Tag: Search

  • Search Everywhere Optimization: Reinventing Student Discovery for the AI Era

    Search Everywhere Optimization: Reinventing Student Discovery for the AI Era

    For decades, the enrollment funnel followed a familiar script: search, click, visit, inquire. That script no longer describes how decisions are made. Strategies that still treat traffic to your school’s .edu domain as the main measure of success are increasingly invisible to the Modern Learner.

    That is because search has broken free from the constraints of the search bar.

    Modern Learners operate in a search everywhere ecosystem, investigating institutions on social platforms, querying AI chatbots, cross-referencing video and scanning third-party sites. The traditional results page has shifted from a static stack of blue links to a verified, AI-driven dialogue. Visibility is no longer about ranking first on a list. It is about being the answer wherever the question is asked.

    This shift demands a new strategic operating system: Search Everywhere Optimization.

    From Search Engine Optimization to Search Everywhere Optimization 

    Website marketing experts at EducationDynamics define Search Everywhere Optimization as a holistic strategy that treats every discovery surface—search engines, AI answers, institutional sites and social media—as one integrated system. It aligns brand, media and experience around a single imperative: remain visible, credible and compelling wherever students ask questions.

    Standing on its own, traditional search engine optimization is now obsolete. Where SEO focused narrowly on technical tactics to rank a specific URL and drive a click, search everywhere optimization manages a decentralized web of signals to influence an answer. SEO chased algorithms to feed a crawler; search everywhere optimization builds reputation to inform a decision.

    This is more than a shift in tactics. It is a shift in mindset.

    In an AI-first environment, institutions that cling to yesterday’s search habits are already falling behind.

    The question is no longer whether to evolve. It is how fast an institution can reinvent its approach to discovery. The next era of enrollment is not about clicks. It is about credibility, visibility and being the trusted answer wherever the question is asked.

    Winning AI Overviews in higher ed with AI Density 

    Google’s AI Overviews. These experiences have rewritten the rules of search in higher ed. They do not just sit above traditional results. In many cases, they replace them. Prospective students now see a single synthesized answer that decides which institutions and programs show up first, frames expectations for cost and outcomes and often ends the search before a site visit ever happens. 

    When an institution is not shaping that answer, AI is shaping it based on everyone else’s signals. 

    EducationDynamics built AI Density to change that equation. 

    AI Density is EducationDynamics’ proprietary metric for AI visibility. It measures how often an institution is cited or referenced inside AI Overviews and related AI answers across a defined set of high-intent queries. Traditional search reports show where a page ranks. AI Density shows whether the institution has a voice in the answer that shapes a student’s decision. 

    High AI Density means AI systems treat the institution as a trusted source. The brand appears more often in AI-generated summaries, carries more weight in organic results and influences more prospects even when no click is recorded. 

    That influence does not live on the .edu domain alone. AI Overviews pull signals from across the ecosystem, including: 

    • Institutional pages and academic catalogs
    • Rankings sites and program directories
    • Student reviews and Q&A forums
    • Reddit threads and other social communities
    • News coverage and employer-linked stories

    Reputation now moves through this full network. Search Everywhere Optimization treats these external surfaces as extensions of institutional storytelling so AI systems encounter a consistent, credible picture of programs and outcomes. 

    In this context, AI Density is not a metric to be sidelined—it is a growth lever. It reveals how deeply institutional signals penetrate AI ecosystems, where gaps exist and which content and reputation investments actually move visibility. Institutions that ignore AI Density allow the AI ecosystem to define their market position without input. Institutions that embrace it begin to control the narrative where decisions are made. 

    Zero-click Search Strategy for a No-Click World   

    The behavior around those AI-shaped answers has its own name. In a search environment increasingly resolved without a website visit, more interactions begin and end on the results page itself. That pattern is zero-click search. 

    A zero-click search strategy starts from that reality. It assumes that visibility and influence must carry real weight even when analytics platforms never record a session. When decisions are shaped inside the search results page (SERP), traffic alone becomes a lagging, partial signal. 

    Across institutions, the same zero-click behaviors keep showing up. Prospective students collect program, cost and outcome basics directly from snippets and AI answers. Calls, map actions and clicks to third-party directories or application portals divert attention away from primary landing pages. Traditional volume metrics then underrepresent how often institutions appear in meaningful moments because the most important interactions never show up as traffic. 

    In this environment, a strategy that still equates “success” with a click-through to a deep program page has fundamentally shifted. 

    In practice, zero-click search strategy within Search Everywhere Optimization comes down to three core moves. 

    • Answer design. Program and outcome content is written in short, self-contained statements that search systems can lift into snippets, quick facts and AI answers without losing meaning. Language mirrors the way Modern Learners actually ask about value, flexibility, support and price clarity, not internal taglines.  
    • Structured data discipline. Key facts – degree type, modality, tuition ranges, locations and application timelines – carry schema markup that supports rich results and quick information panels. Technical health becomes part of the visibility strategy, not a back-end checklist. 
    • Consistency across surfaces. On-site copy, catalogs, Google Business Profiles, marketplaces, ratings sites and partner listings present the same story. In a system where AI reconciles conflicting inputs, inconsistency is a signal to downgrade trust. 

    Under this model, success expands beyond traffic counts. The objective is to shape the decision at the point of the question, click or no click. Institutions that still optimize only for visits are chasing what is left over while the real competition plays out in zero-click moments. 

    Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and AI-native discovery

    Zero-click moments describe where decisions are resolved. Generative Engine Optimization focuses on how those answers are created. AI is no longer a side feature in search. It sits in the middle of how prospective students evaluate options. They use conversational tools and answer-first interfaces to compare programs, pressure-test timelines and translate affordability into real life. Large language models and answer engines now stand beside traditional SERPs as core discovery channels. 

    Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is how Search Everywhere Optimization shows up in that layer. Institutional content can no longer speak only to crawlers and rank-based algorithms. It has to feed models that synthesize answers directly on the results page. Program pages, FAQs and resource content carry more weight when they read like direct responses to questions about outcomes, format, pace and support. Differentiators and proof points win when they condense cleanly into a sentence or two, because that is what answer engines lift. 

    Within GEO, Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) targets the experiences where the entire interaction happens inside the result. AI Overviews, featured snippets, people also ask modules and knowledge panels do not wait for a click. They resolve the question on the spot. In that environment, institutional content either fuels the answer or disappears from the conversation. 

    GEO, executed through strong AEO, demands: 

    • Clear question-and-answer structures in program and outcome content 
    • Consistent details across the main site, catalogs, news releases, directories and partner listings 
    • Markup and formatting that help systems recognize and elevate accurate responses

    Generative Engine Optimization does not replace technical SEO. It raises the bar. Content now has to work simultaneously for human readers, search crawlers and answer engines across both click and zero-click interactions. In an AI-shaped discovery landscape, GEO is not an experiment at the margins. It is the standard for institutions that expect visibility to translate into real enrollment performance. 

    What leadership-level execution looks like 

    Zero-Collectively, Search Everywhere Optimization, AI Density, zero-click strategy and Generative Engine Optimization define how visibility works in this market — leadership determines whether that visibility becomes an advantage. 

     Thriving in this environment isn’t about stacking one more tactic on top of yesterday’s strategy. It is about building a presence that students and systems can understand, trust and choose. 

    Institutions gaining ground are not tweaking the old search playbook. They are changing how the institution shows up, how AI interprets it and how teams respond when students lean in. Four execution patterns consistently separate institutions built for this new search-everywhere environment from those still operating on legacy assumptions. 

    Anchor content in real student questions 

    Leading institutions organize program pages, FAQs, blogs and resource hubs around the questions students actually ask. Language centers on outcomes, time to completion, flexibility, support and price clarity, not internal jargon or slogan-heavy copy. Content that answers real questions travels farther in search, performs better in AI Overviews and converts faster once students engage. 

    Treat external platforms as brand-defining spaces 

    Reddit threads, Google Business Profiles, degree marketplaces, review sites, YouTube channels and TikTok feeds all power the same discovery engine. When tuition details, program formats or admissions timelines conflict across those surfaces, trust erodes and AI systems notice. Institutions that treat external platforms as extensions of their site build stronger credibility in AI-driven answers and in traditional results. 

    Balance broad reach with precision presence 

    National campaigns are resurging, rebuilding brand presence across fragmented markets. At the same time, leading institutions layer precision media that targets local, adult and career-focused learners at moments of high intent. Search Everywhere Optimization depends on both: consistent brand framing at scale and targeted visibility where high-yield audiences search, scroll and ask questions. 

    Turn visibility into decisive action

    Search visibility only creates advantage when institutions respond with speed and clarity. Prospects move from consideration to inquiry quickly, often expect admissions decisions in days and frequently enroll at the first institution that meets their needs. When enrollment teams move slowly or inconsistently, the lift from Search Everywhere Optimization and Generative Engine Optimization evaporates and informed students choose institutions that move faster.

    Taken together, these moves separate leaders from the pack. They treat Search Everywhere Optimization as core operating strategy, not a marketing experiment. Institutions that build around real student questions, coherent signals across every surface, smart reach and fast follow-through are not just visible in a search-everywhere world — they are the ones shaping which options feel possible in the first place. 

    Competing in a Search-Everywhere world 

    These leadership patterns sit against a larger reality that will not reverse. Modern Learners have already left the old funnel behind. They are making choices inside AI Overviews, zero-click results, marketplaces and social feeds long before webpage appears. Search will not revert to ten blue links. AI-driven answers will not move back to the margins.

