To date, the system has spent $162 million on fellows’ salaries, averaging about $7.36 million per year.
Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images
Starting next fall, the University of California system office will no longer pay for the UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, a fellowship established in 1984 to encourage more women and minority Ph.D.s to pursue academic careers.
The fellowship program, available at all 10 UC campuses and three national laboratories, has inspired numerous copycats at other state universities, including at the University of Maryland, the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, the University of Michigan and Pennsylvania State University. But its focus on recruiting diverse candidates has also been criticized by conservatives who claim it’s a pipeline for young hires with radical leftist politics.
The UC system office will stop providing financial support for the program beginning with fellows hired after summer 2025, a system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. Since 2003, the UC system office has paid the $85,000 salaries of PPFP fellows for their first five years on the faculty; then the UC campus where they are employed takes over. To date, the system has spent $162 million on PPFP faculty salaries, averaging about $7.36 million per year.
“Due to the severe budget constraints currently facing UC, the PPFP faculty hiring incentive is sunsetting as of fall 2025,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “While the University will continue to provide five years of salary support to PPFP fellows hired by summer 2025 and in earlier years, no new incentives will be provided going forward. Campuses will still be able to hire PPFP fellows as part of their normal search and hiring processes, but the additional financial contribution from the incentive program will no longer be available.”
The University of California system is facing a decline in state funding and pressure from the Trump administration to implement a number of changes that weaken or abolish diversity, equity and inclusion practices. In March, former system president Michael Drake announced a systemwide hiring freeze and other cost-saving measures. At the same time, the system board prohibited campus officials from asking job candidates to submit a diversity statement as part of the hiring process. In August, the Trump administration demanded that the University of California, Los Angeles, pay a $1.2 billion fine for allegedly failing to address antisemitism on campus, as well as overhaul numerous policies related to admissions, hiring, athletics, scholarships, gender identity and discrimination.
In a thread posted to Bluesky, Sarah Roberts, a professor of information studies, gender studies and labor studies at UCLA, called the PPFP program a “jewel in the crown for faculty development and recruitment at the University of California.”
“To my mind, not only is this a direct attack by a UC central admin content to capitulate and emulate the federal position that arrived via extortion letter, it is part of a much larger plan, congruent with UC central admin, of weakening and eliminating faculty governance and power,” Roberts wrote about the decision to end funding for the program.
Despite its origins, the PPFP no longer explicitly seeks women and minority candidates and instead considers applicants “whose life experiences and educational background would help to broaden the perspectives represented in the faculty of the University of California,” according to the website.
This is a recent change; in 2024, the PPFP webpage included the tagline “advancing excellence through faculty diversity.” The criteria also stated that “faculty reviewers will evaluate candidates according to their academic accomplishments, the strength of their research proposal, and their potential for faculty careers that will contribute to diversity and equal opportunity through their teaching, research and service. Faculty reviewers also may consider the mentor’s potential to work productively with the candidate and commitment to equity and diversity in higher education.”
The PPFP, and fellow-to-faculty programs at large, have drawn criticism from conservatives including John D. Sailer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who has written extensively on the programs. He believes they allow universities to recruit scholars who “embrace positions on the fringes of leftist politics.”
“Ideological screening has downstream consequences for our sensemaking institutions,” Sailer wrote in a February article. “Ultimately, the fellow-to-faculty model pushes conformity across once-distinct academic fields. As the UC professor put it, ‘it erodes disciplinary boundaries,’ flattening all forms of inquiry into a discussion of race and oppression.”
Today’s students quickly spot generic, rinse-and-repeat marketing from a university. Cut through the sameness slop and create a positioning strategy that actually connects.
Higher education is at a crossroads. Enrollment is declining. Public perception is shrinking. And nearly every institution is saying the same thing: excellence, innovation, community.
Meanwhile, students and families are asking tough questions about the real-world value of a degree. In this new reality, universities can no longer rely on tradition or reputation alone. To thrive, they need clarity and courage. And they need a positioning strategy that captures who they are—and why that matters.
A strong positioning strategy doesn’t just shape marketing. It shapes culture, recruitment, retention, and reputation. It helps universities tell a truer story about themselves—and connect that story to the students, faculty, and partners who will carry it forward.
Here are the six elements every successful university positioning strategy must include.
1. Target your audiences carefully.
A strong positioning strategy starts with targeting specific student subsets.
Are you recruiting first-generation students or career changers? Honors scholars or working professionals? Local residents or international learners? Understanding who you’re trying to reach—and what drives their decisions—anchors every other element of your strategy.
And don’t forget the people behind the scenes: faculty, staff, and donors. The best universities understand that attracting the right people internally is just as important as recruiting students externally.
2. Focus the Geography of Your Recruitment
Where will you focus your recruitment efforts? Know where your target audiences are —geographically and digitally —so you can reach them. Which regions, cities, or even online communities align best with your programs and brand?
Now is the time to revisit your recruiting map. Shifts in demographics and enrollment trends mean yesterday’s strongholds may not be tomorrow’s growth markets.
3. Build on Academic Strengths
What academic programs will attract your target audiences? Identify your institution’s strengths and areas of expertise. The programs you offer need to align with your audience’s needs.
Whether it’s a renowned nursing program, an emerging data science initiative, or a distinctive liberal arts approach, clarity here will shape everything else—your messaging, recruitment, and even partnerships.
Then, make your offerings accessible through the pathways your target audiences need—undergraduate, graduate, online, hybrid, or evening programs. It is likely that students need different pathways, so be flexible here.
4. Price with Intention
Your pricing strategy should reflect your positioning. Are your audiences looking for value, accessibility, or prestige? There’s no one right answer, but there is a wrong one: misalignment.
Align your tuition, scholarships, and financial aid strategy with your audiences and geography. A well-designed tuition calculator that delivers real-time estimates can make the difference between interest and enrollment.
5. Prioritize Student Support
Recruitment may fill your seats, but support keeps them filled.
Universities that build cultures of belonging—through mentoring, mental health support, financial assistance, and strong academic advising—don’t just retain students. They create lifelong advocates.
Is your first-year experience intentionally designed for retention? Do you proactively re-engage at-risk students? Do your clubs and organizations reflect the diversity of your student body? These increase the likelihood of success at your university.
6. Create an Experience That Feels Alive
Students don’t just want a degree—they want a life during those years.
We hear it time and again: what ultimately draws students in is a sense of belonging, fun, and possibility. Your positioning should capture the energy of your campus and the spirit of your city.
Show it. Don’t just say it. Make it clear that students like the ones you are targeting are having a great college experience.
That emotional pull is often the difference between “accepted” and “enrolled.”
Integration is the Secret to Success
Each of these elements—audience, geography, programs, cost, support, and experience—needs to work together. Every decision in one area affects the other. When they are unaligned, your messaging will suffer.
When your strategy is integrated and authentic, your university doesn’t just stand out. It stands for something.
