About half of 18- to 29-year-olds use Reddit, according to Pew Research.
Illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed
Students returning to the Catholic University of America Monday were outraged to discover that the university had blocked campus internet access to the popular social media site Reddit. But by Tuesday afternoon, administrators had reversed the ban, saying it had been automatically restricted by a third-party source that controls access to pornographic sites.
The site had been available to students at the end of last semester, according to Felipe Avila, a nursing student and a member of the student government. But when students returned from break to the Washington, D.C., campus this week, they found they could no longer access the site. No other social media sites seemed to have been affected, he said, and administrators did not notify students or faculty of the change.
When Avila discovered Reddit had been restricted, he submitted a ticket to the university’s Technology Services Support office to ask if it was a glitch or if the site had been blocked intentionally.
“When I checked with our security they said that it was blocked because of certain content on the platform and also because of phishing and malicious links that are on that site,” a staff member responded in an email to Avila.
The ban wasn’t entirely out of left field: In 2019, Catholic University banned access to the 200 most popular pornography websites after the student government passed a resolution advocating for such a ban. But Reddit isn’t a pornographic site; it’s a social media site with well over 100 million daily active users who can read and post in forums called subreddits dedicated to specific topics. According to Pew Research, 48 percent of individuals aged 18 to 29 surveyed in early 2025 said they use Reddit at least occasionally.
Reddit is one of just a few social media sites that allow users to post sexually explicit material, although it must be labeled appropriately and explicit images appear blurred until a user opts to reveal them. Other social media platforms that allow such content, such as X, which has allowed users to post sexual content since 2024, remained accessible on Catholic’s campus.
Restriction Reversal
After two days without answers from administrators, Avila said, the university reversed the ban, attributing the situation to an automated system that restricts access to a list of pornographic sites, university spokesperson Karna Lozoya said in an emailed statement. That list is compiled by a third-party organization, she said, which recently added Reddit.
“The site was flagged in accord with a policy established in 2019—at the recommendation of the Student Government Association—to block access to the top pornography sites from the University network. Student leaders at the time noted their concerns about the risks of these sites, including exploitation of individuals, addiction, and security risks,” she said.
The sites that were previously banned were “almost exclusively dedicated to serving pornography,” Lozoya noted. The university decided to reverse the ban on Reddit because its primary purpose is not to share explicit content.
“In the interest of allowing access to its legitimate uses, access to Reddit.com has been restored to the campus network,” she wrote. “However, the University is taking this opportunity to remind students of the need for prudence, and to avoid consuming exploitative and degrading content.”
Avila said the short-lived ban sparked outrage among students, some of whom use the platform as an academic resource. Students can join subreddits dedicated to different academic disciplines, like r/StudentNurse, a community of over 180,000, where nursing students can connect with their peers at institutions worldwide to vent or ask for advice.
Dominic Coletti, a program officer with the free speech advocacy organization the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, warned that preventing students and faculty from accessing certain sites infringes on freedom of expression and academic freedom.
“We’re concerned about this censorship for two reasons: First, Catholic promises its students free speech. That should include the ability to communicate anonymously with others at the university and in their community about what’s happening. That includes not-safe-for-work content, to be sure, but it also includes a wide swath of discussions about topics core to the work of a university,” he wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Catholic also promises its faculty academic freedom. That includes the freedom to perform research online and to teach students using online resources. Banning social-media sites like Reddit infringe on faculty members’ ability to perform that research and to use these resources in teaching.”
“The university did not have to promise its students and faculty members these expressive freedoms,” Coletti added. “Now that it has, it must protect those freedoms.”
Before the ban was lifted, Avila and another student senator filed a resolution calling on the university to make its standards for web filtering more transparent and asking to be notified in advance of any new bans. Even though Reddit is now accessible again, they’re planning to move forward with the resolution.
“Reversing the ban fixes the outcome, but not the oversight. We must codify protections for student expression to ensure that academic freedom is guaranteed by policy, not just public pressure,” he wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “We look forward to working with the university to see this implemented.”