    In that reality, clinging to Search Engine Optimization as a stand-alone strategy means optimizing for a shrinking slice of how decisions are made. Search Everywhere Optimization reflects the environment that actually exists: decentralized signals, AI-shaped discovery and students who expect clear, consistent answers wherever they look. Institutions that build around that reality are not just keeping up with change. They are defining the terms on which students compare their options.

    The next cycle belongs to those who act now. The AI-first, zero-click era won’t wait—and neither should institutions serious about growth. EducationDynamics is committed to helping institutions navigate this evolving landscape and put Search Everywhere Optimization at the center. Contact us to assess your AI Density and build a Search Everywhere Optimization strategy aligned to how students actually decide.

    Source link

  • College Search Help: 5 Ways to Find Your Perfect College Fit without Stress

    College Search Help: 5 Ways to Find Your Perfect College Fit without Stress

    If you’ve been scrolling “best colleges” lists and feeling more stressed than inspired, you’re not doing it wrong—you’re just starting in a place that’s designed to overwhelm you. Rankings can be interesting later, but they’re not a significant first step because they’re not personal. Your best match is the school that fits your life, learning style, and goals.

    Begin with a short list of non-negotiables. Think of these as the filters that keep you from wasting time on campuses that look impressive but don’t actually work for you.

    Here are common non-negotiables to choose from:

    • Distance from home: Staying in San Diego, somewhere in California, or open to out of state

    • Setting: big city, beach town, suburb, college town, rural

    • Campus size: small and intimate vs large and energetic

    • Budget range: realistic yearly cost after aid, not sticker price

    • Academic direction: undecided, specific major, pre-health, engineering, arts

    • Support needs: tutoring, advising, mental health resources, disability services

    • Culture: social scene, Greek life presence, faith-based options, commuter-friendly

    San Diego students often have a unique set of priorities—maybe you want to stay close to family, keep a part-time job, or find a campus that feels similar to the Southern California vibe. That’s not “limiting yourself.” That’s being strategic.

    Once you have your non-negotiables, add 3–5 “nice to haves.” Examples: study abroad strength, ocean access, strong internships in LA, guaranteed housing, smaller class sizes, or a campus with a big sports atmosphere.

    Your goal in this step is clarity. When you know what you need, the search gets calmer because you’re not trying to make every college work.

    Build a balanced list with a simple three-bucket system

    A lot of stress comes from an unbalanced list—either everything feels like a reach, or everything feels too safe, or you have 25 schools and no idea how to narrow it. A better approach is a list that’s intentionally built to give you strong options no matter what.

    Use a three-bucket system:

    • Likely: you’re confidently in range for admission, and you’d genuinely attend

    • Target: you’re competitive, and it’s a realistic match

    • Reach: admission is more selective or unpredictable, but it’s still worth a shot

    Try this ratio for a first draft:

    • 3–4 likely

    • 4–6 target

    • 2–3 reach

    If you’re applying in California, remember that some schools can be unpredictable even for strong students. That’s normal. The point of a balanced list is that you’re not placing your entire future on a few outcomes.

    To keep this step grounded, base your buckets on real indicators:

    • Recent admitted student averages (GPA ranges, course rigor, test policy if relevant)

    • Major-specific selectivity (some programs are more challenging to get into than the school overall)

    • Your transcript strength over time (upward trends matter)

    Then add one more filter: Would I actually be excited to attend if it’s the only option I get? If the answer is no, it doesn’t belong on the list.

    Research like a detective: look for proof, not vibes

    College fit scorecard and campus research materials used to compare schools and reduce stress during the college decision process.College fit scorecard and campus research materials used to compare schools and reduce stress during the college decision process.

    College marketing is excellent at making every campus feel perfect. Your job is to look for evidence that a school will support the life you want.

    Think of research in three layers:

    1: the basics

    • Majors and concentrations

    • Typical class sizes in your intended department

    • First-year requirements and flexibility to change majors

    • Housing policies and meal plans

    • Cost and financial aid clarity

    2: the student experience

    • Clubs and communities related to your interests

    • Support programs (first gen, transfer support, cultural centers)

    • Career services and internship pipelines

    • Safety and transportation, especially if you won’t have a car

    3: outcomes

    • Internship participation and where students intern

    • Job placement support, career fairs, and alumni networks

    • Graduate school acceptance support if that’s your path

    If you’re in San Diego or elsewhere in Southern California, you can also research a school through a local lens:

    • Does it connect to opportunities in San Diego, Orange County, or LA?

    • Are there strong relationships with regional employers?

    • Is it easy to travel home without stress?

    A practical tip: for each college, create a simple note with three headings:

    • Why it fits me

    • What I’m unsure about

    • What I need to confirm

    That turns “research” into a decision tool instead of endless scrolling.

    Make your campus visits smarter, even if you can’t travel far

    Not everyone can fly across the country to tour schools. The good news is you can get a clear sense of fit without spending a fortune.

    If you can visit in person, go in with a short plan:

    • Take a student-led tour

    • Sit in one class if possible

    • Walk through the neighborhood just off campus

    • Eat where students eat

    • Visit the department you care about (or attend an info session)

    Pay attention to things students rarely say out loud:

    • Are students staying on campus between classes or escaping to their cars?

    • Do people look comfortable, rushed, social, or stressed?

    • Does the campus feel navigable and safe for you?

    If you can’t visit, use “virtual proof”:

    • Student vlogs that show ordinary days (not the perfect highlight reel)

    • Online campus maps and walking tours

    • Department events or webinars

    • Student panels where you can ask questions live

    Southern California students sometimes underestimate how different campus life can feel outside the region. If you’re considering out-of-state, ask about the weather, housing during breaks, and travel logistics. Those details matter more than people admit, especially your first year.

    Compare colleges with a scorecard so decisions feel obvious

    Students walking on a palm tree lined campus walkway in Southern California, representing the college environment and campus life.Students walking on a palm tree lined campus walkway in Southern California, representing the college environment and campus life.

    When everything starts blending, stress spikes. A scorecard brings things back to reality.

    Create a simple rating system from 1 to 5 for categories that actually matter to you. Here are good categories:

    • Academic strength for your interests

    • Flexibility if you change your mind

    • Cost after aid and scholarship opportunities

    • Campus culture and community

    • Support and advising quality

    • Housing and day-to-day comfort

    • Career support and internships

    • Location fit (distance, vibe, weather, transportation)

    Then add two written prompts for each school:

    This is where you’ll notice patterns. One school might score slightly lower academically but feel far more supportive. Another might be impressive on paper but doesn’t offer the environment you need to do your best work.

    If you’re feeling torn between two schools, do a “real life week” test:
    Picture a typical Tuesday. What time do you wake up? How far do you walk? Where do you study? Who helps when you’re stuck? What happens when you’re homesick? The right fit usually becomes clearer when you stop imagining the highlight moments and start imagining the routine.

    Reduce stress with a simple timeline and decision plan

    The final stress trigger is not the search itself—it’s the feeling that you’re behind, or that one wrong decision will ruin everything. You can calm that down with an easy-to-follow plan.

    Here’s a simple structure that works well:

    1: Two weeks to build your list

    • Set your non-negotiables

    • Draft your likely, target, and reach buckets

    • Remove any school you wouldn’t attend

    2: Two to four weeks to research deeply

    • Fill in your notes for each school

    • Attend a webinar or student panel for your top choices

    • Confirm costs using net price calculators when possible

    3: Finalize and prepare

    • Lock your final list

    • Track requirements in one place (deadlines, essays, letters, portfolios)

    • Start essays with stories, not speeches—small moments that show who you are

    For San Diego and Southern California students juggling sports, jobs, family responsibilities, or multiple activities, the key is consistency over intensity. A calm college search is usually built with small weekly steps, not last-minute marathons.

    One more mindset shift that helps: you’re not searching for one “perfect” school. You’re building a set of great options where you can succeed in different ways. That’s what takes the pressure off.

    At College Planning Source, we help students and families navigate every step of the college admissions process. Get direct one-on-one guidance with a complimentary virtual college planning assessment—call 858-676-0700 or schedule online at collegeplanningsource.com/assessments. 

    Source link

  • Hope Is Essential to Success of Any Job Search (opinion)

    Hope Is Essential to Success of Any Job Search (opinion)

    We live in uncertain and unstable times. The job market is contracting due to economic uncertainty, political instability and the increase of AI-driven automation. In my role as a career adviser, I talk to many students and recent graduates who have faced a long and difficult job search. The words and phrases I hear most often in these conversations are “dejected,” “soul-crushing,” or “I feel like I am screaming into the void.” International students face an added challenge, with H-1B visas seeming out of reach as they become more difficult and expensive for employers to process.

    All of this uncertainty can lead to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. What I hear from students, and in particular our international community at Columbia University, is, “What is the point of applying to jobs if no one will hire me?” Such self-defeating thoughts can lead to inaction and feelings of despair. Yet hope is essential to the success of any job search. Having hope or optimism that something will work out is central to achieving one’s goals.

    It is likewise essential that a career coach or adviser have a hopeful, positive attitude. A recent article published by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics describes how when people who were unemployed for a long period of time worked with caseworkers who had “strong confidence in the potential of their clients to find employment,” the relationship led to an increase in the client’s motivation and resilience, and to improved earnings and employment outcomes over time. Thus, our outlook as advisers can impact the students we are working with, so we must manage our own feelings of hopelessness. I find myself returning to Jane Goodall’s The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times for inspiration.

    Another source of inspiration I return to is a framework called Career Flow: A Hope-Centered Approach to Career Development, developed in 2011 by Spencer G. Niles, Norman E. Amundson and Roberta A. Neault. In the remainder of this article, I plan to provide career development professionals with an overview of this hope-based career development model and suggestions on how they can implement it to assist their students and graduates.