From Survival to Significance
In a marketplace crowded with sameness, differentiation is the ultimate advantage.
A powerful university positioning strategy gives you more than just messaging—it gives you momentum. It helps you attract the right students, engage the right partners, and chart a sustainable path forward.
The question isn’t whether your university needs a positioning strategy. The question is: how bold are you willing to be?
Two federal judges on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump’s move to suspend food stamp benefits starting November 1 amid the month-long government shutdown, with each noting contingency funding is available.
It’s unclear if the Trump administration plans an appeal or how quickly food assistance can flow to the 42 million Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Sixteen million of them are children, putting pressure on schools to address their needs.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to distribute the funds in a timely manner using contingency money.
“SNAP benefits have never, until now, been terminated,” McConnell said, as reported in The Hill. “And the United States has in fact admitted that the contingency funds are appropriately used during a shutdown, and that occurred in 2019.”
In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts gave the Trump administration until Monday to decide whether it will provide at least some food stamp benefits to recipients. She indicated the suspension of SNAP benefits is contrary to law.
She found fault with the defendants’ assertion that the U.S Department of Agriculture is prohibited from funding SNAP because Congress has not enacted new appropriations for the current fiscal year.
“To the contrary, defendants are statutorily mandated to use the previously appropriated SNAP contingency reserve when necessary and also have discretion to use other previously appropriated funds,” she wrote.
Despite the judges’ rulings, many advocates say some kids will go hungry in November because the process for obtaining the aid consists of multiple steps — some of which have already been missed for those who receive help at the start of every month.
On October 28, more than 20 states, the District of Columbia, and three governors sued the USDA for suspending November’s SNAP benefits. They called the move unprecedented and illegal.
“SNAP is one of our nation’s most effective tools to fight hunger, and the USDA has the money to keep it running,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, long embroiled in her own legal battle with the president, said in a statement. “There is no excuse for this administration to abandon families who rely on SNAP, or food stamps, as a lifeline. The federal government must do its job to protect families.”
Gina Plata-Nino, interim director for SNAP at the Food Research & Action Center, said her organization encouraged the USDA to tap into its contingency and reserve funds to save children and families from going hungry. By missing this opportunity, at least some recipients will likely miss their allotment.
Plata-Nino said states were directed by federal officials on Oct. 10 to stop reporting critical data — a list of household eligibility and food stamp allocation — information they send directly to electronic benefit transfer contractors, who are key in distributing the aid.
“Even in the best-case scenario, if the judge says, ‘We rule in your favor and we demand that this happens right now’, and the Trump administration doesn’t appeal…the process of getting benefits into recipients’ accounts would take time,” she said.
Arlen Benjamin-Gomez, executive director of EdTrust New York, a statewide education policy and advocacy organization, said it’s clear that serious damage has already been done to what is an essential program.
“We know from what has happened so far with this administration that when they make announcements like this, it does have a direct impact on programs and the ability to sustain them,” she said. “For example, there was an announcement of federal cuts to Head Start very early on in the administration, and the program actually shut down. It’s still recovering. So, we can’t predict the chaos that is spread by this most recent effort to cut benefits.”
Benjamin-Gomez praised New York for declaring a state of emergency on the matter: Gov. Kathy Hochul is committing an additional $65 million in new state funds for emergency food aid to support state food banks. But not all states will do the same.
Ian Coon, spokesperson for Alliance for Education, an independent, local education fund that supports Seattle Public Schools, said his organization has already earmarked funding to bridge the gap for those in need.
He said the Alliance decided in late October to fund $150,000 in gift cards to area food stores for families in crisis. He said school staff will help identify children in need and offer the assistance of $25, $50 or $100. The $150,000 comes from a reserve fund.
“We are fully aware it’s not a long-term solution, but we needed to do something,” Coon said.
Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy analysis for Share Our Strength, which runs No Kid Hungry, said her organization also does not predict an abrupt or smooth end to the suffering of American families who rely on these benefits.
“We are not holding our breath for the money to start flowing today,” she said. “Kids can’t wait: Families have to eat every single day. We know from our extensive work with schools that teachers already see kids show up to school hungry on Monday mornings. We can only imagine how much worse that would be if a family came in and were expecting to see benefits on Saturday and they did not. It’s an unbelievable strain for food banks. We know that schools will be an important resource for many families, but they can’t fill in the gap.”
In fiscal year 2023, nearly 80% of SNAP households included either a child, an elderly person or a nonelderly individual with a disability, according to the USDA. About 39% of SNAP participants were children that year.
A statement on the federal agency’s website blames Senate Democrats for the shutdown.
“They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance,” the statement read.
The department declined to comment on the judges’ rulings.
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
I spent 16 years as an enrollment leader and another 10-plus years working with enrollment leaders. As a result, I’ve witnessed firsthand how the standard lead-generation model for building enrollment is failing institutions.
The promise is enticing: Your marketing agency delivers a list of thousands of names of prospective students, your enrollment team works the list, and students materialize. But this approach creates a vicious cycle that undermines everything mission-driven institutions stand for. It’s like the effects of taking steroids to enhance your athletic performance — you see short-term gains that appear to be unstoppable, but they ultimately take your money, identity, and health.
Here’s what I’ve learned about shifting from a lead-chasing mindset to a long-term perspective focused on building enrollment foundations that actually last.
Finding mission-aligned students requires more than asking your institution’s marketing agency to generate leads. The traditional model — buy bulk leads, work leads, generate students — seems efficient on paper. In practice, however, it produces low conversion rates, disengaged enrollment staff, escalating acquisition costs, and devastating attrition rates.
The math alone should give you reason to pause. When you generate more leads, you need more enrollment personnel to work them. Now you have two major problems: low-converting prospects and mounting personnel costs. Your enrollment counselors spend their days chasing people who don’t understand your mission, don’t fit your institutional culture, and, if they do enroll, often disappear after a term or two (often because they become a lead for another institution).
This isn’t just inefficient. It’s likely counterproductive to establishing your institution’s identity. Students recruited through generic lead generation don’t know anything about your institution or what it represents. They can’t articulate why your institution matters, which turns it into a commodity in their eyes. Students can simply ask “How long will it take?” and “How much will it cost?” and not fully realize that the college experience is about so much more than that.
Look Inward, Not Outward: The Moneyball Principle for Enrollment
There’s a powerful scene in the movie “Moneyball” in which Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland A’s baseball team, tells his scouts: “If we think like the Yankees in here, we will lose to the Yankees out there.” The same principle applies to your enrollment strategy, particularly for online and adult learners.
If you think like Grand Canyon University, Western Governors University, or Southern New Hampshire University when designing your enrollment strategies, you likely won’t win the enrollment game, and you’ll waste an extraordinary amount of money and time in the process.
Those institutions have built their models based on scale, national reach, and high-volume lead generation. They have the infrastructure, capital, and brand recognition to make that work. Your institution probably doesn’t, and it shouldn’t try to.