A recent opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel declares that federal Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) programs are unlawful because they allocate funding based on the racial composition of enrolled students. The ruling immediately throws hundreds of campuses—and the students they serve—into uncertainty. But beyond the legal debate lies a more revealing institutional reckoning: if MSI grants disappear, will colleges actually fund these programs themselves?
The short answer, based on decades of evidence, is no.
For years, colleges and universities have framed MSI grants as proof of their commitment to access, equity, and social mobility. Yet those commitments have always been conditional. They have depended on external federal subsidies rather than first-principles institutional priorities. Now that the funding stream is threatened, the gap between rhetoric and reality is about to widen dramatically.
The scale of what is being cut is not trivial. Discretionary MSI programs—serving Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), and others—have collectively provided hundreds of millions of dollars annually for tutoring, advising, counseling, faculty development, and basic academic infrastructure. These grants have often been the difference between persistence and attrition for low-income students, many of whom are first-generation and Pell-eligible.
Yet MSI funding has also sustained something else: a sprawling administrative apparatus dedicated to grant writing, compliance, reporting, assessment, and “outcomes tracking.” Entire offices exist to chase, manage, and justify these funds. This is the professional-managerial class infrastructure that has come to dominate higher education—highly credentialed, compliance-oriented, and deeply invested in external funding streams.
Follow the money, and a pattern becomes clear. When federal or state funding declines, colleges do not trim administrative overhead. They cut instruction. They cut tutoring. They cut advising. They cut student-facing programs that lack powerful internal constituencies. Administrative spending, by contrast, is remarkably durable. It rarely shrinks, even in moments of fiscal crisis.
We have seen this movie before. When state appropriations fell over the past decade, public universities raised tuition and reduced instructional spending rather than dismantling administrative layers. When DEI offices were banned or defunded in several states, institutions eliminated student services and laid off staff, then quietly absorbed the savings into general operations. There was no surge in faculty hiring, no reinvestment in instruction, no serious attempt to replace lost support with institutional dollars.
MSI grants will follow the same path. Colleges may offer short-term “bridge funding” to manage optics and morale, but that support will be temporary and partial. The language administrators use—“assessing impacts,” “exploring alternatives,” “seeking private donors”—is a familiar signal that programs are being triaged, not saved.
Could institutions afford to self-fund these programs if they truly wanted to? In most cases, no—or at least not without making choices they refuse to make. Endowments are largely restricted and already used to paper over structural deficits. Tuition increases are politically and economically constrained at campuses serving low-income students. Federal aid flows through institutions but cannot be repurposed for operations. There is no hidden pool of fungible money waiting to be redirected.
What would replacing MSI funding actually require? Cutting administrative spending. Reducing executive compensation. Scaling back amenities and non-instructional growth. Reprioritizing instruction and academic support over branding and “customer experience.” These are choices institutions have consistently shown they will not make.
This is why the rhetoric of social mobility rings hollow. Colleges celebrate access and equity when the costs are externalized—when federal grants pay for the work and compliance offices manage the paperwork. But when that funding disappears, so does the institutional courage to sustain the mission.
The contrast with historically Black colleges and tribal colleges is instructive. Their core federal funding survives precisely because it is tied to historical mission rather than contemporary enrollment metrics, and because these institutions have long-standing political champions. That distinction exposes the truth: what is preserved is not equity, but power.
The coming months will bring program closures, staff layoffs, and diminished support for the students MSI grants were designed to serve. What we will not see, despite solemn statements and carefully worded emails, is a widespread commitment by colleges to fund these programs themselves.
The test is simple and unforgiving. If social mobility were truly a foundational principle of higher education, institutions would treat MSI programs as essential—not optional, not grant-contingent, not expendable. They would pay for them out of their own budgets.
They won’t.