    In the theory, “Career Flow” is an analogy that compares different types of experiences in one’s career to the flow of water. Anyone who has felt “underwater” at work can understand this metaphor. Finding “optimal” flow in a professional setting means that your skills and personality match the tasks and requirements of your role. Below, I outline suggested steps based on the model to help you implement a hope-based approach to career advising.

    Step 1: Assessing and Establishing Hope

    Start by letting the advisee tell their story and share the challenges that they face. Listen and reflect back what you are hearing. But also start to consider the person’s outlook and demeanor. Many of the people I talk to, including federal workers who were laid off or furloughed, exhibit signs of hope even though they understand the current challenges they are facing and express frustration and sometimes fear. I have been surprised and impressed by people’s resilience and willingness to pivot, which I make sure to point out. That helps them see the strength they are exhibiting even in a moment of crisis.

    However, some people will present as mostly frustrated, with little hope. If you are talking to someone who seems particularly hopeless about their situation, it could be helpful to reflect that back to them. You might say, “What you just described to me seems like a very tough situation. I wonder if you might feel a sense of hopelessness?” Sometimes it just takes awareness for someone to realize that they need to shift their mindset. Validate their struggle, then help them reframe their point of view toward one that is more hopeful. For example, you could mention the Career Flow model that shows the positive benefits of having hope in a career search. If a student seems unwilling to shift, you might want to suggest that they seek extra support through family, friends or counseling services.

    Step 2: Self-Reflection and Self-Clarity

    Self-reflection and self-clarity are essential to any job search, including when it comes to establishing a hopeful approach. If someone is not clear about their own needs and values or has a lack of understanding of their situation and challenges, that person can struggle to succeed in their goals. Therefore, help them gain a greater sense of self-clarity by reflecting any key interests, skills and values you hear them describe in your conversation. At the same time, it is important to ask about possible challenges or obstacles to fully understand their situation and address hurdles standing in the way of their goals.

    If a student seems hopeless about succeeding in their goals, advisers can bolster hope by asking about areas of strength or asking them to describe a time they felt they succeeded when faced with a difficult task. Reminding students of past successes and helping to celebrate these wins can increase their sense of agency and help them believe they can overcome future challenges.

    Step 3: Visioning

    An inherently hopeful exercise, visioning is the ability to brainstorm future possibilities and identify desired outcomes. Sometimes, I talk to a student who is so focused on one goal, such as finding an academic job or postdoc position, that they forget to consider other opportunities where they can apply their skills and expertise. When starting the visioning process, encourage advises to imagine multiple ways of reaching their desired goal. This is also known as “pathways thinking” and, in the Career Flow model, quantity is more important than quality. When an extensive list of possible career paths is identified, the advisee should use self-reflection and self-clarity to narrow their options by selecting a few paths that best align with their interests, skills and values. Pathways thinking also supports advisees in being both flexible and adaptable, traits that are incredibly important in any job search.

    However, people who feel hopeless can sometimes lack the capability to consider other options. Help connect them to resources, such as career assessments like ImaginePhD, myIDP or O*Net, where they can gather information to explore different types of employment. Also, help them consider ways they can gain skills or experience through online courses, volunteering, on-campus work or internships.

    Step 4: Goal Setting and Planning

    Once a student has selected a few possible paths, then focus on setting specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) goals. Students often set lofty or poorly defined goals such as, “I want to find a job.” Help them identify small, realistic steps they can take to achieve their main goal of employment. For example, suggest that they find a job they want to apply to and create a tailored résumé and cover letter for the role and then schedule another career advising session in two weeks to review the documents. Again, consider possible barriers to their goals and how they can overcome them.

    Step 5: Implementing and Adapting

    As students start to reach their incremental goals they will encounter either positive feedback (e.g. a request for an interview) or a lack of success (silence or rejection emails). As they gather more data, help them revise or relinquish possible paths that are no longer relevant or serving them. Sometimes, you will need to help them accept the fact that a goal might not be achieved. This process is known as radical acceptance, or giving in to your current reality. Help them see that finding employment during a period of uncertainty is difficult and can cause pain, but life can still be hopeful and joyful.

    Another approach is to help students see what they have control over. We might not be able to control the economy, but we can control our actions and our outlook, and we can seek out help when we need it or find support in community with others. Overall, be there as a source of support, guidance and encouragement.

    In conclusion, it can take substantial effort to choose to be hopeful in periods of uncertainty, but we must maintain hope even in the darkest of times. To quote C. R. Snyder, who writes about the psychology of hope, “in studying hope …, I observed the spectrum of human strength. This reminds me of the rainbow that frequently is used as a symbol of hope. A rainbow is a prism that sends shards of multicolored light in various directions. It lifts our spirits and makes us think of what is possible. Hope is the same—a personal rainbow of the mind.”

    So, let us be a rainbow for those we work with and help them to let hope, rather than despair, lead the way.

    Francesca Fanelli has 10 years of experience working with graduate-level students and is a licensed mental health counselor in the state of New York. She currently serves as senior associate director of graduate career development at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, where she specializes in career advising and event management.

    Source link

  • Paid Search vs. Paid Social: Why Schools Need Both

    Paid Search vs. Paid Social: Why Schools Need Both

    Reading Time: 11 minutes

    When it comes to digital student recruitment, many institutions feel they need to choose between Paid Search vs Paid Social. Budgets are tight. Teams are often siloed; admissions handles one, marketing handles the other. And with so many moving parts, it’s tempting to simplify: pick one channel and double down.

    But that’s a false choice. Here’s the reality: today’s prospective students don’t live in a single marketing lane. They might first discover your school on Instagram, then Google you weeks later to check deadlines, read reviews, or submit an application. Search and social are part of the same decision journey, and schools that favour one while ignoring the other are leaving attention, applications, and enrollments on the table.

    At Higher Education Marketing (HEM), the right approach isn’t to choose between Paid Search and Paid Social. Instead, the most effective strategy is to combine both channels to engage and optimize the entire enrollment funnel fully. Social media excels at generating awareness and early interest. Search converts when intent is high. Together, they create a powerful synergy, reinforcing your message, capturing more leads, and moving students smoothly from first click to enrollment. In this article, we’ll break down how both channels work, where each shines, and how schools can maximize performance by aligning them strategically.

    Changing Search Behaviours in 2025

    Student search behaviour is fragmented, fast, and heavily value-driven. Today’s prospective students, especially from Gen Z and Gen Alpha, don’t wait to be told what to think. They research across platforms long before filling out an inquiry form.

    This is the Zero Moment of Truth: when students validate a school by triangulating across ads, websites, reviews, and social content. Credibility must show up everywhere, because trust is built before contact is ever made. Zero-click searches, like featured snippets and Google answer boxes, are also reshaping the landscape. Being cited here or placing targeted ads can influence decisions without ever earning a click.

    The numbers speak volumes: 41% of Gen Z use social media to search, while only 32% use traditional engines, and 11% use chatbots. Gen Alpha takes it further. Their research is values-first. They’re looking for sustainability, inclusion, and innovation. And they’re starting earlier than ever.

    The Power of Paid Social

    One of the biggest misconceptions in education marketing is that paid social is only good for brand awareness. While it’s true that platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are excellent for reaching new audiences, their real power extends far beyond the top of the funnel.

    Paid social can drive leads, retarget warm prospects, and support conversions when used strategically. It allows schools to engage students emotionally through storytelling and keep them in the conversation through personalized messaging and real-time interactions.

    Is paid search the same as paid social? No. Paid search displays ads based on keyword searches on platforms like Google, while paid social promotes content on social media platforms like Facebook or TikTok. They target users differently and serve distinct stages of the enrollment funnel.

    Best Use Cases:

    • Story-Driven Awareness Campaigns: Think student testimonials, day-in-the-life content, or campus highlights. These build connection and trust.
    • Lead Generation Ads: Click-to-convert campaigns using forms or optimized landing pages can capture inquiries on the spot.
    • Event Promotions and Student Life Visibility: Showcase open houses, webinars, or vibrant campus life to entice prospective students.

    Best Practices:

    • Awareness Ads: Use high-impact visuals and short videos that highlight a key outcome, like career success or global opportunities. Keep the message clear and focused, with an obvious CTA that invites students to learn more.
    • Lead Gen Ads: Avoid generic links to your homepage. Instead, use program-specific landing pages or native lead forms. Segment audiences to tailor messages, and emphasize value on different content, such as scholarships, graduate outcomes, or flexible learning options.
    • Messenger and WhatsApp Ads: These are ideal for live engagement. Use them to invite students to ask questions, book a meeting, or receive instant info.

    The Case for Paid Search

    What is the difference between search and social? While paid social excels at sparking interest and building emotional connection, paid search is unmatched when it comes to capturing high-intent prospects. These are the students actively looking for programs, comparing options, or ready to take the next step. Paid search meets them right at the decision-making moment.

    This channel is especially powerful for reaching mid- and bottom-funnel audiences. When someone types “best MBA programs in Canada” or “nursing diploma with January intake,” they are already considering enrollment. Paid search allows schools to appear at the top of those results, capturing attention before competitors do.

    On the flip side, what are the disadvantages of paid search vs paid social? Paid search can be costly due to high competition for keywords, especially in education. It also depends on users already showing intent, which limits brand-building. Without complementary channels, it may not generate enough awareness or early-stage interest.

    Ideal Use Cases:

    • Branded and Program-Specific Searches: Ensure your school shows up when a student searches your name or flagship program.
    • High-Converting Keywords: Focus on queries like “apply now,” “tuition fees,” or “open house registration.”
    • Deadline-Driven Campaigns: Push applications during key moments, like the final days before a semester starts.