Just as consumers often turn to unique restaurants and up-and-coming artists once the chain establishments and pop stars start to feel too ubiquitous and impersonal, prospective students are increasingly drawn to institutions that offer something distinctive and local. Niche markets can be extraordinarily powerful when you serve them authentically. They generate raving fans. They create word-of-mouth referrals. And they build communities that sustain themselves.
Your competitive advantage isn’t going to come from outspending the national players. It can only come from your institution being exactly what it is, something that no other institution can be. It’s about attracting students who are attracted to your mission and vision.
Understanding the Complete New Student Journey
Creating a mission-centric marketing strategy begins with understanding every aspect of how prospective students experience your institution: from the design of your logo the first time they see it through the response to their first communication, the cadence of subsequent touches, and the tone of every interaction.
One of my greatest frustrations in how higher education operates is the request-for-information (RFI) process. We ask students to provide their information and then tell them to wait for someone to contact them.
Almost no other industry operates this way anymore. Imagine filling out a form on Amazon and receiving a message that says, “Thank you for your interest. Someone will call you within 48 hours to help you complete your purchase.” It’s absurd. Try it out for yourself. Request information from your institution and see what happens.
My advice is to move away from the “Thank you, someone will be in touch” message immediately. Create an instant post-RFI experience that welcomes students and allows them to explore right then and there. Give them immediate access to program information, faculty insights, student stories, and next steps. Let them self-serve while your enrollment team prepares for meaningful, high-value conversations with them.
When students arrive at those conversations already informed and engaged, conversion rates improve dramatically and the students who enroll actually fit the university’s mission. Let’s also not forget that passionate graduates have historically led to alumni giving down the road.
Using Faculty as Your Most Credible Marketers
Building a mission-centric enrollment strategy requires faculty involvement. In the age of large language models and content generated by artificial intelligence (AI), credible human voices matter more than ever. Prospective students can spot generic marketing copy instantly. What can’t be replicated is the authentic passion of a faculty member explaining why their discipline matters and how your institution approaches it differently.
Your faculty are your best marketers, especially right now. They bring subject matter expertise, institutional knowledge, and genuine enthusiasm to your messaging. They can articulate your mission in ways that marketing agencies never will. When faculty are engaged in creating content, participating in virtual information sessions, and connecting with prospective students during the exploration phase, the return on investment is extraordinary.
Embracing Cybernetics: Governance That Learns and Adapts
If you haven’t read Robert Birnbaum’s “How Colleges Work,” I strongly recommend it. Birnbaum outlines four organizational models in higher education, and I can typically identify which model an institution operates under after just one interaction. I can definitely confirm it if I look at their historical enrollment data.
For enrollment management specifically, I advocate for what Birnbaum calls the cybernetics model. Cybernetic systems are self-correcting. Teams gather feedback, learn from outcomes, and adjust their strategies accordingly. This stands in stark contrast to the way the political, bureaucratic, and collegial organizational models that often dominate campus decision-making operate.
A cybernetic approach to enrollment planning means:
Creating governance structures in which teams have genuine authority to act
Establishing clear feedback loops among marketing, admissions, student success, and academic affairs
Using data to inform decisions rather than defend territories
Building accountability that’s linked to shared outcomes rather than departmental metrics
Adapting strategies based on what actually works, not what teams wish would work
A cybernetic approach requires institutional leaders, particularly presidents and provosts, to take ownership of the enrollment vision and build governance bodies that align departmental goals with shared institutional goals. Cross-functional committees need decision-making power, not just advisory status. And planning must extend beyond annual cycles to capture multiyear trends and institutional transformation.
Reallocating Budgets for Mission-Aligned Impact
Shifting to a mission-driven enrollment strategy requires budget reallocation. You must move dollars away from lead volume activities and toward initiatives that create lasting impact, such as:
Faculty-driven enrollment strategies that showcase your distinctive strengths
Mission-driven search engine optimization (SEO) and generative engine optimization (GEO) strategies that capitalize on these distinctive strengths
Content creation that tells your institutional story authentically
Relationship-building programs that deepen community connections
Course scheduling systems that ensure students can access the right courses at the right terms
These investments usually don’t generate immediate returns in the same way that purchasing 10,000 leads might. But they compound over time. They build an institution’s reputation. They create the conditions for sustainable enrollment growth rather than the enrollment roller coaster that exhausts everyone involved.
Key Takeaways
Lead-chasing produces shallow growth that fades quickly and corrodes an institution’s culture. The alternative isn’t to abandon growth. It’s to anchor growth in the institution’s actual identity and what it genuinely offers.
Mission-aligned enrollment requires a commitment to optimizing the entire new student journey, from first awareness through graduation and beyond. It demands faculty involvement, genuine differentiation, and governance structures capable of learning and adapting.
Gone are the days when institutions could buy leads, work the leads, and generate students. That approach leads to poor outcomes for everyone: low conversion rates, disengaged employees, escalating costs, and high attrition.
The institutions that thrive in the coming decade won’t be those that outspend their competitors on lead generation. They’ll be the ones that know exactly who they are, communicate it with clarity and conviction, and build enrollment systems worthy of their mission.
Stop thinking like the Yankees. Start building on the foundation you already have.
Let Archer Help You With Enrollment Planning
In my years of experience, I’ve helped many institutions establish a strong enrollment strategy. And I’m far from alone in my expertise at Archer Education. Our full-service team partners with colleges and universities of all kinds to help them build and scale their capacities.
Is your institution ready to work with a collaborative partner who takes the time to get to know you, then makes custom recommendations based on their decades of experience? Reach out to us today!
New policy mandates force us to rethink how best to meet what the Boyer 2030 Commission termed “the equity-excellence imperative.” One way to pursue this goal is to consider the role played by first-generation student success initiatives, which continue to enjoy broad public support. In the current climate, higher ed may be forgiven a rush to establish centers or initiatives for first-generation student success, as many colleges and universities already have. But before we get to raising funds and creating logos, let’s pause and consider new ways to think about and organize such efforts to best meet the moment.
To put it bluntly, what business is it of ours, or anyone’s, what a student’s parents’ educational attainment happens to be? The usual answer is that we inquire because we aim to foster upward social mobility, and because we know from research that students who are the first in their families to attend college do not succeed at the same cohort rates as so-called continuing-generation students. But I emphasize cohort rates because we are not talking about a group, defined by self-awareness and interaction, but indeed a cohort, defined by impersonal and ill-defined criteria. At the level of individuals and families, first-gen discourse presumes deficits, is intrusive and can be off-putting and condescending.
Neither of your parents (you have two, right?) earned a bachelor’s degree?
I’d venture that most who work with first-gen students would agree that there are enduring questions about how best to define who is and is not first-generation using one of several plausible definitions. And even after four decades of promotion, I think it’s fair to say that few students arrive on campus as self-conscious “first-gens,” however defined.