And in that refusal, the performance ends. The mission statements remain, but the money moves elsewhere.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Opinion on Minority-Serving Institution Grant Programs, 2025.
U.S. Department of Education, Title III and Title V Program Data, Fiscal Years 2020–2025.
Government Accountability Office, Higher Education: Trends in Administrative and Instructional Spending, various reports.
Delta Cost Project / American Institutes for Research, Trends in College Spending, 2003–2021.
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), State Higher Education Finance Reports, 2010–2024.
University of California Office of the President, California State Auditor Reports on Administrative Spending and Reserves.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Florida Board of Governors; UNC System Office, public records and budget documents on DEI office eliminations, 2024–2025.
Bloomberg News and Associated Press reporting on DEI bans and campus program closures, 2024–2025.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), IPEDS Finance and Enrollment Data.
American Council on Education, Endowment Spending and Restrictions in Higher Education.
IRS Form 990 filings and audited financial statements of selected public and private universities.
Columbia University public statements on federal research funding disruptions, 2025.
University of Hawaiʻi system communications on federal grant losses and bridge funding, 2025.
Congressional Budget Justifications, U.S. Department of Education, FY2025–FY2026.
Ehrenreich, Barbara and John, The Professional-Managerial Class, and subsequent scholarship on administrative growth in higher education.
Student Borrower Protection Center, Student Debt and Institutional Finance, 2024–2025.
This blog was kindly authored by Huw Vasey, a Principal Consultant at Oxentia.
For the past six years, I’ve worked across sectors to build an ecosystem that supports the commercialisation of research for social impact – not just profit. While existing schemes don’t exclude social outcomes, they’re primarily designed to attract funding for expensive technological or medical innovations. This often sidelines social value, which rarely offers a high financial return.
Focusing on SHAPE disciplines – Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Arts for People and the Economy – has opened new possibilities. Unlike tech or biomedical innovations, SHAPE commercialisation typically involves service and process innovation, rarely includes protectable IP, and is often rooted in the deep expertise of a small group of researchers. These ventures are quicker to bring to market and require far fewer resources. This creates a unique opportunity: innovations with high social impact can scale sustainably, as long as they generate enough revenue to support themselves, without needing the kind of mega-investment required for a new drug or device.
A common counterargument is that SHAPE academics aren’t interested in commercialisation. They see their work as a public good, not something to be monetised. However, recent programmes have shown that interest grows when incentives shift. Initiatives like the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Healthy Ageing Catalyst, the ARC Accelerator, the SHAPE Catalyst, and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Food Systems Catalyst have drawn hundreds of SHAPE academics into commercialisation by offering a pathway to scale and sustain the impact of their research.
So, we have a growing pipeline. But why should society at large embrace research commercialisation for social value?
The case for SHAPE commercialisation: real-world impact at speed and scale
Sustaining and scaling impact beyond grants: Academic projects often deliver significant impact while funded, only to fade when grants end. Commercialisation offers a way to extend and grow that impact. For example, Cardiff University spin-out Nisien provides ethical online safeguarding services, and evolved from the ESRC-funded HateLab, a global hub for data and insight into hate speech and crime. The original lab had great success using AI to both measure and counter hate off and online, but it was faced with a familiar problem. How could it sustain its impact after the funding had ended? In particular, how could it retain key staff members who didn’t have university contracts? The answer they found was to commercialise – bringing in paid customers as well as conducting public research. Whilst this was great for the HateLab team, it was also a big win for both public funders of science and the wider public. Why? Because they get the benefits of research impact (better identification and countering of hate) without being saddled with the costs in the long-term, or losing the impact when an impactful project closes down
Fixing broken systems: Social ventures can address market failures or dysfunctional systems. For example, One World Together (OWT), a University of Manchester spin-out, aims to reform charitable giving and reshape the aid industry. Its aims are radical, and it addresses system-level change, which is rarely an attractive proposition for businesses. Furthermore, it required the deep knowledge and connections that only come from a long immersion in a problem space. Few outside academia would be able to achieve the type of change OWT seeks to achieve
Bottom-up social innovation: Other ventures tackle tangible local issues with scalable solutions – like Arcade, which repurposes disused spaces for community development, or Thin Ice Press, which revives forgotten industries to foster creativity and engagement. Developing such initiatives through commercialisation, rather than solely via grant funding, provides social benefits with a lower associated cost to the taxpayer. Furthermore, it brings academic knowledge and networks into bottom-up social innovation, helping to break down persistent barriers between universities and the communities they serve.
