On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that it would require foreign tourists to the United States to provide five years of social media history to enter the country. Americans have 60 days to comment on the proposal. FIRE plans to publish a formal comment outlining why this is a serious threat to free expression.
The following can be attributed to Sarah McLaughlin, FIRE’s senior scholar for global expression:
Those who hope to experience the wonders of the United States — from Yellowstone to Disneyland to Independence Hall — should not have to fear that self-censorship is a condition of entry. Requiring temporary visitors here for a vacation or business to surrender five years of their social media to the U.S. will send the message that the American commitment to free speech is pretense, not practice. This is not the behavior of a country confident in its freedoms.
Americans should not feel that they must silence themselves at home for fear that their online expression will bar their access to travel overseas. Therefore we shouldn’t put tourists coming here in that bind. Call it the golden rule of free expression: Treat the speech of visitors the way we want to see Americans’ expression treated abroad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Late last month, the student chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine at George Mason University posted a video on a social media account that criticized U.S. foreign policy and Israel. The video (now removed), which apparently stylistically mimicked a Hamas video, included phrases such as “genocidal Zionist State,” “the belly of the beast,” and “from the river to the sea.” It also specifically addressed conditions in Gaza and GMU’s alleged oppression of pro-Palestinian protestors.
Regardless of one’s views on Israel and Gaza, all of this is protected speech. But rather than protecting student political discourse, GMU demanded the SJP chapter take down the video explicitly because its language ran afoul of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s vague definition of antisemitism, which has been incorporated into GMU’s anti-discrimination policy. The school warned that failure to comply could result in disciplinary action.
Student groups at public universities have the First Amendment right to post videos expressing their views on international conflicts, even if some members of the campus community are offended by the viewpoints expressed. We’ve seen no evidence the video constituted incitement, true threats, intimidation, or student-on-student harassment — narrow categories of speech unprotected by the First Amendment.
When campus administrators invoke the IHRA definition and its examples to investigate, discipline, or silence political expression, the distinction between conduct and speech becomes meaningless.
This is not the first — nor will it be the last — instance of universities relying on vague, overbroad anti-harassment definitions to censor speech some members of the campus community find offensive. In fact, overbroad anti-harassment policies remain the most common form of speech codes on college campuses. But it does point to the clear and growing threat the use of the IHRA definition poses to campus discourse about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s a danger about which FIRE has warned of since 2016, a danger we’ve seen in application, and one that the IHRA definition’s supporters routinely brush aside. As more and more states adopt IHRA for the purpose of enforcing anti-discrimination law, we’re likely to see increasingly more instances of campus censorship in the future.
IHRA defines antisemitism as:
a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
The document also provides a list of examples of antisemitism that include, among others:
Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Language that does this (and that does not also fall into a specific category of unprotected speech) may offend some or many people. It nevertheless constitutes core political speech. Supporters of the use of the IHRA definition on campus insist that the definition does not restrict free speech, but rather helps identify antisemitic intent or motive when determining whether a student has created a hostile environment in violation of anti-discrimination laws. But this attempted distinction collapses in practice.
When “intent” is inferred from political expression — as it has at GMU and other campuses across the country — speech itself becomes evidence of a violation. Under this framework, students and faculty learn that certain viewpoints about Israel are per se suspect, and both institutional censorship and self-censorship follow. Despite its defenders’ claims, when campus administrators invoke the IHRA definition and its examples to investigate, discipline, or silence political expression, the distinction between conduct and speech becomes meaningless.
Analysis: Harvard’s settlement adopting IHRA anti-Semitism definition a prescription to chill campus speech
Harvard agreed to settle two lawsuits brought against it by Jewish students that alleged the university ignored “severe and pervasive antisemitism on campus.”
The problem is compounded by the Trump administration’s Title VI enforcement. Its unlawful defund-first, negotiate-second approach places universities’ federal funding — sometimes hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars — at the mercy of the administration’s Joint Antisemitism Task Force. That threat alone is enough to force campus administrators to make a choice: censor student speech critical of Israel, or risk losing access to federal funding. All too often, as we have seen repeatedly, institutions choose access to money over standing up for student rights.
Instead of relying on IHRA’s vague definition for anti-discrimination purposes, FIRE has long supported efforts to constitutionally and effectively address antisemitic discrimination on college campuses by passing legislation to:
Prohibit harassment based on religion.
Confirm that Title VI prohibits discrimination based on ethnic stereotypes.
Codify the Supreme Court’s definition of discriminatory harassment.
These options would better address antisemitic harassment and would do so without suppressing free speech.
The Impact of Social Platforms on Higher Education Marketing
There are currently more than 5.6 billion social media users worldwide, according to Statista. This means that about two-thirds of the world’s population uses some form of social media to communicate.
For many of us, using social media has become second nature. But the digital space has changed drastically since we saw the emergence of social media marketing in the early 2000s and beyond. So, too, should your social media marketing strategy, so that you can effectively reach your institution’s intended audience and make an impact when everyone else is trying to do the same.
While social media is a commonplace platform for communication today, have you ever considered how significantly social media has changed the way we communicate?
4 Top Social Media Platforms Changing Communication
Let’s take a look at what the most used social platforms have contributed to our new way of communication and how you can utilize them in your higher education marketing campaigns.