    Recommended Tactics:

    • Responsive Search Ads (RSAs): Automatically test combinations of headlines and descriptions to maximize performance.
    • Dynamic Search Ads (DSAs): Let Google fill in the gaps by matching relevant queries to your website content.
    • Intent Segmentation: Use different ad groups and copy for high, medium, and low-intent keywords. This improves quality scores and keeps your messaging relevant.

    One of the benefits of paid search is that it enables clarity, timing, and precision to come together to convert interest into action.

    Building a Full-Funnel Strategy: Social + Search Together

    Many schools fall into the trap of treating paid search and paid social as separate silos. But in 2025’s student journey, they’re two halves of the same enrollment engine. When integrated properly, they guide prospects from first glance to final decision, boosting visibility, engagement, and conversions along the way.

    Funnel Roles: How Each Channel Contributes

    Let’s break down how these platforms complement each other throughout the marketing funnel:

    • Awareness: Paid social leads the charge. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram are perfect for storytelling, aspirational videos, and brand introductions. These top-of-funnel ads help your school get noticed by students who may not yet be actively searching.
    • Consideration: As interest deepens, both channels play a role. Paid search catches students researching specific programs or comparing schools, while social reinforces your value with student testimonials, video tours, and real-time answers to FAQs.
    • Decision: This is where paid search shines. When students start typing in branded or program-specific queries, they’re ready to act. Paid social can add fuel here with urgency messaging, think deadline countdowns, financial aid reminders, or last-chance open house invites.
    • Enrollment: Now it’s about closing the loop. Use search ads to reinforce time-sensitive messaging, while Meta and WhatsApp retargeting keep your brand top of mind and prompt final steps like booking a call or submitting an application.

    Matching Platforms to Funnel Stages

    To maximize impact, align your platforms with the right funnel phase:

    • TikTok & Instagram: Best for awareness and early engagement. Use these channels to build emotional resonance and plant seeds of interest.
    • Google & Bing: Ideal for high-intent actions. When students are actively searching for answers, programs, or deadlines, your ads need to show up.
    • Meta & WhatsApp: Great for nurturing leads mid-funnel. Messenger CTAs and remarketing help bring students back into the conversation.
    • LinkedIn: A go-to for graduate and professional programs, especially among career switchers and upskillers.
    • Niche Channels: Want to reach Gen Z authentically? Explore Reddit threads, Snapchat lenses, or user-generated TikToks that mimic how real students talk and share.

    What Does This Look Like in Practice?

    Here’s how a real-world campaign could unfold:

    • Week 1–3: Launch TikTok videos to raise awareness: spotlight student stories, “day in the life” clips, or big-picture program benefits.
    • Week 2–3: Add Instagram ads to deepen interest with engaging visuals and strong CTAs.
    • Week 3–6: Deploy Google Search ads targeting keywords like “apply to [Program Name]” or “college deadlines 2025.”
    • Week 6–8: Use Meta retargeting to reconnect with visitors who didn’t convert, offering application checklists or counselor consult invites.

    This layered strategy ensures your message is reinforced across platforms, leading to more informed, confident applicants.

    Sample Budget Breakdown

    • TikTok Ads: $500
    • Instagram Ads: $500
    • Google Search Ads: $2,000
    • Meta Retargeting Ads: $300

    By diversifying spend across the funnel and choosing the right tools for each stage, schools move from guesswork to strategy and from isolated clicks to full-funnel enrollment growth.

    Common Mistakes Schools Make

    Despite investing in digital ads, many schools fall into avoidable traps that limit performance. One of the most common mistakes is relying entirely on paid search. While it excels at capturing high-intent prospects, paid search often reaches students too late in their decision process. Without early-stage awareness from paid social, those leads may never warm up enough to convert.

    Another issue is the widespread misunderstanding of paid social’s role. Some marketers dismiss it as a brand play with no immediate ROI. In reality, paid social plays a crucial role in shaping perception, building familiarity, and generating qualified leads over time. When schools skip this step, they weaken their funnel.

    Disjointed campaigns also create problems. Running separate social and search efforts without coordination means you miss opportunities for synergy and message consistency.

    Additionally, many schools neglect retargeting. If a prospective student browses your program page but leaves, that should trigger follow-up ads to reignite interest. Failing to retarget leaves valuable leads on the table.

    Finally, default settings on ad platforms can be misleading. Relying on them often results in wasted impressions and mismatched audiences. Custom targeting and exclusions are essential to reaching the right students with the right message at the right time.

    Search Trends & Emerging Platforms

    The digital landscape is evolving rapidly, and student search behaviour is shifting along with it. One major trend is the rising cost and competitiveness of Google Ads. As more advertisers bid on the same education-related keywords, prices continue to climb, making it harder for schools with modest budgets to compete effectively.

    At the same time, prospective students are changing how they search. Many now prefer visual, snackable results and quick answers over scrolling through text-heavy webpages. This shift is fueling the rise of social platforms as search engines in their own right.

    TikTok is a clear standout. Its new Search Ads feature allows schools to place short, captioned videos directly within search results, reaching students who are actively exploring options.

    To stay visible, schools must also optimize their organic content for discovery. Think FAQ-style posts, hashtag strategy, and short videos that answer common questions in the formats students prefer.

    Measurement: How to Track Campaign Impact

    Running great campaigns is only half the battle; measuring their true impact is where the real insight lies. To understand which channel is delivering results, schools must go beyond surface-level metrics like clicks or impressions.

    Start by tracking key funnel metrics: Cost per Inquiry (CPI), Cost per Lead (CPL), Cost per Application (CPA), and Cost per Enrollment (CPE). These figures help quantify the effectiveness of your campaigns at every stage of the recruitment journey.

    To gather this data, use platforms that support full-funnel tracking. CRMs like HubSpot or Mautic are ideal for managing contact progression, while Google Analytics 4 provides visibility into multi-touch user journeys across platforms.

    Most importantly, ensure that all campaigns are tagged with UTM codes and that your CRM accurately records lead sources. This lets you attribute not just the first click, but the entire path to enrollment, helping you optimize future budget allocation with confidence.

    Real-World Examples of Integrated Paid Search & Social in Education

    Story-Driven Awareness Campaign: The Rivers School (a private high school in Massachusetts) regularly hosts Instagram student takeovers, where current students share a day in their life via the school’s official Instagram Stories. These takeovers give prospective families an authentic glimpse of campus life. Such story-driven content humanizes the school experience and builds trust with audiences in the awareness stage.

    HEM BP Image 2

    Source: Instagram

    Event Promotions & Student Life Visibility: Concord University (West Virginia) ran a Fall Open House campaign on Facebook, urging students to “REGISTER NOW for Fall Open House”. The official post emphasized that whether you’re just starting your college search or already set on Concord, you should “come experience what being at Concord is like”. This call-to-action, boosted to target local high schoolers, drove sign-ups by promising an immersive campus visit.

    HEM BP Image 3HEM BP Image 3

    Source: Instagram

    Messenger and WhatsApp Engagement: The University at Buffalo (SUNY) launched an official WhatsApp channel for prospective international students. By opting in, students receive personalized updates – announcements, event invites, deadline reminders – right in WhatsApp, a platform they use daily. This allows UB’s admissions team to handle inquiries and nurture leads through quick chats and broadcasts on a familiar channel.

    HEM BP Image 4HEM BP Image 4

    Source: University at Buffalo

    Branded and Program-Specific Search Campaigns: A real example is Assiniboine Community College in Canada, which runs search ads for terms such as “January intake Nursing diploma” – ensuring that students searching for nursing programs with upcoming start dates find Assiniboine’s program page first. By focusing on branded queries (school name, flagship programs) and niche program keywords, schools across the board make sure they capture students who are already intent on a particular school or offering.

    HEM BP Image 5HEM BP Image 5

    Source: Google

    High-Converting Keyword Campaigns: Educational marketers also bid on bottom-funnel keywords that signal immediate intent – like “apply now,” “admissions deadline,” or “tuition fees [School].”  University of Louisville business school promoted its online MBA program with an urgent message: “Don’t miss out – this is your last chance to apply before the application deadline on 12/1! Start your application here.” By targeting such high-converting phrases in ads and search (and using urgency-laden copy), schools push motivated prospects to take action.

    HEM BP Image 6HEM BP Image 6

    Source: Facebook

    Recap: Why You Need Both Paid Search and Paid Social

    Schools that depend on just one marketing channel risk falling behind. Students don’t stick to a single path when researching their options. Instead, they move fluidly between search engines and social platforms, using both to gather information, compare schools, and make decisions.

    This is why a dual-channel strategy matters. Paid Social helps schools introduce themselves, tell a compelling story, and spark curiosity early in the decision journey. It creates awareness and builds emotional connection. Paid Search, on the other hand, reaches students who are actively looking for specific programs, deadlines, and next steps. It captures intent and drives action.

    When both channels are aligned, schools gain full-funnel coverage. Retargeting efforts become more strategic, and nurture campaigns stay relevant from the first interaction to enrollment. As a result, conversions improve and return on investment increases.

    But to unlock the full value, schools must track every touchpoint, not just the final click. Integrating CRM data with UTM tags and analytics tools ensures you’re seeing the full picture and making smarter marketing decisions moving forward.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: Is paid search the same as paid social?
    Answer: No. Paid search displays ads based on keyword searches on platforms like Google, while paid social promotes content on social media platforms like Facebook or TikTok. They target users differently and serve distinct stages of the enrollment funnel.

    Question: What is the difference between search and social?
    Answer: While paid social excels at sparking interest and building emotional connection, paid search is unmatched when it comes to capturing high-intent prospects. These are the students actively looking for programs, comparing options, or ready to take the next step. Paid search meets them right at the decision-making moment.