Some imagine that they qualify if they are the first of their siblings to attend college. Others wonder, understandably, if a parent’s associate degree or years of college attendance not resulting in degree attainment substitutes for an earned bachelor’s degree. A few may even think, erroneously, that they qualify if they are the first in their family to attend a particular institution.
And then there are the overriding problems of stigma and stereotype threat. Efforts to dispel negative connotations and instill pride notwithstanding—First!—most people can smell a rat when in the presence of Rodentia. While some minoritized students may find it a useful alternative to other, more vexing labels, many students wrestle with it, as they might with any label, especially in the absence of a related scholarship or other inducement. I used to regularly tell first-gens that the land-grant university to which they had matriculated was theirs, that it was made for them and that it was nice of them to let others use it, too. But such tricks of the trade are needed only because the reality, often stark, is so contrary.
Instead of fighting a Sisyphean battle tainted by class bias, I suggest that we acknowledge that first-gen discourse defines students by a characteristic that is out of their control and that the label is troubling when applied to individual students. Consider that we have more control over almost every other way of identifying ourselves, including our gender and sexuality! Parents, guardians and other parental authorities are as close to a given as it gets, and to define one by a given is reductionist and objectifying.
To help underscore the stakes involved, consider this thought experiment. What if we labeled students whose parents possess earned doctorates as “dockies” and awarded them membership in the honors program? Most would recoil at even the thought of it. We assume that dockies are privileged or at least not in need of privileged access to scarce resources. We imagine them as possessed of abundant social and cultural capital and a healthy amount of regular old capital, too. Why actively reproduce privilege?
But let us immediately observe that such assumptions are just as potentially ill-founded for individual dockies as they are for individual first-gens. Ask a Ph.D.-holding parent of a neurodiverse child, of a drug-addicted child, a child with disabilities, a child prone to perfectionism, a child of mild ambition and so forth, and they are apt to share an earful. And let us acknowledge that dockies are often given access to scarce resources such as merit-based scholarships and extra help via supportive honors programs, and for legitimate reasons. For one, these students earn such considerations by virtue of their academic achievement. They also may need them to fulfill their considerable potential.
The key distinction, then, is between how we relate to students as individuals and what we do to make our institutional practices and campus cultures accessible and just. But before saying more about that, I acknowledge that there is an entrenched cultural assumption in play. We hold that individuals are infinitely complex and of universal value, each unique and sacred. (I mean this exactly and empirically; no rhetorical flourish or exaggeration is involved.) Individual students are not, in this view, bearers of three or four defining categories, nor should we treat them as representatives of groups. That is called stereotypical thinking, and it leads to tokenism, and neither stereotypical thinking nor tokenism have ever been good things. Students have multiple identities, as we all do, and we should not presume which of them are most salient or assume that they are immutable or invariant.
When, however, we turn attention to institutional and cultural realities—particularly to our college and university’s policies and practices, to campus values, norms and built environment and so forth—then, yes, by all means, dust off social science and humanities textbooks and deploy concepts, data and pertinent humanistic discourses that are needed to make sense of systems, contested histories, shared meanings and the like. Here is where centers for first-generation student success have their rightful place, as hubs for institutional reform, designed to bring into existence a higher education that meets students where they are, as we say.
First-gen centers might support research into how students experience college life and in other ways help faculty, staff, administrators and graduate students working with undergraduate students to better understand and interact with them. (Three cheers for faculty meals in residence halls!) First-gen centers might facilitate integration of high-impact practices into curricula, rendering these no-longer-nice-to-haves affordable and accessible, and help banish class biases as revealed in diffuse condescension by the college-educated and well-heeled with respect to those thus othered and belittled. Let us put an end to arcane language used for the latent purpose of policing class distinctions and eliminate barriers of entry to STEM majors, which track already underresourced students into lower-paying professions, however otherwise socially vital and personally fulfilling.
Colleges and universities cannot meet their missions in a democratic society unless they are shorn of institutionalized discrimination rooted in white supremacy, patriarchy, what the poet Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality,” ableism, ageism, as well as discrimination against veterans and active-duty armed service members, students whose home countries are not the United States or for whom English is not their first language, students from rural communities, students from urban communities, students from tribal communities, students from foster homes, students who are first-gen as well as students who identify with one or more of the above and then some. Our to-do list is long and varied.
First-gen discourse is, like most student success discourse, best suited for use by administrators. It is not usually the language of educators, nor should we foist it upon students themselves. To best aid students who are the first in their families to attend college, make higher education affordable, campuses welcoming, curricula efficient and effective. Facilitate transfer student success via inter-institutional peer tutoring, and in myriad similar ways remove the fences surrounding the ol’ ball field in the DEI social imaginary. Higher education may then serve the people, one individual at a time.
Steven P. Dandaneau is an associate professor of sociology at Colorado State University. He is a former advisory board member for the Center for First-Generation Student Success, an initiative of NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education and the Suder Foundation, and was recognized as a First Scholars First Generation Champion in 2018.
For the last 15 years, I have used my knowledge as a barrister and former university lecturer to advise students on their academic appeals and misconduct cases.
In that time, I have seen the best and worst of student behaviour. I have dealt with students who paid others to write their entire PhDs and who recruited stand-ins to attend clinical placements.
I have encountered countless methods of cheating, from tiny notes hidden in pockets, to phones concealed in toilets, to modified ear protectors.
Only recently, a law student told me she had seen classmates slip earphones beneath their hijab during exams, whispering questions and receiving answers from a distant accomplice.
The ethics of representation
Occasionally, students ask me to act unethically on their behalf. I recall one student who had failed a resit exam and been withdrawn from his course.
In a moment of panic, he told the university that his parents had been killed in a terrible accident shortly before his exam. He begged me to repeat the lie in my formal appeal statement to the university. I refused.
As barristers, we will fight tooth and nail for our clients, whatever they have done, but only within the confines of the truth.
I remember one Russian client who had paid someone to write every single essay and eventually been caught. I explained that the evidence against him was strong, that the prospects of success were slim, and that I could not advise him to lie to the university.
He shook his head in disgust:
What is wrong with this country? In Russia, we pay the professor and everything is okay!
Recently, I had a conversation with a person – a non-lawyer – who had set up a university appeals business abroad. Like me, he had seen the underside of higher education.
He told me that students regularly cheat in the English language proficiency tests required by universities as a condition of entry. These tests ensure that students have sufficient command of English to cope with academic study.
According to him, cheating on these tests is widespread, with some companies approaching him directly with answers to the language tests.
He explained that there were several “university appeal services” in his home country offering forged medical certificates. They also provide fabricated “essay notes” for students wishing to convince their universities they had worked on an assignment.
With a plausible medical note or a set of backdated essay drafts, a dishonest student can present a convincing case for leniency or mitigation.