1. Facebook
Facebook is seen as the most predominant social media platform, and it has the numbers to back it up, with nearly 3.1 billion monthly users. While Meta’s Facebook still remains one of the top social media platforms since its conception, its audience demographics have shifted with the rise of Instagram and TikTok. With the dominating demographic now being women ages 25 to 34, Facebook is not the higher education marketing platform it once was. Not for traditional prospective and current students, anyway.
However, this platform can be effective for marketing flexible, online degree programs that target adult learners. It’s also a great avenue for communicating with alumni, recent graduates, and even parents of students.
2. YouTube
With nearly 2.6 billion monthly active users, YouTube was launched in 2005 and quickly grew to become one of the top social media platforms by 2010.
YouTube isn’t focused on generating content for short-term attention spans like other platforms. While Instagram, TikTok, and even Facebook primarily host short-form videos averaging 30 seconds to a minute long, YouTube’s premise is to expand on short-form content and host longer videos, such as how-tos, influencer lifestyle content, and vlogs, allowing viewers to form a more intimate connection with the content.
One of the main ways institutions utilize YouTube is with the rise of virtual campus tours, allowing potential students from anywhere to experience a university campus. This allows universities to expand their applicant pool by reaching potential students who may not be able to attend an in-person campus tour.
Take a look at a couple of examples of virtual campus tours from Clemson University and Cornell University, which have received 62,000 and 136,000 views, respectively:
YouTube can also be a great place to highlight student success stories and testimonials.
3. Instagram
This Meta-owned social media platform has about 3 billion monthly users. In 2017, Instagram edged out Snapchat for one of the top spots among the most popular social media platforms. How? Instagram saw a gap in its algorithm where it wasn’t meeting younger audiences’ needs that Snapchat excelled at: catering to short attention spans.
In 2016, Instagram expanded on its platform offerings, including not only the ability to share photos in a timeline, but also launching a Stories feature. Similar to Snapchat, IG Stories gave users the ability to showcase shorter bursts of content that showcased the use of filters, stickers, and more, making the platform more interactive. With the launch of IG Reels in 2020, Instagram rounded out its offerings within the platform, giving users the ability to view and create short-form videos.
Since Instagram is most popular among a large younger demographic of users ages 18 to 34, Instagram is one of the number one tools higher ed marketers should be using to reach a wide variety of their university community, from prospective students to current students and young alumni.
4. TikTok
TikTok has nearly 2 billion users. After its launch in 2018, TikTok quickly grew into one of the most popular social media platforms, surpassing X (formerly Twitter) and Snapchat and creating a new demand for short-form video across all platforms.
Primarily geared towards Gen Z and Millennial audiences, TikTok is a fast-paced, trend-focused app, making it one of the ideal platforms for marketing to university students. The original TikTok algorithm was unique compared to other social media platforms because it continually personalizes content to keep users engaged.
How Did Social Media Change the Way We Communicate?
Social media has changed how we communicate with one another in many ways. It has allowed us to share information in new ways, quickly gain global insights into worldwide news and trends, and forge new online communities of like-minded individuals.
Fostered the Ability to Share
Since its launch in 2004, Facebook, one of the first ever social media platforms, has created a place to share anything from daily thoughts to groundbreaking ideas. This has continued to be the foundation of social media platforms that have followed in Facebook’s footsteps, from Snapchat to Instagram to TikTok.
Each of these platforms has expanded on the original foundation to add features such as stories, short-form video, and interactive filters. This further encouraged immediate, frequent sharing among participants and a sense of urgency around being an active social media user. This illustrates our first point: Social media has given audiences the opportunity to share and collaborate in real-time on a global scale. Over time, we shifted from passive consumers of information to active participants in content creation and distribution.
In higher ed, this has greatly impacted how institutions communicate with prospective and current students, alumni, and other members of their wider community. Institutions have been given the opportunity to share with their communities in real time: Student successes are immediately celebrated, university news can be instantly delivered to a For You page (FYP) or timeline in a matter of seconds, and audiences can immediately communicate back. Social media has fostered this ability to share, allowing institutions to create stronger brand awareness and community engagement.
Provided Global Perspective
This brings us to our second point: Social media has enabled people, brands, institutions, and organizations to come together in one common place, erasing traditional communication boundaries that once hindered our ability to connect.
Students in one part of the world can now explore what campus life looks like in another, simply by watching a TikTok tour, reading Instagram stories, or following a university ambassador on YouTube. These behind-the-scenes glimpses, often created by real students, offer an authentic, unfiltered perspective of life at institutions that might have otherwise been unreachable.
Faculty benefit from this reach too, using platforms like LinkedIn or X to share academic work, engage with global peers, and promote collaborative initiatives. Conferences, lectures, and panels can now be live-streamed or shared widely after the fact, broadening access to educational content for international audiences who may never set foot on campus.
From a marketing standpoint, this global connectivity has changed the way institutions can position themselves and expand their offerings. Nearly two-thirds of institutions are exploring how to bring traditional on-campus programs online, utilizing the global reach driven by social media to appeal to nontraditional learners, including working parents and older adults.
Ultimately, the rise of social media has made it possible for institutions to extend their mission and messaging farther than ever before.
