking fights with individual universities.
So apart from the financial cuts, which can maybe be defended purely on anti-inflationary grounds, what has the relationship been between Milei and the higher education sector?
MR: Unlike Trump, Milei hasn’t gone after specific research areas or individual institutions. He hasn’t interfered with academic freedom—there have been no restrictions on curricula, no attacks on gender studies or climate research, and no attempt to control university governance.
His approach has been more structural than targeted at specific institutions. That said, the University of Buenos Aires—the largest and most important in the system—has been his main target, simply because it’s the most visible.
I should add that some of his early ideas, like replacing direct public funding of universities with vouchers, have remained more like theoretical provocations than serious proposals. They have no real support and no chance of being implemented.
So while Milei’s stance toward higher education is hostile, it’s not close to institutional repression. His obsession is with the economy and controlling inflation.
AU: A moment ago, you talked about roughly a 30% decline in real terms for university support—maybe a bit higher if you compare the end of 2025 to the end of 2023. How does a university deal with a cut of 33%? What kinds of decisions do they have to make to keep the doors open in conditions of austerity like that? And what have been the consequences of those decisions?
MR: First, universities reacted in order to survive. I would say they are operating in survival mode. In this scenario, universities have had to freeze salaries, delay infrastructure repairs, and cut back on research funding. They’ve also shortened semesters, reduced course offerings, and postponed new programs. Some campuses, like the University of Buenos Aires, have even merged departments or cut non-essential services.
To give you an idea of why these fiscal restrictions have hit so hard: between 80% and 90% of universities’ total income comes from national government funds. Remember, undergraduate education in Argentina is tuition-free, and undergraduates represent more than 90% of a total student body of over 2 million enrolled in national institutions. On the other hand, historically Argentina’s public universities haven’t had a strong tradition of fundraising. Some institutions are beginning to move in that direction, collecting money from private donors, but it’s still very limited.
AU: Surely those kinds of cutbacks would make private universities in Argentina more attractive, right? Argentina doesn’t have a huge private sector—it’s not like Chile or Brazil. I think about 80% of students are in the public system. But have private universities seen an opportunity here? Are they taking advantage of these cuts to tout the benefits of paying tuition and offering something more complete than the public sector?
MR: As I always say, in Argentina the private sector is more tolerated than stimulated, unlike in Brazil or Chile. There are about 60 private universities in the country with around 400,000 undergraduates. Historically, they’ve largely avoided political confrontations and remained neutral. Politics tends to play out in the public sector, so unlike national institutions, private universities haven’t been cast as ideological enemies or targets. This has allowed them to operate with less social and political confrontation.
On the financial side, the private sector largely depends on tuition fees—on average, 90% of their income comes from that source. So decreases in public funding haven’t been an issue for them, since they don’t rely on public subsidies or loans. Recently, however, there have been rumors about public scholarships for students at private universities.
Financially speaking, they’re in reasonably good shape. They’ve been able to maintain operations, salaries, and infrastructure. In a way, they look relatively resilient. And you’re right—while public universities are cutting programs, freezing salaries, and facing potential strikes, private universities now appear more stable and predictable for students and families. For those who can afford tuition, private institutions may seem like a real option.
AU: The public universities have obviously been fighting back over the past year and a half. I’ve lost count of the number of strikes, protests, and demonstrations of public opposition.
What’s interesting is that just in the past few months—during the Northern Hemisphere summer, your winter—Congress considered a bill to stabilize university finances. If I understand correctly, they mandated a funding floor tied to a certain percentage of GDP. That law passed about a month ago. What was this bill, and how did it pass? Because it seems to get back to the question of the president losing allies, since some of his conservative partners voted for it.
MR: Right. The goal of this law was to increase Argentina’s university budget from around 0.4% of GDP to 1.5% in the next five years. That’s a big jump. Beginning in 2026, funding will rise to 1% of GDP.
Historically, public spending on universities has been around 0.6% of GDP, peaking at 1% but usually closer to 0.8%. So this proposal represents a significant increase. It’s intended to replace the funding law passed by the government in 2024.
The bill was introduced in Congress by the rectors of Argentina’s 56 national universities, with support from unions and student organizations. It also proposes updating budget allocations for accumulated inflation in 2023–2024 and reinforcing faculty salaries starting in December 2023, with monthly updates tied to the consumer price index.
AU: Let’s talk about what happens politically here. Both houses of Congress passed the law, and Milei vetoed it on September 10th, I think. How does this get resolved at this point? What happens politically to the bill from here on in?
MR: You’re right about the veto—it’s his main political tool, given that he has no majority in either chamber. University unions, students, and education advocates have already staged protests and strikes, and more demonstrations are expected, especially around Congress.
The veto will escalate tensions between Milei and the education sector, and it’s becoming a rallying point for the opposition. In my view, the next few weeks will be critical. If Congress can’t override the veto, universities will remain under severe financial strain, and political pressure on Milei will intensify.
Either way, this is more than a budget fight. The opposition says it’s a battle over the future of public education in Argentina.
AU: President Milei has another two years and three months left in his mandate. What’s your best guess about higher education? How is it going to fare between now and then? What does the Argentinian system look like at the end of 2027?
MR: Yes, you’re right—we have two years ahead. It’s difficult to predict the future in Argentina, although some would say: expect a new crisis and you’ll probably be right.
As we’ve said, despite lacking a congressional majority, Milei has pushed through major reforms via executive decrees. That’s been his political tool. His confrontational style has kept him in the spotlight but also sparked resistance from traditional parties, the far left, conservatives, and even moderate liberals.
Whether this initial economic stabilization translates into long-term growth—and consequently, political support—remains the big question. If he wins in the next legislative elections this October, he will likely maintain his firm stance, continue vetoing, and I don’t see major changes. If the economy grows, there may be some money to calm the situation, but not enough to achieve what the vetoed law proposed: doubling university funding in relative terms in the short or medium term. That’s a kind of utopia, even if the country emerges from its depression.
But if Milei loses by a wide margin, the pressure will be enormous, creating a vicious circle that prevents Argentina from escaping economic stagnation. Keep in mind: the only way for universities to receive more funding is for the country to grow. If conflict increases, investors will postpone decisions, and in such a scenario, there are no winners.
Again, public universities in Argentina are more than just educational institutions—they are symbols of social mobility and national pride. Milei’s veto of the bill to increase university funding and staff salaries will likely trigger widespread outrage, uniting students, faculty, unions, and the political opposition. In fact, new public demonstrations are already underway and may continue for weeks, months, or even the next two years until his mandate ends.
AU: Lots to keep an eye on. Marcelo Rabossi, thank you so much for being with us today.
MR: It’s my pleasure. Thank you so much.
AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and you—our listeners and readers—for joining us once again. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to write to us at [email protected].
Join us next week when our guest will be Yale University’s Zach Bleemer, professor of economics, who has just co-written a fascinating new paper, Changes in the College Mobility Pipeline since 1900. We’ll be talking about some of that report’s surprising findings. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
Jason Clare said TEQSA can only act either as a sledgehammer or a feather. Picture: Martin Ollman
The federal government has published a consultation paper calling for suggestions to reform the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Act, which determines the regulator’s powers.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