    Question: What are the disadvantages of Paid Search?
    Answer: Paid search can be costly due to high competition for keywords, especially in education. It also depends on users already showing intent, which limits brand-building. Without complementary channels, it may not generate enough awareness or early-stage interest.



    Source link

  • Class Divide, Debt, and the Search for a Future

    Class Divide, Debt, and the Search for a Future

    For Generation Z, the old story of social mobility—study hard, go to college, work your way up—has lost its certainty. The class divide that once seemed bridgeable through education now feels entrenched, as debt, precarious work, and economic volatility blur the promise of progress.

    The new economy—dominated by artificial intelligence, speculative assets like cryptocurrency, and inflated housing markets—has not delivered stability for most. Instead, it’s widened gaps between those who own and those who owe. Many young Americans feel locked out of wealth-building entirely. Some have turned to riskier bets—digital assets, gig work, or start-ups powered by AI tools—to chase opportunities that traditional institutions no longer provide. Others have succumbed to despair. Suicide rates among young adults have climbed sharply in recent years, correlating with financial stress, debt, and social isolation.

    And echoing through this uncertain landscape is a song that first rose from the coalfields of Kentucky during the Great Depression—Florence Reece’s 1931 protest hymn, “Which Side Are You On?”

    Come all you good workers,

    Good news to you I’ll tell,

    Of how the good old union

    Has come in here to dwell.

    Which side are you on?

    Which side are you on?

    Nearly a century later, those verses feel newly urgent—because Gen Z is again being forced to pick a side: between solidarity and survival, between reforming a broken system or resigning themselves to it.

    The Class Divide and the Broken Ladder

    Despite record levels of education, Gen Z faces limited social mobility. College remains a class marker, not an equalizer. Students from affluent families attend better-funded universities, graduate on time, and often receive help with housing or job placement. Working-class and first-generation students, meanwhile, navigate under-resourced campuses, heavier debt, and weaker professional networks.

    The Pew Research Center found that first-generation college graduates have nearly $100,000 less in median wealth than peers whose parents also hold degrees. For many, the degree no longer guarantees a secure foothold in the middle class—it simply delays financial independence.

    They say in Harlan County,

    There are no neutrals there,

    You’ll either be a union man,

    Or a thug for J. H. Blair.

    The metaphor still fits: there are no neutrals in the modern class struggle over debt, housing, and automation.

    Debt, Doubt, and the New Normal

    Gen Z borrowers owe an average of around $23,000 in student loans, a figure growing faster than any other generation’s debt load. Over half regret taking on those loans. Many delay buying homes, having children, or even seeking medical care. Those who drop out without degrees are burdened with debt and little to show for it.

    The debt-based model has become a defining feature of American life—especially for the working class. The price of entry to a better future is borrowing against one’s own.

    Don’t scab for the bosses,

    Don’t listen to their lies,

    Us poor folks haven’t got a chance

    Unless we organize.

    If Reece’s song once called miners to unionize against coal barons, its spirit now calls borrowers, renters, adjuncts, and gig workers to collective resistance against financial systems that profit from their precarity.

    AI and the Erosion of Work

    Artificial intelligence promises efficiency, but it also threatens to hollow out the entry-level job market Gen Z depends on. Automation in journalism, design, law, and customer service cuts off rungs of the career ladder just as young workers reach for them.

    While elite graduates may move into roles that supervise or profit from AI, working-class Gen Zers are more likely to face displacement. AI amplifies the class divide: it rewards those who already have capital, coding skills, or connections—and sidelines those who don’t.

    Crypto Dreams and Financial Desperation

    Locked out of traditional wealth paths, many young people turned to cryptocurrency during the pandemic. Platforms like Robinhood and Coinbase promised quick gains and independence from the “rigged” economy. But when crypto markets crashed in 2022, billions in speculative wealth evaporated. Some who had borrowed or used student loan refunds to invest lost everything.

    Online forums chronicled not only the financial losses but also the psychological fallout—stories of panic, shame, and in some tragic cases, suicide. The new “digital gold rush” became another mechanism for transferring wealth upward.

    The Real Estate Wall

    While digital markets rise and fall, real estate remains the ultimate symbol of exclusion. Home prices have climbed over 40 percent since 2020, while mortgage rates hover near 8 percent. For most of Gen Z, ownership is out of reach.

    Older generations built equity through housing; Gen Z rents indefinitely, enriching landlords and institutional investors. Without intergenerational help, the “starter home” has become a myth. In America’s new class order, those who inherit property inherit mobility.

    Despair and the Silent Crisis

    Behind the data lies a mental health emergency. The CDC reports that suicide among Americans aged 10–24 has risen nearly 60 percent in the past decade. Economic precarity, debt, housing insecurity, and climate anxiety all contribute.

    Therapists describe “financial trauma” as a defining condition for Gen Z—chronic anxiety rooted in systemic instability. Universities respond with mindfulness workshops, but few confront the deeper issue: a society that privatized risk and monetized hope.

    They say in Harlan County,

    There are no neutrals there—

    Which side are you on, my people,

    Which side are you on?

    The question lingers like a challenge to policymakers, educators, and investors alike.

    A Two-Tier Future

    Today’s economy is splitting into two distinct realities:

    • The secure class, buffered by family wealth, education, AI-driven income, and real estate assets.

    • The precarious class, burdened by loans, high rents, unstable work, and psychological strain.

    The supposed democratization of opportunity through technology and education has in practice entrenched a new feudalism—one coded in algorithms and contracts instead of coal and steel.

    Repairing the System, Not the Student

    For Generation Z, the American Dream has become a high-interest loan. Education, technology, and financial innovation—once tools of liberation—now function as instruments of control.

    Reforming higher education is necessary, but not sufficient. The deeper work lies in redistributing power: capping predatory interest rates, investing in affordable housing, curbing speculative bubbles, ensuring that AI’s gains benefit labor as well as capital, and confronting the mental health crisis that shadows all of it.

    Florence Reece’s song endures because its question has never been answered—only updated. As Gen Z stands at the intersection of debt and digital capitalism, that question rings louder than ever:

    Which side are you on?

    Sources

    • Florence Reece, “Which Side Are You On?” (1931).

    • Pew Research Center, “First-Generation College Graduates Lag Behind Their Peers on Key Economic Outcomes,” 2021.

    • Dēmos, The Debt Divide: How Student Debt Impacts Opportunities for Black and White Borrowers, 2016.

    • EducationData.org, “Student Loan Debt by Generation,” 2024.

    • Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Gen Z Student Debt and Wealth Data Brief, 2022.

    • CNBC, “Gen Z vs. Their Parents: How the Generations Stack Up Financially,” 2024.

    • WUSF, “Generation Z’s Net Worth Is Being Undercut by College Debt,” 2024.

    • Newsweek, “Student Loan Update: Gen Z Hit with Highest Payments,” 2024.

    • The Kaplan Group, “How Student Debt Is Locking Millennials and Gen Z Out of Homeownership,” 2024.

    • CDC, Suicide Mortality in the United States, 2001–2022, National Center for Health Statistics, 2023.

    • Brookings Institution, “The Impact of AI on Labor Markets: Inequality and Automation,” 2024.

    • CNBC, “Crypto Crash Wipes Out Billions in Investor Wealth, Gen Z Most Exposed,” 2023.

    • Zillow, “U.S. Housing Affordability Reaches Lowest Point Since 1989,” 2024.

    Source link

  • Spanberger urges UVA to pause presidential search until she takes office

    Spanberger urges UVA to pause presidential search until she takes office

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Virginia Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger is calling on the University of Virginia’s governing board to hold off on naming a new president or selecting finalists for the role until she takes office in January.
    • Over the past six months, UVA’s Board of Visitors has “severely undermined the public’s and the University community’s confidence” in its ability to act transparently and in the best interests of the state flagship, Spanberger said in a Wednesday letter to board leaders.
    • Spanberger, a Democrat and an alumna of UVA, said five appointees to the board “failed to achieve confirmation” by the Virginia Assembly as law requires. That raises concerns about the legitimacy of any decisions made by the current board, as it isn’t “fully constituted,” she argued.

    Dive Insight:

    UVA’s governing board has been in a state of flux since June. Outgoing Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, is in the midst of a fight with Virginia’s Democrat-controlled Senate committee over his selections for several public college boards, including UVA.

    The committee rejected eight of Youngkin’s appointments in June, but the governor instructed them to begin serving anyway. In July, a judge ruled that those eight board appointees for UVA, George Mason University and Virginia Military Institute could not serve on those boards. An appeal from outgoing Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares is before the Virginia Supreme Court.

    Democratic lawmakers similarly rejected another round of Youngkin appointees in August, bringing the total number of board seats under contention at Virginia public colleges to nearly two dozen.

    At UVA, five appointees are in legal limbo. 

    Because of this, “the Board is not fully constituted and its composition is now in violation of statutory requirements in crucial respects, further calling into question the legitimacy of the Board and its actions,” Spanberger said in her letter.

    UVA’s board currently has 12 voting members, well above the five it requires for a quorum. The university did not immediately respond to questions Thursday. 

    The governor-elect advised the board to pause its presidential search until it is “at full complement and in statutory compliance,” adding that would entail her appointing new members and the General Assembly approving them.  

    In turn, Spanberger pledged to make her appointments to the UVA board “quickly upon my swearing in.”

    UVA formed a special committee in July to select a new president following the abrupt departure of its former leader, Jim Ryan, less than a month earlier. 