Encouraged Personal Connections
If you’re a social media user, you’ve likely experienced the benefits of how digital platforms have improved our overall communication. One of the most notable benefits is how platforms — from Facebook to LinkedIn and Instagram to TikTok — have given people the ability to connect on a personal level, whether it’s reconnecting with old friends, networking with new professional acquaintances, or sparking life-long friendships through comments, likes, and shares.
As social media has grown over the years, we’ve developed interest-based communities that allow us to communicate with like-minded individuals, sharing ideas and building a sense of belonging that might not be easily found in the “real world.” For nontraditional and online students, this can be life changing.
For institutions working towards appealing to this modern student demographic, utilizing these features can be beneficial in showcasing how nontraditional and online students can be part of the school’s community.
The Challenge: Creating Bite-Size Messaging
With all of the ways social media has improved our communication, there are also some negative effects. One of which is particularly challenging for marketers: shortened attention spans.
The digital world moves quickly, and evidence has shown that the average attention span when looking at a screen has decreased from 2.5 minutes in 2004 to just 47 seconds in recent years. Many audience demographics, particularly younger generations, have become accustomed to “snackable” content.
Think about it: An average TikTok or Reel is 15 to 30 seconds long, Stories on Snapchat and Instagram disappear within 24 hours, and even static image carousels average only 3-5 slides. Because of this, marketers are left with less time to capture interest and low engagement on traditional content formats like text-only posts and longer videos.
With social media being one of the most beneficial marketing tools in higher ed, it’s imperative that marketers learn to work with its fast-paced nature, not against it. We can do this by prioritizing visual content. Social media has made us into visual communicators: memes, gifs, short-form video, graphics, and more have begun to dominate our FYPs and timelines.
Shifting your strategy to prioritize content like eye-catching graphics and short-form video can push your content to the forefront of your audience’s feed and encourage higher engagement activity.
Improve Your Social Media Strategy With Archer
Looking to up your social media marketing game? Archer Education can help. We offer a variety of tech-enabled marketing, enrollment, and retention services, and our enrollment marketing team helps higher ed institutions with social media marketing, content creation, search engine optimization (SEO), academic thought leadership, and more.
Here at Archer, we partner with accredited universities to enable higher-ed leaders and marketers to accelerate their online program growth and enrollment. We believe that education is the great equalizer in our society, and we strive to help institutions make education more accessible for all adult learners.
If you’d like to learn more, contact our team and explore our offerings today.
by Anna Mountford-Zimdars, Louise Ashley, Eve Worth, and Chris Playford
Higher education has become the go-to solution for social inequality over the past three decades. Widening access and enhancing graduate outcomes have been presented as ways to generate upward mobility and ensure fairer life chances for people from all backgrounds. But what if the very ecosystem designed to level the playing field also inadvertently helps sustain the very inequalities we are hoping to overcome?
Social mobility agendas appear progressive but are often regressive in practice. By focusing on the movement of individuals rather than structural change, they leave wealth and income disparities intact. A few people may rise, but the wider system remains unfair – but now dressed up with a meritocratic veneer. We explore these issues in our new article in the British Journal of Sociology, ‘Ambivalent Agents: The Social Mobility Industry and Civil Society under Neoliberalism in England’. We examined the role of the UK’s ‘social mobility industry’: charities, foundations, and third-sector organisations primarily working with universities to identify ‘talented’ young people from less advantaged backgrounds and help them access higher education or elite careers. We were curious – are these organisations transforming opportunity structures and delivering genuine change, or do they help stabilise the present system?
The answer to this question is of course complex but, in essence, we found the latter. Our analysis of 150 national organisations working in higher education since the early 1990s found that organisations tend to reflect the individualistic approach outlined above and blend critical rhetoric about inequality with delivery models that are funder-compatible, metric-led and institutionally convenient. Thus – and we expect unintentionally on part of the organisations – they often perform inclusion of ‘talent’ without asking too many uncomfortable structural questions about the persistence and reproduction of unequal opportunities.
We classified organisations in a five-part typology. Most organisations fell into the category of Pragmatic Progressives: committed to fairness but shaped by funder priorities, accountability metrics, and institutional convenience. A smaller group acted as Structural Resistors, pushing for systemic change. Others were System Conformers, largely reproducing official rhetoric. The Technocratic deliverers were most closely integrated with the state, often functioning as contracted agents with managerial, metrics-focused delivery models. Finally, Professionalised Reformers seek reform through evidence-based programmes and advocacy, often with a focus on elite education and professions.
This finding matters beyond higher education. Civil society – the world of charities, voluntary groups, and associations – has long been seen as the sphere where resistance to inequality might flourish. Yet our findings show that many organisations are constrained or co-opted into protecting the status quo by limited budgets, demanding funders, and constant requirements to demonstrate ‘impact’. Our point is not to disparage gains or to criticise the intentions of the charity sector but to push for honest and genuine change.
Labour’s new Civil Society Covenant, which promises to strengthen voluntary organisations and reduce short-termism, could create opportunities. But outsourcing responsibility for social goods to arm’s-length actors also risks producing symbolic reforms that celebrate individual success stories without changing the odds for the many. If higher education is to deliver genuine fairness, we must distinguish between performing fairness for a few and redistributing opportunities for the many. We thus want to conclude by suggesting three practical actions for universities, access and participation teams, and regulators such as the Office for Students.