Why This Matters Now
This is a powerful mechanism for translating research into real-world change, both at scale and sustainably. Yet, it remains undervalued.
Policy makers and social scientists often focus on influencing policy as the primary mode of impact. While important, this is an indirect second or third-order influence. Commercialisation, by contrast, allows researchers to do rather than merely influence. It provides the practical demonstration that policy makers often demand: “How do I know this will work in practice?”
So why aren’t we harnessing this potential to meet our social challenges? Why isn’t it embedded in the UK Government’s missions or industrial strategy?
We overlook this opportunity at our peril.
How could we better support SHAPE commercialisation?
So, what could be done at a practical and policy level? Here are three recommendations on how to keep the sector developing
Firstly, we need to keep funding SHAPE commercialisation. Few universities have the resources or staff to do this themselves, so this needs to come from elsewhere. That may be funders like UKRI, or it might be utilising models such as shared technology transfer offices (TTOs) to de-risk the cost of SHAPE commercialisation for smaller or less expert institutions. It also means growing and developing the community of scholars and professional support who provide the blood, sweat and tears which get these enterprises off the ground. Whilst the growth potential for SHAPE commercialisation is very high, as demonstrated by Abdul Rahman et al’s latest work, the ecosystem is still at an early stage in its life cycle and is unlikely to grow successfully without nurture.
Secondly, policymakers and practitioners need to keep celebrating SHAPE commercialisation and focusing its power on societal challenges. Events like RE:SHAPE are a great way of bringing attention to the potential of SHAPE commercialisation and showcasing its successes. Aligning commercialisation programmes to societal missions helps focus the power of SHAPE on our most pressing concerns. Not doing so was a glaring omission from the current configuration of the UK Government’s mission agenda.
Finally, we need to truly understand the value of commercialisation for social impact, by which I mean we all (researchers, senior university leaders, funders and policymakers) need to start to see social impact as being on a par with income when thinking about research commercialisation. That’s not just a mindset change, but one which also suggests we need to think about how we measure and demonstrate social as well as financial impact. Whilst some may be uncomfortable with yet more metricisation in research history and experience teach that, in order for a new approach to be valued in policy circles, it needs to demonstrate its worth in a way that is comprehensible for policymakers and that will likely require some sort of impact measurements
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the state’s controversial social studies standards, citing last minute changes that included lessons on the Bible. The standards were pushed by former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and adopted by the state board of education earlier this year.
In the closely divided opinion, the state supreme court ruled that the creation of the standards violated the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, which requires state boards to publicly post such changes in an effort to maintain transparency.
“The version of the Standards approved by the Board on February 27, 2025, was not publicly posted until after the Board voted on the 2025 Standards,” the 5-4 majority opinion said. “Three Board members stated in a subsequent meeting of the Board that they did not know that the version they were voting on was different from the version publicly posted in December 2024.”
In addition, board members were notified of the new standards approximately 17 hours before voting on them, the opinion stated.
The 11th hour changes to the curriculum included requiring:
First grade students to identify how David, Goliath, Moses and the Ten Commandments influenced American colonists, founders and culture.
Second grade students to “identify stories from Christianity that influenced the America Founders and culture, including teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.”
Fifth graders to explain how “Biblical principles” influenced the American founders.
High school students to describe Biblical stories.
High school students to “identify discrepancies in the 2020 election results,” partly by examining “the sudden halting of ballot counting” and “the security risks of mail-in balloting.”