Despite many years in the business, I was horrified by these revelations. I searched online and quickly found websites that sell fake tests. Thus, Legit Certify states:
We help you legally obtain an official, verifiable TOEFL certificate without taking the test…The certificate is identical to one earned through exams, fully accepted by universities…
…fake/replica sick notes in the United Kingdom and Australia.
Are universities aware of this? Do they know that some of their international students gain admission, or overturn decisions, on the basis of falsified or manipulated documents? What checks do they make to ensure the authenticity of medical and other documentary evidence?
Conflicts of interest
With 40 per cent of English universities in financial deficit, there is also the uncomfortable question of money. The revenue from international students is so significant that many institutions may struggle to survive without it.
This financial dependence creates a conflict of interest. If a university uncovers widespread cheating in English language tests, or if it learns that students gained entry or remained on a course with false credentials, how should it react? If it investigates properly, the findings may threaten the much-needed flow of income.
Handling the growing number of cases of misconduct and appeals is itself resource-intensive and costly. A professor friend of mine, who examines PhDs, told me that he never fails a PhD student because, in his words, “it’s not worth the hassle of an inevitable appeal”.
A university that turns a blind eye may preserve the balance sheet but corrodes academic standards.
Some universities take the issue seriously. They invest in resources to detect cheating, run hundreds of misconduct panel hearings, and occasionally expel students. However, I doubt all institutions appreciate the scale of the problem or the sophistication of the cheating industry.
There is an international trade in dishonesty that exploits the pressure on students to succeed and the reluctance of universities to jeopardise their financial health and reputation.
If universities are not already alive to this reality, they need to wake up. Every forged medical letter that passes unchecked, every essay or thesis written by a ghostwriter, every fraudulent placement report that slips through the net, undermines the credibility of the institution and the degree it awards.
Paying the price
The harm is not limited to universities themselves. Employers, patients, clients and the public at large may pay the price if unqualified or dishonest graduates enter professional roles. Who wants to hire a lawyer or engineer who cheated in their exams, or be treated by a doctor who paid someone to attend clinical placements for them?
The purpose of higher education is not simply to hand out degrees in exchange for fees but to cultivate knowledge and skill, to educate. If universities fail to address the growing industry of deception, they risk betraying that purpose.
The question is not whether students cheat – they plainly do and probably more than ever before with the advent of generative AI – but whether universities have the courage to confront it, even at the cost of short-term financial loss and reputational damage.
This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Dr Steve Briggs, Director of Learning, Teaching and Libraries, University of Bedfordshire
In the context of UK higher education, the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ are widely used when describing students – as apparent in recent blog posts published by HEPI. In this blog, I consider why the continued use of such terminology may become increasingly problematic and what might be a viable alternative.
Who are ‘traditional’ students?
The Cambridge dictionary defines ‘traditional’ as:
Following or belonging to the customs of ways of behaving that have continued in a group of people of society for a long time without changing.
As such, one can infer that the criterion for traditional students is that they will share established characteristics that have been fixed for a significant period.
The stereotypical traditional student
In the 1970s and 1980s, university students were generally young adults who left home and moved to a new city or town to study. They would routinely live with other students on or near to campus. Many would be able to undertake studies without needing to work and would have significant time available to spend on campus and engage in clubs, societies, sports teams and other social activities. In 2025, many commentators will cite this profile as being synonymous with a traditional student.
The rise of the non-traditional student
In the context of the UK, the term ‘non-traditional student’ has been widely used to differentiate learners who do not adhere to the aforementioned traditional student convention. Examples of characteristics seen to make a student non-traditional include:
Commuting to university, rather than living on campus
Being over the age of 21
Having parental and/or caring responsibilities
Hailing from a lower socio-economic background
Being the first-in-family to study at university
Having had experience of the care system
Such individuals are often time-poor but commitment-rich and in turn have very limited availability to spend on campus outside of scheduled sessions. The use of the non-traditional label has been used increasingly since the advent of widening participation in the 1990s.
Perceptions of traditional are not fixed
The concept of a traditional student is time-bound. For example, pre-1900, there was a small number of ancient universities in the UK and relatively very low numbers of students. Increased numbers of universities opening during the 1900s meant that more individuals were able to study at university, many of whom would be labelled as non-traditional relative to those pre-1900. However, the same group has since then been re-defined as traditional relative to those who studied in the 1990s.
Over the last twenty-five years non-traditional characteristics have become increasingly common amongst the student population. For example, in 2025, HESA reported that over half of students were from IMD quintiles 1 and 2, and the vast majority of students are now over the age of 20. Following previous trends, there will come a point, potentially in the not-too-distant future, whereby the current generation of non-traditional students will become viewed as traditional. The cyclical process will then likely start again with a new conceptualisation of what is non-traditional.
More nuanced classification options
Given the time-bound nature of both traditional and non-traditional characteristics I suggest that higher education commentators should consider the use of more exact terminology when discussing student cohorts. I suggest two options:
By decade: Student groups could be framed in terms of decades, for example the demographic and characteristics of students of the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s, etc. Such an approach could work well if there was stability over a decade however, the impact of social or global events (such as a recession, government policy or pandemic) may mean within a decade those studying within higher education could change markedly. For example, the significant impact of governmental immigration policy changes on the recruitment of international students studying in the UK during the mid-2020s.
Create generational names: Since 1950, there have been five main birth generations: Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z and Generation Alpha. Each generation has shared characteristics synonymous with being born during that period. Analogously, specific generations could be defined in terms of university students. Each generation would have a distinctive name and characteristics common amongst most members studying at university during that specific window of time. The use of student generational names would offer flexibility to account for periods of stability that lasted longer than ten years and could also accommodate sudden changes to the profile of student cohorts.
I personally favour the use of generational names given the greater flexibility. I see this as necessary given the turbulence and change experienced within the higher education sector over the last decade. For instance, I propose that the pandemic was a catalyst for the emergence of a new generation of students, a defining characteristic of which being greater experience in remote communicating and learning online.
Putting into practice
As a starter for ten, I suggest seven generations of English students over the last 150 years. A caricature for each is provided – these are intended to be illustrative of generational difference rather than exhaustive:
Ancient Generation (pre-1900): A student would study at one of the ancient universities in the UK. Students were mainly from the upper social class, and a fraction of the population attended university. Those attending university would be financially supported by personal networks.
Redbrick Generation (circa 1900-1945): Most students studied at an ancient or redbrick university. Students continued to be mainly from the upper social class, and in turn a small percentage of the population attended university.
Post-World War Two Generation (circa 1946-1989): As the number of universities progressively expanded, students had greater geographic access to higher education. Students could access maintenance grants to cover the cost of living whilst studying. This allowed students to readily engage in activities alongside their studies.
Widening Participation Generation (circa 1990 – 1997): The number of universities significantly increased following the integration of polytechnics. Concentrated efforts were made to expand access to higher education and the percentage of students from previously underrepresented groups increased. In addition to maintenance grants, students were able to access low-cost student loans.