Audit for Ambivalence
Using our typology, do you find you are working with a mix of organisations, or mainly those focused on individuals? (Please contact us for accessing our coding framework to support your institutional or regional audits.)
Rebalance activity towards structural levers
Continue high-quality outreach, but, where possible, shift resources towards systemic interventions such as contextual admissions with meaningful grade floors, strong maintenance support, foundation pathways with guaranteed progression and fair, embedded work placements
Ask the regulator to measure structural outcomes as well as individual ones, at sector and regional levels. When commissioning work, ask for participatory governance and community accountability and measure that too.
We believe civil-society partnerships can play a vital role – but not if they become the sole heavy-lifter or metric of success. Universities are well positioned to embrace structural levers, protect space for critique, and hold themselves accountable for distributional outcomes. If this happens, the crowded charity space around social mobility could become a vibrant counter-movement for genuine change to opportunities and producing fairness rather than a prop for maintaining an unequal status quo.
In terms of research, our next step is speaking directly to people working in the ‘social mobility industry.’ Do they/you recognise the tensions we highlight? How do they navigate them? Have we fairly presented their work? We look forward to continuing the discussion on this topic and how to enhance practice for transformative change.
Anna Mountford-Zimdars is a Professor in Education at the University of Exeter.
Louise Ashley is Associate Professor in the School of business and management at Queen Mary University London.
Eve Worth is a Lecturer in History at the University of Exeter.
Christopher James Playford is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Exeter.
His central charge is that I’m a misogynist. His evidence is that I use the word “hoeflation.” Using a term coined by others to describe a social trend does not mean I endorse it. Reporting or analyzing a phenomenon is not the same as condoning it.
In my essay, I wrote,
“And, unfortunately for men, dating algorithms concentrate attention on the top 10 percent—those deemed most attractive—rendering the majority effectively unseen. This imbalance has led young men to coin the term ‘hoeflation,’ the grind of chasing women they might barely fancy, but will date just to escape loneliness. (Young American men experience loneliness at rates far exceeding those of their counterparts across other developed countries.)”
This was an observation on what is being said among some young men. The term reflects a real cultural phenomenon: Many young men feel alienated from modern dating, seeing it as transactional, unequal or algorithmically stacked against them. It expresses their view that women’s expectations have risen out of reach.
Jared Gould is managing editor of Minding the Campus.
By Dean Hoke, October 13, 2025 – In the small towns of America, where factories have closed and downtowns often stand half-empty, a small college can be the heartbeat that keeps a community alive. These institutions—sometimes enrolling only a few hundred students—serve as economic anchors, cultural centers, and symbols of hope for regions that might otherwise face decline.
From the farmlands of Indiana to the mountain towns of Appalachia, small colleges generate economic energy far beyond their campus gates. They attract students, faculty, and visitors, stimulate local business, and provide the trained workforce that rural economies desperately need. They also embody something deeper: a sense of identity and connection that sustains civic life.
Economic Impact: Anchors in Fragile Economies
Small colleges are powerful, if often overlooked, economic engines. Their presence is felt in every paycheck, every restaurant filled with students and parents, and every local business that relies on their purchasing power.
Across the United States, nearly half of all public four-year colleges, over half of all public two-year colleges, and a third of private four-year colleges make up the 1,100 rural-serving institutions as identified by the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC). These colleges educate 1.6 million students, accounting for more than a quarter of total U.S. enrollments. Yet their role extends far beyond classrooms and degrees.
Rural-serving institutions are frequently among the largest employers in their counties, especially where other industries have faded. In areas where 35% or more of working-age adults are unemployed, 83% of local colleges are rural-serving, making them pillars of economic stability. Unlike large universities in metropolitan areas, their spending is highly localized—on utilities, food service, maintenance, and partnerships with small vendors.
Economic models underscore their importance. The Brookings Institution found that high-performing four-year colleges contribute roughly $265,000 more per student to local economies than lower-performing institutions, while two-year colleges add about $184,000. In many rural towns, every institutional dollar recirculates multiple times, magnifying its effect.
Beyond direct payroll and procurement, small colleges attract outside dollars. Students and visitors rent housing, dine locally, and shop downtown. Athletic events, alumni weekends, and summer programs bring tourists who fill hotels and restaurants. The IMPLAN consulting group estimated that when a college closes, the average regional loss equals 265 jobs, $14 million in labor income, and $32 million in total economic output—a devastating hit in thin rural economies.
Human Capital and Workforce Development
If small colleges are the economic engines of rural communities, they are also the primary producers of human capital. They educate the teachers, nurses, business owners, and civic leaders who sustain local life.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond describes community colleges as “anchor institutions” that shape regional labor markets. Many partner with local employers to design training programs that meet specific workforce needs—often at minimal cost to businesses. In one case study, a rural college collaborated with an advanced manufacturing firm to tailor instruction for machine technicians, ensuring a steady local labor supply and convincing the company to expand rather than relocate.
Rural-serving colleges are also critical in addressing educational disparities. Only 22% of rural adults hold a bachelor’s degree, compared with 37% of non-rural Americans. This gap translates directly into income inequality: according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, nonmetro workers with a bachelor’s degree earned a median of $52,837 in 2023, compared with substantially higher earnings for their urban counterparts. In states such as Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, rural degree attainment lags 10 to 15 percentage points behind state averages.