    Ryan, who originally planned to leave the role at the end of the 2025-26 academic year, stepped down early amid reports of a pressure campaign orchestrated against him by the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ had been probing UVA’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, which expanded following the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally on the university’s campus and Ryan’s inauguration as president a year later.

    In his resignation announcement, Ryan said he wouldn’t challenge the Trump administration out of concern that attempting to keep his job would cost UVA research funding and student aid, as well as put international students at risk.

    UVA said in November that in-person interviews for Ryan’s replacement would take place late this month.

    Spanberger in her letter Wednesday criticized Ryan’s ouster as “a result of federal overreach” and noted that it went unchallenged by UVA’s board members.

    That lack of response, she argued, among other actions taken by the board over the last six months, has resulted in a “loss of confidence” in the governing body. She cited no confidence votes from both the UVA faculty senate and the university student council in July and August, respectively.

    In October, UVA struck a deal with the DOJ to formally close the agency’s investigations over its DEI work by 2028. In return, the university agreed to several changes, including adopting the DOJ’s contentious anti-DEI guidance and making quarterly compliance reports.

    Because the deal doesn’t include a financial penalty, it did not require a formal vote from the board, the university said in an FAQ.

    Leaders of Virginia’s Democratic-controlled Senate have called for a legal audit of the agreement, questioned its constitutionality and labeled it “a fundamental breach of the governance relationship” between the university and the state.

    Last month, the Trump administration also offered the research university a separate deal — preferential access to federal research funding in exchange for enacting several wide-ranging and unprecedented conditions. UVA ultimately declined the compact, as did six other colleges to which the administration initially offered it.

    Source link

  • Spanberger Calls on UVA to Pause President Search

    Spanberger Calls on UVA to Pause President Search

    Virginia governor-elect Abigail Spanberger has called on the University of Virginia to pause its presidential search until she takes office in January and appoints new members to the Board of Visitors.

    In a Wednesday letter to board leaders, Spanberger wrote that she was “deeply concerned” about recent developments at the state flagship, citing “the departure of President Jim Ryan as a result of federal overreach.” Ryan stepped down amid federal investigations into diversity, equity and inclusion practices at UVA. The board later reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to pause those investigations.

    Spanberger argued that the government’s interference “went unchallenged by the Board” and has “severely undermined” public confidence in its ability to “govern productively, transparently, and in the best interests of the University.”

    Spanberger also pointed to recent votes of no confidence in the board by both the UVA Faculty Senate and the Student Council. Given those concerns and the hobbled state of the board, which is missing multiple members after state Democrats blocked Republican governor Glenn Youngkin’s appointments, Spanberger called for a pause until her own picks are confirmed by the General Assembly.

    “The benefits of selecting a new president with a full, duly-constituted Board are clear,” the governor-elect wrote in her letter to board leaders. They include making the search process and decision credible and “removing any concern that the Board’s actions are illegitimate due to a lack of authority,” she wrote.

    So far, UVA has been noncommittal in its public response.

    “University leaders and the Board of Visitors are reviewing the letter and are ready to engage with the Governor-elect and to work alongside her and her team to advance the best interests of UVA and the Commonwealth,” spokesperson Brian Coy wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email.

    Spanberger is the latest state Democrat to clash with the UVA Board of Visitors, which is stocked with GOP donors and political figures. While politics have long been at play on Virginia’s boards, Youngkin’s appointments have represented a dramatic rightward shift, prompting pushback as Democrats have blocked recent nominations.

    (A legal battle over the state of those appointments is currently playing out; the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case last month but has yet to issue a decision.)

    Democrats have turned up the temperature on UVA in recent months, demanding answers about the agreement with DOJ and Ryan’s resignation and accused the board of giving in to “extortionate tactics.” Now, following an election that saw Democrats take the governor’s office and broaden their majority in the General Assembly, Spanberger will likely have political capital to reshape higher education at the state level as she sees fit—barring intervention from the federal government.

    Spanberger, the first woman elected governor of Virginia, is a UVA alumna.

    The governor-elect’s call to pause UVA’s presidential search prompted immediate pushback from the Jefferson Council, a conservative alumni group that has won influence with Youngkin, who appointed the group’s co-founder Bert Ellis to the board before removing him for his combative behavior.

    The organization argued in a statement that in 2022 a Democratic-appointed board “quietly extended” Ryan’s contract through 2028—even though it did not expire until 2025—without “Governor Youngkin having an opportunity to appoint one Board member.” They wrote that “the Board’s action was clearly intended to ensure Ryan’s tenure” beyond Youngkin’s term. (Governors in Virginia may not serve consecutive terms.)

    The group also defended the search committee and process.

    “In contrast, the current UVA presidential search committee, the most extensive and diverse in University history, was lawfully formed by the Board and has been operating since July 2025, working diligently through meetings and interviews. To suddenly ask the BOV to wait to choose a president is a bold act of political legerdemain representing a total historical double-standard,” the Jefferson Council wrote.

    However, faculty members have a different view of the search committee.

    In an Aug. 10 letter, the UVA chapter of the American Association of University Professors accused the board of shortchanging faculty by limiting their seats on the presidential search committee. The group wrote that the committee “is dominated by current and former members of the [Board of Visitors] and administrators,” with faculty members composing less than a quarter of the committee. Additionally, they noted that none of those members “were selected by the faculty.”

    Spanberger’s insistence that UVA pause its presidential search bears similarities to ways other governors have sought to influence leadership decisions before they took office, such as Jeff Landry in Louisiana. Shortly after his election in late 2023, the Republican governor called on the University of Louisiana system to hold off on hiring Rick Gallot, a former Democratic state lawmaker, as its next president.

    Landry said he wanted to make sure their visions for the system aligned. Ultimately, despite the pause, Gallot was hired as system president after meeting with Landry before he took office.

    Source link

  • Helping students to make good choices isn’t about more faulty search filters

    Helping students to make good choices isn’t about more faulty search filters

    A YouTube video about Spotify popped into my feed this weekend, and it’s been rattling around my head ever since.

    Partly because it’s about music streaming, but mostly because it’s all about what’s wrong with how we think about student choice in higher education.

    The premise runs like this. A guy decides to do “No Stream November” – a month without Spotify, using only physical media instead.

    His argument, backed by Barry Schwartz’s paradox of choice research and a raft of behavioural economics, is that unlimited access to millions of songs has made us less satisfied, not more.

    We skip tracks every 20 to 30 seconds. We never reach the guitar solo. We’re treating music like a discount buffet – trying a bit of everything but never really savouring anything. And then going back to the playlists we created earlier.

    The video’s conclusion is that scarcity creates satisfaction. Ritual and effort (opening the album, dropping the needle, sitting down to actually listen) make music meaningful.

    Six carefully chosen options produce more satisfaction than 24, let alone millions. It’s the IKEA effect applied to music – we value what we labour over.

    I’m interested in choice. Notwithstanding the debate over what a “course” is, Unistats data shows that there were 36,421 of them on offer in 2015/16. This year that figure is 30,801.

    That still feels like a lot, given that the University of Helsinki only offers 34 bachelor’s degree programmes.

    Of course a lot of the entries on DiscoverUni separately list “with a foundation year” and there’s plenty of subject combinations.

    But nevertheless, the UK’s bewildering range of programmes must be quite a nightmare for applicants to pick through – it’s just that once they’re on them, job cuts and switches to block teaching are delivering increasingly less choice in elective pathways than they used to.

    We appear to have a system that combines overwhelming choice at the point of least knowledge (age 17, alongside A-levels, with imperfect information) with rigid narrowness at the point of most knowledge (once enrolled, when students actually understand what they want to study and why). It’s the worst of both worlds.

    What the white paper promises

    The government’s vision for improving student choice runs to a couple of paragraphs in the Skills White Paper, and it’s worth quoting in full:

    We will work with UCAS, the Office for Students and the sector to improve the quality of information for individuals, informed by the best evidence on the factors that influence the choices people make as they consider their higher education options. Providing applicants with high-quality, impartial, personalised and timely information is essential to ensuring they can make informed decisions when choosing what to study. Recent UCAS reforms aimed at increasing transparency and improving student choice include historic entry grades data, allowing students, along with their teachers and advisers, to see both offer rates and the historic grades of previous successful applicants admitted to a particular course, in addition to the entry requirements published by universities and colleges.

    As we see more students motivated by career prospects, we will work with UCAS and Universities UK to ensure that graduate outcomes information spanning employment rates, earnings and the design and nature of work (currently available on Discover Uni) are available on the UCAS website. We will also work with the Office for Students to ensure their new approach to assessing quality produces clear ratings which will help prospective students understand the quality of the courses on offer, including clear information on how many students successfully complete their courses.”

    The implicit theory of change is straightforward – if we just give students more data about each of the courses, they’ll make better choices, and everyone wins. It’s the same logic that says if Spotify added more metadata to every track (BPM, lyrical themes, engineer credits), you’d finally find the perfect song. I doubt it.

    Pump up the Jam

    If the Department for Education (DfE) was serious about deploying the best evidence on the factors that influence the choices people make, it would know about the research showing that more information doesn’t solve choice overload, because choice overload is a cognitive capacity problem, not an information quality problem.

    Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper’s foundational 2000 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that when students faced 30 essay topic options versus six options, completion rates dropped from 74 per cent to 60 per cent, and essay quality declined significantly on both content and form measures. That’s a 14 percentage point completion drop from excessive choice alone, and objectively worse work from those who did complete.

    A study on Jam showed customers were ten times more likely to buy when presented with six flavours rather than 24, despite 60 per cent more people initially stopping at the extensive display. More choice is simultaneously more appealing and more demotivating. That’s the paradox.

    CFE Research’s 2018 study for the Office for Students (back when providing useful research for the sector was something it did) laid this all out explicitly for higher education contexts.