High school students to “identify the source of COVID-19 pandemic from a Chinese lab.”
The state court, however, did not decide whether the inclusion of these topics violated the FIrst Amendment, which protects religious freedom. Instead, it said the board adopted “fundamentally different substantive Standards” without proper public notification.
The standards were already on pause since September, when the state supreme court said the 2019 standards would stay in place until the lawsuit challenging the 2025 standards was decided.
The decision this week keeps the old standards in place until the state board “properly” creates new standards for social studies, which will then go to the legislature for approval, the opinion states.
“The Oklahoma State Supreme Court just launched an incredibly aggressive attack on Christianity, the Bible, on President Trump,” said Walters in a video posted to X on Wednesday. The standards, he said, were meant to “bring back an understanding of the role of the Bible in world history and American history.”
“These justices should be ashamed of themselves,” he added, calling on the justices to resign. Walters resigned in September from his role as top education official of Oklahoma, after a turbulent time in office that included other attempts to incorporate the Bible in public schools.
Civil rights organizations celebrated the ruling.
“The authority to govern comes with accountability for making decisions in the full view of the people the government serves,” said Brent Rowland, legal director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on education and other local social issues, in a Tuesday statement. “This decision moves us toward the open, rigorous, and inclusive public education our students deserve.”
A profound shift is taking place in the aspirations of American teenagers. In a Pew Research analysis of 2023 University of Michigan survey data, only 61 percent of 12th-grade girls expected to marry someday, down sharply from 83 percent in 1993. Boys, in contrast, reported a stable 74 percent, surpassing girls for the first time. Alongside this, fewer teens anticipated having children or staying married for life. Only 48 percent of 12th-graders said they were “very likely” to want children, and belief in lifelong marriage dropped from 59 percent to 51 percent over three decades.
These figures are more than statistical curiosities; they reflect structural changes in the lives of young women and reveal how cultural, economic, and social inequality shape personal expectations. Access to education and professional opportunity has expanded dramatically for women, allowing them to envision futures independent of traditional marriage and family structures. Yet these gains exist alongside persistent barriers: economic instability, student debt, and unequal labor markets make long-term commitments like marriage and homeownership fraught and uncertain. For many girls, the choice to delay or reject marriage is not merely personal—it is pragmatic.
Cultural shifts amplify this trend. For decades, mainstream media promoted the narrative of “happily ever after,” equating personal fulfillment with marriage and motherhood. Today, stories about self-discovery, financial independence, and flexibility dominate the imagination of young women. In this context, marriage is no longer the default marker of adulthood or success; it is one of many possible pathways, often weighed against educational ambitions, career goals, and economic realities.
This evolution of expectations is deeply intertwined with inequality. Historically, marriage has often reinforced gendered hierarchies, particularly among working-class and minority women, for whom early marriage frequently constrained educational and career opportunities. Delaying marriage, or choosing to forgo it altogether, can represent a form of empowerment—but it also exposes young women to the structural vulnerabilities of a society where social support and economic stability are unevenly distributed. For those without family wealth or safety nets, the decision to prioritize education or autonomy over marriage is often a negotiation with risk rather than pure choice.
The broader social implications are significant. Declining enthusiasm for marriage may influence fertility patterns, reshape household structures, and challenge institutions built around traditional family models. For policymakers, educators, and social institutions, the question becomes whether systems will adapt to support diverse life paths or continue to privilege outdated models that assume early marriage and childbearing. For young women navigating these choices, the cultural shift represents both liberation and uncertainty, an opportunity to define adulthood on their own terms amid economic and social pressures.
As these teenagers mature, their choices may redefine what adulthood looks like in the United States. The decline in the “happily ever after” fantasy signals not a rejection of commitment, but a recalibration of priorities under the weight of opportunity, constraint, and inequality. It is a moment that reveals how deeply personal aspirations—love, marriage, family—are shaped by the structures, inequities, and possibilities of the world they inherit.