Beyond Economics: RSIs as Equity Infrastructure
Rural-serving institutions are more than economic engines—they are critical equity infrastructure, often providing the only realistic pathway to higher education for students the system has historically marginalized.
RSIs enroll far higher proportions of high-need students than their urban counterparts. Nearly 50% of undergraduates at RSIs receive Pell Grants, compared to 34% nationally. These institutions also serve disproportionate numbers of first-generation students, working adults, and students from underrepresented communities who lack access to flagship universities.
For many rural students, the local college isn’t a choice—it’s the only option. Geographic isolation, family obligations, and financial constraints make residential college attendance impossible. Research shows that every ten miles from the nearest college reduces enrollment probability by several percentage points. For students without transportation, without broadband for online learning, or without family support to relocate, the local institution is existential.
When rural colleges close, equity suffers most. Displaced students, if they re-enroll at all, face higher debt burdens and lower completion rates. Wealthier students can transfer to distant institutions; low-income students stop out. Communities of color, already underserved, lose ground.
Policymakers often evaluate colleges through narrow metrics: completion rates and graduate earnings. But this ignores mission differentiation. RSIs serve students that flagship universities would never admit, in places that for-profit colleges would never enter, at prices that private colleges could never match. Investing in rural-serving institutions isn’t charity—it’s infrastructure investment in equity, ensuring every region has pathways to economic mobility. If America is serious about educational equity, it must recognize RSIs as essential public infrastructure, not discretionary spending.
Despite these barriers, rural institutions remain lifelines for upward mobility. They offer affordable tuition, flexible programs for working adults, and pathways for first-generation students who might otherwise forgo higher education.
However, the pressures are real. Rural students face tighter finances, higher borrowing costs, and fewer grant opportunities. Nearly half of rural undergraduates receive Pell Grants, but average aid remains lower than that at urban institutions. Many graduates leave rural areas to find higher-paying jobs, a “brain drain” that weakens local economies. Yet for those who stay—or return later—their impact is outsized, driving new business formation, civic leadership, and generational stability.
Example: Goshen College and Elkhart County, Indiana — A Model of Mutual Benefit
The following example illustrates the positive interdependence of a small college and its surrounding community—how shared growth, service, and opportunity can strengthen both the institution and the region it calls home.
Few examples better demonstrate this relationship than Goshen College in northern Indiana. Founded in 1894 by the Mennonite Church, Goshen sits in Elkhart County, a region best known for its manufacturing and recreational vehicle industries. While the area has long been an economic hub, its continued success depends heavily on education and workforce development—both areas where Goshen College has quietly excelled for more than a century.
Goshen employs more than 300 full-time and part-time faculty and staff, making it one of the city’s largest private employers. Its local purchasing—from food services to maintenance and printing—injects millions of dollars annually into the county’s economy. The student body, drawn from across the Midwest and around the world, supports rental housing, restaurants, and small businesses throughout the region.
According to the 2024 Independent Colleges of Indiana Economic Impact Study, Goshen College contributes roughly $33 million each year to the regional economy through employment, operations, and visitor spending. Beyond the numbers, the college enriches community life. The Goshen College Music Center and Merry Lea Environmental Learning Center are regional treasures, hosting performances, lectures, and research programs that attract thousands of visitors annually. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the college partnered with local health officials to serve as a testing and vaccination site—further demonstrating its civic commitment. Its nursing, environmental studies, and teacher preparation programs continue to meet critical workforce needs across Elkhart County and beyond.
Goshen College stands as a model of how a small private college and its community can thrive together. Its example underscores a broader truth: when rural colleges remain strong, the benefits extend far beyond campus—bolstering jobs, sustaining income, and enriching the civic and cultural life that define their regions.
Social and Cultural Role: The Heart of Civic Life
Beyond numbers, the social and cultural influence of rural colleges may be their most irreplaceable contribution. In many counties, the college auditorium doubles as the performing arts center, the gym as the public gathering space, and the library as a community hub.
Rural colleges host art shows, festivals, lectures, and athletics that bring people together across generations. They sponsor service projects, tutoring programs, and food drives that connect students with their neighbors. For residents who might otherwise feel isolated or overlooked, the local college provides a sense of belonging and civic pride.
Research from the National Endowment for the Arts underscores that local arts participation strengthens community bonds and well-being. Rural colleges amplify that effect by providing both venues and expertise. Their faculty often lead community theater, music ensembles, or public workshops—bringing culture to places that might otherwise lack access.
The COVID-19 pandemic vividly demonstrated this social bond. While large universities shifted to remote learning with relative ease, small rural colleges had to improvise with limited broadband access and fewer resources. Yet many became essential service providers—hosting testing centers, distributing food, and maintaining human contact in otherwise isolated communities.
In these moments, small colleges revealed what they have always been: not just educators, but neighbors and caretakers.
Challenges: Fragility and the Risk of Decline
Despite their immense value, small rural colleges operate under fragile conditions. Their scale limits efficiency, their funding sources are volatile, and demographic shifts threaten their enrollment base.
Enrollment Declines and Demographic Pressures.