Tuition Fee Generation (circa 1998 – 2014): The widening participation imperative remained but students now paid a tuition fee to study. Choice of where to study remained limited by student number caps. Maintenance grants were abolished and replaced with student loans. As fees progressively increased more students found they needed to undertake work whilst studying.
Free Market Generation (circa 2015 – 2019): Widening participation remained a priority. The student number cap is removed, and many universities actively expand the availability of places. Students have unprecedented choice in terms of where to study at university. Tuition fees and living costs remain a challenge for many students and numbers working whilst studying remains very high.
Pandemic Generation (circa 2020 – current): The pandemic results in a sudden and seismic shift to online education across schools, colleges and universities. This results in students have new experiences and expectations related to online and blended learning. Cost of living increases following the pandemic resulted in more student facing financial hardships in turn resulting in many spending less time on campus. Demand for mental health and well-being support increases.
Analogous to birth generations, I would see that other interpretations of higher education student generation names could emerge through research outputs, thought pieces or social events as opposed to being determined by a single group or professional body. Influential think tanks like HEPI could play a key role in providing platforms for such discussion.
I foresee there potentially being variations in proposed student generational definitions (as is the case with birth generations) but if all are clearly defined, these would all be invaluable for higher education commentators when discussing longitudinal changes in cohorts over time.
The early years are a critical time to teach the foundations of math. That’s when children learn to count, start identifying shapes and gain an early understanding of concepts like size and measurement. These years can also be a time when children are confronted with preconceived notions of their abilities in math, often based on their race, which can negatively affect their math success and contribute to long-standing racial gaps in scores.
These are some of the motivating factors behind the Racial Justice in Early Math project, a collaboration between the Erikson Institute, a private graduate school focused on child development, and the University of Illinois Chicago. The project aims to educate teachers and provide resources including books, teacher tips and classroom activities that help educators combat racial bias in math instruction.
I sat down with Danny Bernard Martin, professor of education and mathematics at the University of Illinois Chicago, project director Priscila Pereira and Jennifer McCray, a research professor at the Erikson Institute, to learn more about their work. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What are some of the key examples of racial injustice that you see in early math education?
Martin: If I say to you, ‘Asians are good at math,’ that’s something that you’ve heard, we know that’s out there. When does that kind of belief start? Well, there’s something called ‘racial-mathematical socialization’ that we take seriously in this project, that we know happens in the home before children come to school. Parents and caregivers are generating messages around math that they transmit to children, and then those messages may get reinforced in schools.
Even at the early math level, there are research projects beginning to construct Black children in particular ways, comparing Black children to white children as the norm. That is a racial justice issue, because that narrative about white children, Black children, Asian American children, Latinx children, then filters out. It becomes part of the accepted truth, and then it impacts what teachers do and what principals and school leaders believe about children.
What does this look like in schools?
McCray: Perhaps the math curriculum doesn’t represent them or their experience. We all know that often schools for children of color are under-resourced. What often happens in under-resourced schools is that the curriculum and the teaching tends to focus on the basics. There might be an overemphasis on drilling or doing timed tests. We also have those situations where people are doing ability grouping in math. And we know what the research says about that, it’s basically ‘good education for you, and poor education for you.’ It’s almost impossible to do any of that without doing harm.
One line of research has been to watch teachers interact with children and videotape or study them. And in diverse classrooms with white teachers … often it is observed that children who are Black or Latina aren’t called on as often, or aren’t listened to as much, or don’t have the same kind of opportunity to be a leader in the classroom.
What should teacher prep programs, administrators and families do to address racial justice issues in early math?
McCray: Maybe the white teacher is reflecting on themselves, on their own biases … trying to connect with families or communities in some way that’s meaningful. We want teachers to have that balance of knowing that sometimes you do want to teach a procedure, but you never want to be shutting down ideas for creative ways to solve a math problem, or culturally distinct ways to solve a math problem that might come from your students.
It might be something like, you’re working on sorting in an early childhood classroom. And what if a child is thinking about a special craft that their parent does that’s like the [papel picado], or papers that get cut in very elaborate designs in Mexico. … If the teacher doesn’t have space to listen, it could be a shutdown moment, instead of a moment of connection, where the child is actually bringing something … that is associated with their own identity.
Pereira: I do feel that sometimes the conversations of racial justice really put the weight on teachers and teachers alone. Teaching is part of a larger structure. Maybe your school will not allow you to do the work that is needed. I’m thinking about [a teacher] who was required to follow a scripted curriculum that did not promote the positive math identity for Black children. It needs to be a whole community effort.
How is your initiative changing this?
Pereira: There are resources in terms of opportunities that we offer to teachers to engage with our content and ideas: webinars, a fellowship and an immersive learning experience in the summer of 2026. These spaces are moments in which educators, researchers and people that are engaged in the education of young learners, can come together … and disrupt mainstream notions of understanding what is racial justice and how one gets that in the classroom.
Right now, research and initiatives zeroing in on race are under scrutiny, especially at the college level. Do you foresee any additional challenges to this work?
Pereira: There was a National Science Foundation grant program focused on racial equity in STEM and we had been planning to apply for funds to do something there. … It’s gone. … The only place we’re welcome is where there’s a governor who is willing to take on Trump. We just have to keep doing the work, because we know what’s right. But it is challenging, for sure.
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.
Each summer I make a point of stopping by a first-year orientation session at the University of Virginia, where I have been a professor in the music department for 18 years. The sessions take place in the historic concert hall on the floor below my office. On June 30, members of the Class of 2029 danced their arrival wearing the university’s colors of blue and orange.
Usually, the raw enthusiasm and promise of the students reminds me why, on many days, I love my job. It didn’t work this time. I just couldn’t resolve the dissonance between the fantasy and the reality. The fantasy was of a college education these young people worked so hard to land. In real life, the Department of Justice had just pressured our president, Jim Ryan, into quitting, demanding his resignation to supposedly resolve an investigation into the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
This is almost old news by now. But it shouldn’t be. There is a direct line between the Jan. 6 insurrection and the 2017 Unite the Right march, when, just days before first-year students started school, a few hundred white nationalists emboldened by the first Trump presidency marched across campus with their torches, chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” The legal historian Farah Peterson, who used to teach here, writes that “an embrace of violence to assert constitutional claims” is baked into our history and that the founders understood violence as a way of making legal arguments.
The charge against UVA by the Department of Justice is being led by two UVA alums. One of them, Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general who overlapped with Jim Ryan at UVA law school, served as co-chair in 2020 of Lawyers for Trump, which challenged the presidential election results, and represented Trump in a defamation suit involving Stormy Daniels.