    Decision making about HE is challenging because the system is complex and there are lots of alternatives and attributes to consider. Those considering HE are making decisions in conditions of uncertainty, and in these circumstances, individuals tend to rely on convenient but flawed mental shortcuts rather than solely rational criteria. There’s no “one size fits all” information solution, nor is there a shortlist of criteria that those considering HE use.

    The study found that students rely heavily on family, friends, and university visits, and many choices ultimately come down to whether a decision “feels right” rather than rational analysis of data. When asked to explain their decisions retrospectively, students’ explanations differ from their actual decision-making processes – we’re not reliable informants about why we made certain choices.

    A 2015 meta-analysis by Chernev, Böckenholt, and Goodman in the Journal of Consumer Psychology identified the conditions under which choice overload occurs – it’s moderated by choice set complexity, decision task difficulty, and individual differences in decision-making style. Working memory capacity limits humans to processing approximately seven items simultaneously. When options exceed this cognitive threshold, students experience decision paralysis.

    Maximiser students (those seeking the absolute best option) make objectively better decisions but feel significantly worse about them. They selected jobs with 20 per cent higher salaries yet felt less satisfied, more stressed, frustrated, anxious, and regretful than satisficers (those accepting “good enough”). For UK applicants facing tens of thousands of courses, maximisers face a nearly impossible optimisation problem, leading to chronic second-guessing and regret.

    The equality dimension is especially stark. Bailey, Jaggars, and Jenkins’s research found that students in “cafeteria college” systems with abundant disconnected choices “often have difficulty navigating these choices and end up making poor decisions about what programme to enter, what courses to take, and when to seek help.” Only 30 per cent completed three-year degrees within three years.

    First-generation students, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and students of colour are systematically disadvantaged by overwhelming choice because they lack the cultural capital and family knowledge to navigate it effectively.

    The problem once in

    But if unlimited choice at entry is a cognitive overload problem, what happens once students enrol should balance that with flexibility and breadth. Students gain expertise, develop clearer goals, and should have more autonomy to explore and specialise as they progress.

    Except that’s not what’s happening. Financial pressures across the sector are driving institutions to reduce module offerings – exactly when research suggests students need more flexibility, not less.

    The Benefits of Hindsight research on graduate regret says it all. A sizeable share of applicants later wish they’d chosen differently – not usually to avoid higher education, but to pick a different subject or provider. The regret grows once graduates hit the labour market.

    Many students who felt mismatched would have liked to change course or university once enrolled – about three in five undergraduates and nearly two in three graduates among those expressing regret – but didn’t, often because they didn’t know how, thought it was too late, or feared the cost and disruption.

    The report argues there’s “inherent rigidity” in UK provision – a presumption that the initial choice should stick despite evolving interests, new information, and labour-market realities. Students described courses being less practical or less aligned to work than expected, or modules being withdrawn as finances tightened. That dynamic narrows options precisely when students are learning what they do and don’t want.

    Career options become the dominant reason graduates cite for wishing they’d chosen differently. But that’s not because they lacked earnings data at 17. It’s because their interests evolved, they discovered new fields, labour market signals changed, and the rigid structure gave them no way to pivot without starting again.

    The Competition and Markets Authority now explicitly identifies as misleading actions “where an HE provider gives a misleading impression about the number of optional modules that will be available.” Students have contractual rights to the module catalogue promised during recruitment. Yet redundancy rounds repeatedly reduce the size and scope of optional module catalogues for students who remain.

    There’s also an emerging consensus from the research on what actually works for module choice. An LSE analysis found that adding core modules within the home department was associated with higher satisfaction, whereas mandatory modules outside the home department depressed it. Students want depth and coherence in their chosen subject. They also value autonomous choice over breadth options.

    Research repeatedly shows that elective modules are evaluated more positively than required ones (autonomy effects), and interdisciplinary breadth is associated with stronger cross-disciplinary skills and higher post-HE earnings when it’s purposeful and scaffolded.

    What would actually work

    So what does this all suggest?

    As I’ve discussed on the site before, at the University of Helsinki – Finland’s flagship institution with 40,000 students – there’s 32 undergraduate programmes. Within each programme, students must take 90 ECTS credits in their major subject, but the other 75 ECTS credits must come from other programmes’ modules. That’s 42 per cent of the degree as mandatory breadth, but students choose which modules from clear disciplinary categories.

    The structure is simple – six five-credit introductory courses in your subject, then 60 credits of intermediate study with substantial module choice, including proseminars, thesis work, and electives. Add 15 credits for general studies (study planning, digital skills, communication), and you’ve got a degree. The two “modules” (what we’d call stages) get a single grade each on a one-to-five scale, producing a simple, legible transcript.

    Helsinki runs this on a 22.2 to one staff-student ratio, significantly worse than the UK average, after Finland faced €500 million in higher education cuts. It’s not lavishly resourced – it’s structurally efficient.

    Maynooth University in Ireland reduced CAO (their UCAS) entry routes from about 50 to roughly 20 specifically to “ease choice and deflate points inflation.” Students can start with up to four subjects in year one, then move to single major, double major, or major with minor. Switching options are kept open through first year. It’s progressive specialisation – broad exploration early when students have least context, increasing focus as they develop expertise.

    Also elsewhere on the site, Técnico in Lisbon – the engineering and technology faculty of the University of Lisbon – rationalised to 18 undergraduate courses following a student-led reform process. Those 18 courses contain hundreds of what the UK system would call “courses” via module combinations, but without the administrative overhead. They require nine ECTS credits (of 180) in social sciences and humanities for all engineering programmes because “engineers need to be equipped not just to build systems, but to understand the societies they shape.”

    Crucially, students themselves pushed for this structure. They conducted structured interviews, staged debates, and developed reform positions. They wanted shared first years, fewer concurrent modules to reduce cognitive load, more active learning methods, and more curricular flexibility including free electives and minors.

    The University of Vilnius allows up to 25 per cent of the degree as “individual studies” – but it’s structured into clear categories – minors (30 to 60 credits in a secondary field, potentially leading to double diploma), languages (20-plus options with specific registration windows), interdisciplinary modules (curated themes), and cross-institution courses (formal cooperation with arts and music academies). Not unlimited chaos, just structured exploration within categorical choices.

    What all these models share is a recognition that you can have both depth and breadth, structure and flexibility, coherence and exploration – if you design programmes properly. You need roughly 60 to 70 per cent core pathway in the major for depth and satisfaction, 20 to 30 per cent guided electives organised into three to five clear categories per decision point, and maybe 10 to 15 per cent completely free electives.

    The UK’s subject benchmark statements, if properly refreshed (and consolidated down a bit) could provide the regulatory infrastructure for it all. Australia undertook a version of this in 2010 through their Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project, which defined threshold learning outcomes for major discipline groupings through extensive sector consultation (over 420 meetings with more than 6,100 attendees). Those TLOs now underpin TEQSA’s quality regime and enable programme-level approval while protecting autonomy.

    Bigger programmes, better choice

    The white paper’s information provision agenda isn’t wrong – it’s just addressing the wrong problem at the wrong end of the process. Publishing earnings data doesn’t solve cognitive overload from tens of thousands of courses, quality ratings don’t help students whose interests evolve and who need flexibility to pivot, and historic entry grades don’t fix the rigidity that manufactures regret.

    What would actually help is structural reform that the international evidence consistently supports – consolidation to roughly 20 to 40 programmes per institution (aligned with subject benchmark statement areas), with substantial protected module choice within those programmes, organised into clear categories like minors, languages, and interdisciplinary options.

    Some of those groups of individual modules might struggle to recruit if they were whole courses – think music and languages. They may well (and across Europe, do) sustain research-active academics if they could exist in broader structures. Fewer, clearer programmes at entry when students have least context, and more, structured flexibility during the degree when students have expertise to choose wisely.

    The efficiency argument is real – maintaining thousands of separate course codes, each with approval processes, quality assurance, marketing materials, and UCAS coordination is absurd overhead for what’s often just different permutations of the same modules. See also hundreds of “programme leaders” each having to be chased to fill a form in.

    Fewer programme directors with more module convenors beneath them is far more rational. And crucially, modules serve multiple student populations (what other systems would call majors and minors, and students taking breadth from elsewhere), making specialist provision viable even with smaller cohorts.

    The equality case is compelling – guided pathways with structured choice demonstrably improve outcomes for first-in-family students, students of colour, and low-income students, populations that regulators are charged with protecting. If current choice architecture systematically disadvantages exactly these students, that’s not pedagogical preference – it’s a regulatory failure.

    And the evidence on what students actually want once enrolled validates it all – they value depth in their chosen subject, they want autonomous choice over breadth options (not forced generic modules), they benefit from interdisciplinary exposure when it’s purposeful, and they need flexibility to correct course when their goals evolve.

    The white paper could have engaged with any of this. Instead, we get promises to publish more data on UCAS. It’s more Spotify features when what students need is a curated record collection and the freedom to build their own mixtape once they know what they actually like.

    What little reform is coming is informed by the assumption that if students just had better search filters, unlimited streaming would finally work. It won’t.

    Source link

  • What does the K visa mean for China’s search for global talent?

    What does the K visa mean for China’s search for global talent?

    Earlier this month, China’s State Council amended the Regulations on the Administration of the Entry and Exit of Foreigners, highlighting the growing importance of its global talent strategy.

    Effective from October 1, the visa, which will be subject to approval by the authorities of the People’s Republic of China, will be open to international youths who have earned undergraduate or STEM degrees from leading domestic and global research institutions. 

    The visa will also be open to young international professionals engaged in education and research in STEM fields.