A steep decline in traditional-age students is projected to start by 2026, with the number of new high school graduates expected to fall by about 13 percent by 2041, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 3, 2025, article “What is the Demographic Cliff”. For rural colleges already competing for a shrinking pool of students, this decline threatens their enrollment base and financial viability. Many have already experienced double-digit enrollment drops since the Great Recession. Rural public bachelor’s/master’s institutions enroll 5% fewer students today than in 2005, while community colleges struggle to recover from pandemic-era losses.
Financial Constraints. Small colleges rely heavily on tuition revenue and relatively modest endowments. According to the Urban Institute, the median private nonprofit four-year college holds about $33,000 in endowment assets per student, compared with hundreds of thousands of dollars per student at elite universities such as Amherst or Princeton. For many rural private colleges, endowment resources are often well below this national median. Their financial models depend heavily on tuition and auxiliary income, leaving them vulnerable when enrollment softens. Fundraising capacity is also limited: alumni bases are smaller and often less affluent than those of major research universities, making sustained growth in endowment and annual giving more difficult to achieve.
Operational Challenges. Compliance, accreditation, and technology costs weigh disproportionately on small staffs. Many rural colleges lack the personnel to pursue major grants or expand programs quickly. Geographic isolation compounds difficulties in recruiting faculty and attracting external partnerships.
Brain Drain and Opportunity Gaps. Even when colleges succeed in educating local students, retaining them can be difficult. Many leave for urban areas with higher wages and broader opportunities. The irony is painful: the better a rural college fulfills its mission of empowerment, the more likely it may lose its graduates.
Closures and Community Fallout. When a small college shuts its doors, the ripple effects are severe. Studies estimate average regional losses of over $20 million in GDP and hundreds of jobs per closure. Local businesses—cafés, landlords, bookstores—suffer immediately. Housing markets soften, municipal tax revenues drop, and cultural life diminishes. It can take a decade or more for a community to recover, if it ever does.
Reversing the Talent Flow: Retention Strategies That Work
The brain drain challenge is not insurmountable. Several states and institutions have pioneered retention strategies that show measurable results.
Loan forgiveness programs specifically targeting rural retention have gained traction. Kansas’s Rural Opportunity Zones offer up to $15,000 in student loan repayment for graduates who relocate to designated counties. Maine provides annual tax credits up to $2,500 for graduates who live and work in-state. Early data suggests these programs can shift settlement patterns, particularly in high-demand fields like nursing and teaching.
The most effective models involve tri-party partnerships: colleges provide education and career counseling, employers offer competitive wages and loan assistance, and municipalities contribute housing support or tax relief. In one Ohio example, a regional hospital, community college, and county government created a “stay local” nursing pathway that reduced turnover by 40% over five years.
Place-based scholarships are also emerging as retention tools. “Hometown Scholarships” provide enhanced aid for students from surrounding counties who commit to working regionally after graduation. When paired with community-engaged learning and local internships throughout the curriculum, these programs cultivate regional identity—shifting the narrative from “I have to leave to succeed” to “I can build a meaningful career here.”
Federal policy could amplify these efforts. A Rural Talent Corps modeled on the National Health Service Corps could leverage student loan forgiveness to address workforce shortages while stabilizing rural economies. The brain drain will never disappear entirely, but intentional investment can shift the calculus from inevitable loss to manageable flow.
Policy Pathways and Strategies for Resilience
Sustaining small colleges—and the communities they support—requires creativity, collaboration, and policy attention.
1. Deepen Local Partnerships. Rural colleges thrive when they align closely with regional needs. Employer partnerships, dual-enrollment programs, and apprenticeships can connect education directly to local labor markets. In Indiana and Ohio, several colleges now co-design health care and manufacturing programs with regional employers, ensuring steady pipelines of skilled workers.
2. Form Regional Alliances. Small institutions can collaborate rather than compete. Shared academic programs, cross-registration, and joint purchasing agreements can reduce costs and expand offerings. Examples such as the New England Small College Innovation Consortium show how collective action can extend capacity and visibility.
3. Diversify Revenue and Mission. Rural colleges can strengthen financial resilience by expanding adult education, microcredentials, and workforce training. Many are converting underused buildings into community hubs, co-working spaces, or conference centers. Others are developing online and hybrid programs to reach place-bound learners in neighboring counties.
4. Increase State and Federal Support. Federal recognition of Rural-Serving Institutions within the Higher Education Act could unlock targeted funding similar to programs for Minority-Serving Institutions. States should adapt funding formulas to reflect mission-based outcomes—rewarding colleges that serve low-income, first-generation, and local students rather than penalizing them for small scale.
5. Encourage Philanthropic Investment. Foundations and donors have historically overlooked rural institutions in favor of urban flagships. Increasing awareness of their impact could mobilize new giving streams, particularly from community foundations and regional philanthropists.
6. Invest in Infrastructure. Broadband access, housing, and transportation are essential to sustaining rural higher education. Expanding digital infrastructure allows colleges to deliver online learning, attract remote faculty, and connect to global markets.
Looking Ahead: The Role of Small Colleges in Rural Renewal
As rural America seeks to reinvent itself in the 21st century, small colleges are uniquely positioned to lead that renewal. They combine local trust with national expertise, and they possess the physical, intellectual, and moral infrastructure to drive change from within.
Their future will depend on adaptability. Colleges that align programs with regional industries, embrace digital learning, and form strategic alliances can thrive despite demographic headwinds. Institutions that cling to older models may struggle.