The ousting of Jim Ryan was not a surprise. But even after the Trump administration’s relentless siege on universities, it was a gut punch. Those of us who teach here have predicted for months that the Board of Visitors would try to fire Ryan this July, when all of its appointed members would be Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s appointees. We’ve been through that before. In 2012, when the Board of Visitors fired then-president Teresa Sullivan, faculty, students and alumni stood up to resist corporate America infringing on the educational mission of the university, and the board reinstated her.
Youngkin’s newest appointees to UVA’s board include the controversial Ken Cuccinelli, who, when he was the state attorney general, led an assault on academic freedom in the form of a civil investigation targeting five grants held by climate scientist Michael Mann. Youngkin, for his part, has long intended to purge the state’s education system of “divisive concepts”—things like acknowledging the fact that the buildings of Jefferson’s “Academical Village” were built by the enslaved. When the Board of Visitors banned DEI in March of this year, Youngkin gleefully stated, “DEI is done at the University of Virginia. We stand for the universal truth that everyone is created equal, and opportunity is at the heart of Virginians’ and Americans’ future.”
I think we know whom he means by “everyone.”
Beloved by many here, including me, Ryan is perhaps a once-in-a-generation leader. Still, he is so very far from “woke.” As the student satire magazine put it, “Fly high Jim, we’ll never forget the early mornings, late nights, and also the several hundred state troopers you sent to attack students for peacefully protesting.” In May 2024, Ryan did not hesitate to crack down on a very small pro-Palestine encampment. No one at the university cracked down on those tiki torch–bearing white nationalists.
Here is what we are guilty of: believing that our professional duty requires us to openly reflect on our individual and collective responsibilities in a democracy. We do think it’s our job to give our students tools to respond to the world they will inherit. If we were guilty of or capable of “left-wing indoctrination,” I suspect we would have a different governor and maybe different other things, too. Almost 70 percent of our students are from Virginia.
Because we are guilty of believing that history matters, we can’t ignore the wicked irony of a federal and state government killing diversity-related programs and forcing out a president in part by leveraging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in1868. This amendment, which mandated equal protection for all humans, is now weaponized to protect only white people. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, religion, sex or national origin. It has been similarly weaponized.
Meanwhile, our history also includes these facts: The UVA biology department taught eugenics until 1953. Not only was the institution built by enslaved laborers, but by 1829 it had its very own slave patrol. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson wanted to establish a University of Virginia in part because too many young men went north and learned the evils of abolition. Such thinking amounted to a canker “eating on the vitals of our existence, and if not arrested at once will be beyond remedy.” More recently, the Office for Civil Rights did not approve the commonwealth of Virginia’s plan for desegregating higher education until 1982.
My current and former students have been texting from all over the world since Ryan’s June 27 resignation announcement. Mostly they want to know: Why UVA? Virginia is arguably ground zero for reckoning with the chattel slave system and its intertwining with a flailing fantasy of democracy. “The 1619 Project” made front-page news of it. But you don’t have to go back that far.
Thanks to the summer of 2017, for many Charlottesville now conjures images of burning torches and Nazi slogans. Over the weekend of Aug. 11 and 12, 2017, the sleeping dogs of America’s nasty history rose up from the evidently not dead. Richard Spencer (UVA, Class of 2001) helped orchestrate a torchlit nighttime march across our campus, the marchers barking, “Blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.” The university let this happen. In her book about the weekend of Unite the Right and the ideology that inspired it, Deborah Baker writes, “The nature of this awakening appeared to go to the core of who we are and the myths and folklore that have sustained us as a nation.”
Also that weekend of Unite the Right, a young woman was murdered and dozens were injured when a neo-Nazi drove a car into a group of counterprotesters. While the city was still reeling, Trump went on television and claimed there had been “very fine people on both sides.” There was an uproar and a backlash then. And in September 2017, the president had no choice but to sign a congressional joint resolution condemning the violence and domestic terrorist attack in Charlottesville. It is clear that no such condemnation would be forthcoming today.
This administration will not stop with Jim Ryan, and they will not stop with UVA. The miraculous dean who got those first-year students to dance on a hot June day in 2025 will get them dancing at their graduation in May of 2029. But I am very afraid of what this university, and other institutions of higher learning across the country, will look and feel like by then.
Bonnie Gordon is a professor of music at the University of Virginia and vice president of the American Musicological Society.
Is your institution’s marketing truly reaching today’s students, or are you shouting into the void? Higher education marketing is undergoing a seismic shift. With rapid changes in student behavior, the rise of AI and mounting constraints on institutional funding, marketing leaders can no longer rely on yesterday’s strategies to meet today’s challenges. Student expectations have evolved. Budgets are tightening. And yet, many institutions are still using outdated strategies that fail to resonate with the Modern Learner.
To stay competitive, institutions must embrace the new era of higher education marketing—an era defined by personalized engagement, brand-building and data-driven decision-making. In a world where marketing dollars work must work harder than ever, rethinking your strategy is no longer optional. It is essential to long-term success.
Students no longer passively wait for information. They actively seek it across multiple channels, from social platforms to AI-powered search tools. Their behaviors are more self-directed than they were even a decade ago, and the expectations they bring to the table are shaped by instant access, transparency and digital convenience. Modern Learners want institutions that reflect their values and aspirations. As a result, branding plays an even more critical role in decision-making than ever before. Trust, authenticity, and alignment with personal identity all contribute to conversion. Meanwhile AI is accelerating these shifts by analyzing behavior in real time and delivering tailored experiences at scale.
These changes are not on the horizon—they are already here. Institutions that fail to adapt risk being left behind.
This evolution is shaping the standard of higher education marketing, and redefining what it takes to attract and engage Modern Learners. Today’s students are not yesterday’s prospects. They are savvy, value-driven and self-directed. Marketing strategies must evolve to meet them where they are—not where they used to be.
At EducationDynamics, we are not here to maintain the status quo; we are here to challenge it. We rethink, rebuild and drive your institution into a future where growth isn’t just a goal—it’s a guarantee. With solutions designed to empower, we are continually adapting to the evolving needs of our partners to equip them for long-term success.
Evolving Student Behavior: Implications for Higher Education Marketing
The Changing Search Journey
Today’s students are no longer waiting to be guided; they are leading the charge. With a strong sense of autonomy and purpose, Modern Learners navigate the enrollment journey on their own terms. Their decisions are shaped by what EducationDynamics identifies as the Three C’s: cost, convenience, and career outcomes. These components are central to a student’s decision to apply or enroll. The challenge for institutions is not just to deliver value, but to demonstrate that value clearly and quickly in the digital environments that students operate in.
The student search journey has undergone a fundamental shift. No longer do students begin with degree or program keywords. Instead, 58 percent of Modern Learners now initiate their search with specific school names, according to EducationDynamics’ 2025 Engaging the Modern Learner Report. If an institution is not top-of-mind, it is already at a disadvantage.
Compounding this shift, nearly 60 percent of education-related searches result in no clicks. Students are making faster decisions, often based on AI-generated overviews that appear directly within search results. Currently, 65 percent of education searches trigger these overviews. This marks the rise of zero-click search and the emergence of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) as a critical strategy.