    As per reports, compared with ordinary visa categories in China, the K visa is designed to provide greater convenience for holders through multiple entries, longer validity, and extended stay durations.

    We see it as a powerful signal that China is not only open for business but is actively and competitively seeking to attract the world’s best and brightest minds
    Charles Sun, China Education International

    It will also create opportunities for exchanges and collaboration across education, science, technology, culture, business, and entrepreneurship with applications no longer needing sponsorship from a local enterprise, relying instead on the applicant’s age, educational background, and work experience.

    “We see it as a powerful signal that China is not only open for business but is actively and competitively seeking to attract the world’s best and brightest minds,” Charles Sun, founder and managing director of China Education International, told The PIE News.

    “A key attractive feature is the inclusion of provisions for spouses and children. Making it easier for families to relocate together is perhaps one of the most important factors in convincing top-tier talent to make a long-term commitment to a new country.”

    According to data from Studyportals, this move comes at a time when interest in pursuing Artificial Intelligence degrees in the US is declining, while interest in studying the same in China is on the rise.

    “When comparing January to July 2025 to the same period in 2024, relative demand for artificial intelligence degrees (on-campus Bachelor’s and Master’s and PhDs) in the US on Studyportals dropped 25% year-over-year, while interest in AI degrees in China rose 88%,” read a report shared by Studyportals.

    “Both Beijing and Washington are racing to secure technological leadership in the  ‘Race on AI’. According to Harvey Nash “Digital Leadership Report 2025” artificial intelligence has created the world’s biggest and fastest-developing tech skills shortage in over 15 years. This shortage has created a race for talent, with companies like Meta reportedly handing out $100m sign-on bonuses to win top talent.”

    While interest in pursuing such degrees in China is growing amid its global talent push, the US remains a powerhouse in the field.

    International students account for 70% of all full-time graduate enrolments in AI-related programs and make up more than half of all international students in the country enrolled in STEM disciplines.

    “Nations that succeed in drawing the brightest minds and in creating an environment for innovative business to thrive, will not just advance their economies, they will command the future of technology, security, and influence,” stated Edwin Rest, CEO of Studyportals.

    “International students do not only bring revenue to local economies and soft power, they also fuel innovation, startups, and job creation.”  

    Source link

  • How Marketers are Winning With AI-Powered Search

    How Marketers are Winning With AI-Powered Search

    Search Has Changed. Has Your Strategy?

    Paid search marketing has always played a central role in how students find and engage with colleges and universities. But how students search and what they expect from the experience has fundamentally changed. Today’s Modern Learners are digital-first and highly discerning, which raises the stakes for any higher education marketing strategy, especially when it comes to search visibility. Modern Learners are not just typing in keywords; they’re asking complex questions and increasingly expect fast, relevant answers that feel tailored to their individual goals.

    In this new reality, search is no longer just a tool; it is your institution’s reputational front door. For many students, the first impression comes from your search presence—whether your institution appears at all, and what shows up when it does. This moment shapes how they perceive your brand and can influence their decision to engage further.

    With advancements such as Google’s AI Overview and AI Mode, the line between paid and organic results is disappearing. These features pull from multiple sources to deliver a single, curated response designed to satisfy intent rather than merely match keywords. This means your search strategy can no longer operate in silos. Paid and organic efforts must work in tandem, and both need to be structured around how students actually search, not how institutions are used to marketing.

    Yet, many institutions still rely on legacy paid search strategies that are fragmented and overly focused on isolated keywords. These outdated tactics often miss the nuance of modern search behavior, leading to underperformance and missed opportunities.

    This is especially critical during a time when marketing budgets are under pressure and visibility is harder to earn. To remain competitive, higher ed marketers need to reimagine paid search not as a list of bid terms or ad placements, but as a strategic channel that influences both enrollment outcomes and institutional reputation. What’s at stake isn’t just performance. It’s how your brand is perceived in the channels that matter most.

    Intent Is the New Currency of Paid Search 

    Paid search has long been valued for its ability to deliver results quickly and cost-effectively. But in today’s environment, true efficiency means more than just driving volume through simply targeting the right keywords. Today, successful campaigns are built around understanding and aligning with the why behind a student’s search, not just the what.

    That’s where intent becomes essential. Intent reveals what a prospective student is trying to accomplish, what stage of the decision process they’re in and what they expect from their educational experiences. With today’s AI-powered platforms, marketers can now interpret and respond to this intent with greater precision than ever before.

    Modern tools like Performance Max—Google’s fully automated, goal-based ad campaign—and Broad Match—its flexible keyword matching option—draw from a range of real-time signals like device type, browsing behavior, location, and time of day. These platforms use that context to determine not just who to reach, but how and when to deliver the most relevant message.

    This shift is especially important when engaging adult and online learners. These prospective students often search in short, focused bursts across devices and platforms. Intent-based targeting helps ensure your message appears at the right moment, when a prospective student is most open to taking the next step.

    The benefit goes beyond smarter targeting. Institutions that embrace intent-based strategies often see improved efficiency, stronger lead quality and a higher return on investment. More importantly, they’re creating a search experience that meets students where they are.

    For higher education marketers, this requires a mindset shift. Paid search is no longer about chasing keywords or building lengthy lists of terms. It’s about reading behavior, responding with context and building relevance. Those who adapt to this new model will be better positioned to influence outcomes and build lasting brand reputations.

    Why Over-Segmentation Hurts AI Performance 

    Aligning with student intent requires more than new tools—it requires rethinking how campaigns are structured. That’s where over-segmentation becomes a critical barrier. Not long ago, higher education marketing professionals found success by keeping campaigns tightly focused. You’d build detailed audience segments, carefully tailor your messaging and control every aspect of targeting. It worked well in a time when more control often meant better results.

    That playbook doesn’t hold up in today’s AI-driven paid media environment. In fact, over segmentation actively holds your campaigns back.

    AI performs best when it’s given space to learn and optimize. It needs strong signals, such as first-party data, clear conversion goals and smart bidding strategies, to work effectively. Overly narrow targeting and rigid parameters create inefficiencies and limit performance.

    That’s why marketers should focus less on segmentation and more on supplying clear, meaningful data that helps AI reach the right students and drive outcomes like increased inquiries and stronger application intent. 

    At the same time, student journeys have changed. Modern Learners aren’t moving through the funnel in linear paths. Ther research process is fast-paced and shaped by real-life pressures like work schedules, finances and family responsibilities.  

    Prospective students don’t just want more content—they want information that’s relevant to their needs and arrives when it matters most. Modern paid media strategies must move beyond simple demographics to focus on behaviors, intent and how students search. 

    Transforming Strategy Into Results

    As search evolves, so too must the role of the higher ed marketer. In today’s AI-driven landscape, students are exploring their options in more nuanced ways. To keep pace, marketing strategies must shift from keyword-first thinking to approaches that prioritize context, content and the student journey. Here’s how forward-thinking teams are putting that into action:

    Smarter, Simpler Campaign Structures for Effective Paid Search Strategy

    AI works best when it has strong signals to learn from. That means it’s often more effective to group campaigns by intent rather than breaking them up by individual programs or markets. For example, grouping similar programs together can help your budget go further by focusing on where there’s actual search demand, even if it means less control over specific program-level results.

    Content That Works Harder

    When you’re working in a keywordless environment, your content does the targeting. Search platforms rely on your landing pages, headlines and descriptions to understand what you offer and who you want to reach. That’s why clear, relevant content is critical.  The schools seeing the best results are the ones creating content that aligns with what students are actually searching for. 

    Making the Most of First-Party Data 

    Performance Max campaigns are especially powerful when they’re fueled by high-quality first-party data. Feeding in enrollment signals, audience segments and behavioral insights allows AI to deliver more personalized outreach across platforms. This enhances reach and efficiency without compromising targeting precision.

    Scaling with AI Max and Broad Match 

    New tools like AI Max are opening doors to even more automation. AI Max combines broad match, keywordless targeting and AI-generated creative to help schools reach students in AI-driven placements. Paired with the right paid search strategy, Broad Match helps your content appear in the natural, conversational queries students actually use. 

    Aligning Paid and Organic Strategies  

    The strongest higher education marketing strategies bring paid search marketing and organic search marketing under one roof. When teams align on landing pages, keywords and messaging, both channels amplify each other—driving more qualified traffic, improving conversions and boosting visibility across search results. This gives AI clearer context and helps create a smoother experience for students. 

    Continuous Testing and Learning 

    AI doesn’t mean putting things on autopilot. The best results come when marketers stay involved—testing creative, improving landing pages and updating their audience signals. All of that helps the AI learn and get better over time. 

    When campaigns are built around clear intent and fueled by rich data and relevant content, AI moves beyond automation—it becomes a strategic partner. This empowers institutions to reach the right students with precision, reduce wasted spend and create meaningful connections that drive enrollment success. 

    Harness AI to Amplify Your Team’s Impact 

    AI isn’t here to replace your marketing team. Instead, it helps them work smarter and focus on what really matters. AI tools take care of the routine tasks like adjusting bids, testing creative and targeting audiences in real time. This gives your marketers more time to concentrate on strategy, keeping your brand consistent, understanding student journeys and improving conversions.

    This partnership between marketers and AI is the future of higher ed marketing. Adapting your strategy to today’s search landscape helps strengthen both your enrollment pipeline and your brand foundation.

    At EducationDynamics, we think differently about AI’s potential to power higher education marketing teams by combining creativity, data-driven insight and technology to drive meaningful growth.

    This is more than just a new way to run campaigns. It’s a shift toward meeting students more effectively—aligning enrollment and brand goals in a way that builds trust, boosts visibility and drives lasting success.

    Source link