Yet the measure of success should not be enrollment size alone. A rural college’s value lies in its multiplier effect—on jobs, community life, and civic identity. For many counties, it is the last remaining institution still rooted in the public good.
Conclusion: Investing in Irreplaceable Infrastructure
Small colleges in rural America are far more than schools. They are community builders, employers, cultural anchors, and symbols of local resilience. Their closure can hollow out a county; their success can revive one.
The rural-serving institutions identified by ARRC represent a quarter of U.S. enrollments but touch nearly half the nation’s geography. They serve regions facing population loss, persistent poverty, and limited opportunity—yet they continue to educate, employ, and inspire.
The choice facing policymakers, philanthropists, and citizens is simple: either we invest in these engines of opportunity, or we risk watching the lights go out in hundreds of rural towns.
The question is no longer whether we can afford to support small rural colleges but whether America can afford not to.
Sources and References
Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC).Identifying Rural-Serving Institutions in the United States (2022).
Brookings Institution.The Value of Higher Education to Local Economies (2021).
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.Community Colleges as Anchor Institutions: A Regional Development Perspective (2020).
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.High School Benchmarks 2022: National College Progression Rates.
National Endowment for the Arts.Rural Arts, Design, and Innovation in America (2017).
Lumina Foundation.Stronger Nation: Learning Beyond High School Builds American Talent (2024).
National Skills Coalition.Building a Skilled Workforce for Rural America (2021).
IMPLAN Group, LLC.Measuring the Economic Impact of Higher Education Institutions (2023).
U.S. Census Bureau.Educational Attainment in the United States: 2023 (American Community Survey Tables).
Bureau of Labor Statistics.Employment and Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2023.
Goshen College.Economic Impact Report 2022 and institutional data from the Office of Institutional Research.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow for the Sagamore Institute located in Indianapolis, Indiana. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean is a champion for small colleges in the US. and is committed to celebrating their successes, highlighting their distinctions and reinforcing how important they are to the higher education ecosystem in the US. Dean is the creator and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
Social emotional learning — lessons in soft skills like listening to people you disagree with or calming yourself down before a test — has become a flashpoint in the culture wars.
The conservative political group Moms for Liberty opposes SEL, as it is often abbreviated, telling parents that its “goal is to psychologically manipulate students to accept the progressive ideology that supports gender fluidity, sexual preference exploration, and systemic oppression.” Critics say that parents should discuss social and emotional matters at home and that schools should stick to academics. Meanwhile, some advocates on the left say standard SEL classes don’t go far enough and should include such topics as social justice and anti-racism training.
While the political battle rages on, academic researchers are marshalling evidence for what high-quality SEL programs actually deliver for students. The latest study, by researchers at Yale University, summarizes 12 years of evidence, from 2008 to 2020, and it finds that 30 different SEL programs, which put themselves through 40 rigorous evaluations involving almost 34,000 students, tended to produce “moderate” academic benefits.
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
The meta-analysis, published online Oct. 8 in the peer-reviewed journal Review of Educational Research, calculated that the grades and test scores of students in SEL classes improved by about 4 percentile points, on average, compared with students who didn’t receive soft-skill instruction. That’s the equivalent of moving from the 50th percentile (in the middle) to the 54th percentile (slightly above average). Reading gains were larger (more than 6 percentile points) than math gains (fewer than 4 percentile points). Longer-duration SEL programs, extending more than four months, produced double the academic gains — more than 8 percentile points.
“Social emotional learning interventions are not designed, most of the time, to explicitly improve academic achievement,” said Christina Cipriano, one of the study’s four authors and an associate professor at Yale Medical School’s Child Study Center. “And yet we demonstrated, through our meta-analytic report, that explicit social emotional learning improved academic achievement and it improved both GPA and test scores.”
Cipriano also directs the Education Collaboratory at Yale, whose mission is to “advance the science of learning and social and emotional development.”
The academic boost from SEL in this 2025 paper is much smaller than the 11 percentile points documented in an earlier 2011 meta-analysis that summarized research through 2007, when SEL had not yet gained widespread popularity in schools. That has since changed. More than 80 percent of principals of K-12 schools said their schools used an SEL curriculum during the 2023-24 school year, according to a survey by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) and the RAND Corporation.
The Yale researchers only studied a small subset of the SEL market, programs that subjected themselves to a rigorous evaluation and included academic outcomes. Three-quarters of the 40 studies were randomized-controlled trials, similar to pharmaceutical trials, where schools or teachers were randomly assigned to teach an SEL curriculum. The remaining studies, in which schools or teachers volunteered to participate, still had control groups of students so that researchers could compare the academic gains of students who did not receive SEL instruction.
The SEL programs in the Yale study taught a wide range of soft skills, from mindfulness and anger management to resolving conflicts and setting goals. It is unclear which soft skills are driving the academic gains. That’s an area for future research.
“Developmentally, when we think about what we know about how kids learn, emotional regulation is really the driver,” said Cipriano. “No matter how good that curriculum or that math program or reading curriculum is, if a child is feeling unsafe or anxious or stressed out or frustrated or embarrassed, they’re not available to receive the instruction, however great that teacher might be.”