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.
In higher education, organic social media often serves as the front door of your institution’s brand. It’s the place where prospective and current students, parents, alumni, and donors first get a sense of your institution’s culture, values, and voice.
Standing out in today’s saturated social media feeds requires more than just frequent posting. It’s about understanding what makes social media “social” and using it to connect with your audience in engaging ways.
Below, we’ll explore best practices for higher education institutions looking to elevate their organic social media. With these tips, you can foster genuine engagement, all while infusing your brand’s unique personality in each post.
What is Organic Social Media?
Organic social media refers to the unpaid content your institution shares on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Rather than running targeted, paid campaigns with these posts, organic social media relies on building and maintaining relationships with users who follow your institution’s accounts or come across your posts via recommendations made by platform algorithms.
Organic social is where your audience experiences the heart of your institution: the people, stories, and everyday moments that bring your campus community to life. It’s not about flashy production or ad-level polish; it’s about connection, authenticity, and storytelling.
Organic Social Media Best Practices for Higher Ed
Keep these tips in mind as you work on your institution’s organic social media strategy:
Keep It Casual (and Native)
Users scroll quickly, and they know when something feels too polished or out of place. Today’s audiences crave authenticity, not perfection. In fact, 90% of consumers say authenticity is important when deciding which brands to support (Adweek), and 63% of people say they’d engage more with brands that share content that feels real and unfiltered (Visual Contenting).
Embrace lo-fi, native-style content that blends naturally into their feeds. Phone-filmed videos, trending audio, and spontaneous moments often outperform professional shoots on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. The ultimate goal is relatability.
Show Real People
Faces stop the scroll. Featuring students, faculty, and staff helps humanize your brand and creates content the algorithm favors. Showcase day-in-the-life clips, student takeovers, or behind-the-scenes glimpses to build trust and relatability.
Be Trend-Aware (But True to You)
Trend participation can boost visibility, but don’t jump on every viral moment. Choose trends that align with your school’s voice and mission, then add your institution’s own creative spin. That’s what makes content memorable.
Don’t Be Overly Salesy
Organic social media isn’t the place to push “Apply Now” or “Learn More” in every post. Instead, focus on cultivating community, telling authentic stories, and providing value. When your audience feels connected, conversions follow naturally through awareness and affinity.
Respond to Comments
Engagement is a two-way street. Replying to comments, answering questions, and even reacting with humor show that your brand listens and cares. It also signals to platform algorithms that your account fosters consistent, genuine interaction.
Every college or university has a unique voice and culture, so let it shine. Whether it’s pride, humor, or heartwarming stories, your organic social media’s tone and storytelling style should reflect what makes your community distinct. A consistent voice builds familiarity and recognition.
Listen to Your Audience
Use your comments, DMs, mentions, forum-based platforms like Reddit, and organic social listening tools as insight. What are students asking about? What content types spark the most discussion? Social listening allows you to adjust your strategy and create content they want to see.
Hone in on 3–5 Content Pillars
Avoid the temptation to post anything and everything. Identify 3–5 key themes that represent your institution (e.g., student life, academics, athletics, alumni success, community impact) and stick to them. This keeps your feed consistent and recognizable.
Take Note of Top-Performing Content
Regularly analyze what’s working through platform audits. Look at engagement metrics and qualitative feedback to identify trends in format, tone, or topic. Use those insights to refine your future content strategy, without having to reinvent the wheel each time.
Sharpen Your Organic Social Media
Organic social media is your institution’s opportunity to connect, not just communicate. By showing up authentically, highlighting real people, and leaning into your school’s unique personality, you can transform your platforms into vibrant communities that reflect campus life and values.
If your higher ed institution is ready to take the next step in its social media strategy—whether that means creating a strong organic social strategy, developing and posting content, performing a social listening analysis, or conducting a full social audit, Carnegie can help. Start a conversation with us today.
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.