Cipriano said that effective programs give students tools to cope with stressful situations. She offered the example of a pop quiz, from the perspective of a student. “You can recognize, I’m feeling nervous, my blood is rushing to my hands or my face, and I can use my strategies of counting to 10, thinking about what I know, and use positive self talk to be able to regulate, to be able to take my test,” she said.
The strongest evidence for SEL is in elementary school, where the majority of evaluations have been conducted (two-thirds of the 40 studies). For young students, SEL lessons tend to be short but frequent, for example, 10 minutes a day. There’s less evidence for middle and high school SEL programs because they haven’t been studied as much. Typically, preteens and teens have less frequent but longer sessions, a half hour or even 90 minutes, weekly or monthly.
Cipriano said that schools don’t need to spend “hours and hours” on social and emotional instruction in order to see academic benefits. A current trend is to incorporate or embed social and emotional learning within academic instruction, as part of math class, for example. But none of the underlying studies in this paper evaluated whether this was a more effective way to deliver SEL. All of the programs in this study were separate stand-alone SEL lessons.
Advice to schools
Schools are inundated by sales pitches from SEL vendors. Estimates of the market size range wildly, but a half dozen market research firms put it above $2 billion annually. Not all SEL programs are necessarily effective or can be expected to produce the academic gains that the Yale team calculated.
Cipriano advises schools not to be taken in by slick marketing. Many of the effective programs have no marketing at all and some are free. Unfortunately, some of these programs have been discontinued or have transformed through ownership changes. But she says school leaders can ask questions about which specific skills the SEL program claims to foster, whether those skills will help the district achieve its goals, such as improving school climate, and whether the program has been externally evaluated.
“Districts invest in things all the time that are flashy and pretty, across content areas, not just SEL,” said Cipriano. “It may never have had an external evaluation, but has a really great social media presence and really great marketing.”
Cipriano has also built a new website, improvingstudentoutcomes.org, to track the latest research on SEL effectiveness and to help schools identify proven programs.
Cipriano says parents should be asking questions too. “Parents should be partners in learning,” said Cipriano. “I have four kids, and I want to know what they’re learning about in school.”
This meta-analysis probably won’t stop the SEL critics who say that these programs force educators to be therapists. Groups like Moms for Liberty, which holds its national summit this week, say teachers should stick to academics. This paper rejects that dichotomy because it suggests that emotions, social interaction and academics are all interlinked.
Before criticizing all SEL programs, educators and parents need to consider the evidence.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Recently published data from the educational consulting group EAB shows that first-year students at two-year colleges want help connecting with peers on campus; nearly half reported dissatisfaction with their social lives since starting college. The report outlines ways to create engagement and other priorities for community college students.
Community college in context: First- to second-year retention is the greatest predictor of completion for students enrolled in a two-year degree program, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
Community colleges are among the most diverse higher ed institutions, with students more likely to be working adults, parents and first-generation learners compared to their four-year peers.
The EAB data identifies key trends in first-year community college students’ experiences and how institutions can improve their retention.
Methodology
EAB’s survey included responses from over 12,600 first-year college students, including 1,531 enrolled in community colleges. The survey was fielded in February and March 2024.
The data: When asked to name the most disappointing elements of their college experience so far, students indicated they felt disconnected from the campus community. Forty-two percent of respondents said their social life was a top disappointment, followed by not making friends or meeting new people. An additional 35 percent of students said they felt as though they didn’t belong.
This mirrors results from a 2025 survey conducted by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab, which found that only 20 percent of two-year students rated their sense of social belonging at college as above average or excellent, with the greatest share of respondents indicating they have an average sense of belonging (49 percent). By comparison, 29 percent of four-year students said they had an above average or excellent sense of belonging.
EAB’s report recommends that two-year colleges create small interventions to support students’ desire for community, including arranging drop-in events, hobby groups or peer mentorship programs. Making clubs easier to join through flexible meeting times or virtual meetings can also accommodate learners’ busy schedules, according to the report.
One-third of respondents to EAB’s survey said they were disappointed by classes and academics, and one in five students said faculty had disappointed them.
EAB’s community college survey also found that 32 percent of respondents had experienced bias or exclusion in some capacity since starting college, with the greatest share of respondents saying they faced criticism for their physical appearance or for the high school they attended. The results indicate a need for mechanisms for students to report harassment and connect with mental health supports, according to EAB’s report.
When asked what a “safe campus” means to them, the greatest share of community college respondents selected sufficient support for mental health and wellness (67 percent) and low or no property crime (67 percent). A similar number indicated that low incidence of sexual assault was key to creating a safe campus environment (66 percent).
Mental health concerns are one of the top reasons students of all backgrounds leave higher education, but community college students are even more vulnerable because they can be less financially secure or have fewer resources to address poor mental health.
However, community college counseling centers often have smaller staffs and serve only a fraction of their enrolled students; 2025 data from the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors found that only 5 percent of all community college students receive support from their counseling center.
When asked what best represents the value of higher education, successful job placement after graduation was the top choice among community college students (44 percent), followed by availability of scholarships (42 percent). Internships, co-ops and active learning experiences (33 percent) were less important than generous financial aid awards (38 percent) and moderate tuition prices.
Too many universities overlook the richness of the human stories that define them, relying instead on polished marketing campaigns and generic social media content to attract the next generation of students.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