The message is clear: if your institution is not immediately visible and delivering value within the search experience, it risks being excluded from the student’s consideration entirely.
Search engines like Google are prioritizing quick, curated answers, reflecting broader shifts in how users engage with content. Education-related searches have become more intricate, with students asking detailed and personalized questions. They are no longer browsing—they are making decisions. A static, cumbersome website is not just outdated; it is actively repelling Modern Learners. Institutions must create digital experiences that are responsive, student-focused and seamlessly accessible across all digital touchpoints. A lack of dynamic, intuitive design is no longer an option; it’s a failure to meet Modern Learners’ expectations.
In today’s search environment, visibility alone is not enough. Institutions must deliver relevance, clarity and authenticity across channels that Modern Learners use. Institutions that want to remain competitive must not only be present at the beginning of the search journey, but also deliver information with the speed, clarity and authenticity that Modern Learners expect. Those that rise to this challenge will earn attention and trust, while those that don’t will fall behind amid competition.
The Demand for Authentic and Engaging Content
If your institution’s content strategy still leads with rankings, tradition or campus accolades, it is missing the mark. Modern Learners are not making enrollment decisions based on institutional prestige alone. They are looking for evidence of belonging, support and authenticity. Colleges and universities must shift from promotional messaging to content that mirrors the lived experiences of their students. Modern Learners want to see real people, real stories and a real sense of community.
Video content, especially in short-form, is now one of the most powerful mediums for delivering the connection that Modern Learners seek. Today’s students are not flipping through text-heavy brochures or watching ten-minute promotional videos. They are forming impressions in literal seconds, with the rise of TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. These channels are avenues where your institution’s brand can come to life, showcasing content that is concise, compelling and aligned with the pace of student attention. Highlighting faculty, student testimonials, campus culture and day-in-the-life content in thirty seconds or less can drive significantly more engagement than polished but impersonal campaigns.
Authenticity is not a trend—it is a requirement for building trust. User-generated content (UGC) plays a critical role in building credibility. When students and alumni share their own stories, they give prospective students a transparent view of your institution’s impact. An honest glimpse into campus life helps cultivate connections and bolster credibility in ways that other marketing mediums cannot achieve.
At the same time, social media is no longer just a place for amplification. Increasingly, it is becoming an integral steppingstone in the student research journey. Modern Learners actively use platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook to evaluate how your institution aligns with their lives and goals. Marketing strategies must evolve to include social-first storytelling and platform-specific content that makes the institution feel approachable and relevant.
At EducationDynamics, we don’t just help institutions meet the demand; we empower them to exceed it. We deliver Creative Solutions that are not only strategic but deeply human. Our approach centers on compelling storytelling, a student-first mindset and content designed for the channels where prospective students are making key decisions. Whether through video, social campaigns or user-driven narratives, we equip colleges and universities to show up in ways that make real impact and drive measurable results. We help our partners shape the future, rather than follow it.
Key Shifts in Higher Education Digital Marketing
Website Marketing Evolution
In today’s higher education environment, your website is not just an accessory to your digital strategy; it is the central nervous system of your brand, the engine behind your reputation and a key driver of student engagement and revenue. With deep expertise in enrollment marketing, our team of experts transforms websites into high-performing conversion machines. Through data-driven UX, advanced SEO, GEO and conversion strategies, we ensure your website continuously evolves to meet the changing demands of the industry. If your institution’s website isn’t delivering results, it’s not just underperforming—it’s limiting your growth potential.
To remain competitive, website marketing must shift from static, siloed approaches to dynamic, user-centric experiences. As student behavior changes and new digital platforms emerge, institutions must design websites that can withstand these digital disruptions and provide seamless navigation, personalized content and clear pathways to action.
Search engine algorithms are now more sophisticated and volatile, requiring deeper alignment with how students search and engage. Website optimization now requires more than traditional SEO tactics. It demands an integrated approach that combines content marketing, user journey optimization and brand amplification. A seamless student experience is essential, but so is a strategy that ensures your content reaches prospective students across multiple platforms.
The role of an institution’s website as the front door of your brand remains as vital as ever. However, the digital space has evolved beyond simply driving traffic through SEO. Today, success hinges on ensuring your content is discoverable across a wide range of digital channels, and understanding how that content is delivered to students within the search engine results pages (SERPs).
AI has become a pivotal force in content discovery and visibility within SERPS. Visual shifts in the SERPs now prioritize rich media and first-person expertise, meaning your content must not only reflect relevance but also showcase real-world experiences to stay competitive. First-person expertise, such as student stories, faculty insights and user-generated content, is increasingly favored by search engines, underscoring the growing demand for authenticity. Rich media—images, videos and interactive elements—boost engagement and click-through rates. As visual content continues to dominate SERPs, your strategy must adapt to harness these trends effectively.
Looking to 2025 and beyond, SEO will demand a comprehensive, integrated approach that encompasses both on-site and off-site elements. Institutions that focus exclusively on on-page SEO or create content in isolation risk falling short of maximizing their potential. The most successful strategies will seamlessly connect content across multiple digital channels, driving not just visibility but also meaningful engagement.
Modern website optimization will be multi-faceted and multi-channel, anchored by four key components:
SEO: Search Engine Optimization will remain foundational, still being a critical part of driving organic traffic to your website but now must be paired with user-focused content creation. A strategic blend of blog posts, video content, graphics and articles will ensure that your website remains relevant and discoverable in a competitive search environment.
User Journey Optimization: Understanding the student journey is essential for converting traffic into applications. A data-driven approach that identifies usability roadblocks and tests the optimal path to conversion is key. A/B testing and ongoing adjustments will ensure that every touchpoint on your website drives students to take meaningful actions.
Brand Amplification: Strong content deserves to be seen. To achieve this, institutions must invest in amplifying their brand through content promotion, social media engagement, local profile optimization and PR. Engaging in user-driven discussions on forums and social media platforms will strengthen your brand’s visibility and credibility, allowing your message to reach broader audiences.
Content Marketing: The creation of high-quality content is a cornerstone of digital marketing. By producing content that directly speaks to student needs, you reinforce your institution’s position as a trusted authority. Strategic content creation is not just about filling your website but aligning content with student expectations and ongoing digital trends.
With these changes, institutions must take the driver’s seat in shaping their digital presence and optimizing web strategies. Meeting the moment requires a proactive approach to evolving digital trends, ensuring that your institution remains competitive, relevant and positioned for long-term success in an increasingly dynamic online environment.
The Transformation of Paid Media
The transformation of paid media has been just as significant as the evolution in organic search. With AI now playing a central role in optimization, marketers have had to rethink not only where they invest but how they manage campaigns. Gone are the days of manual bids and rigid keyword targeting. In what was once a highly controlled environment, advertisers would apply uniform bids across all matching search queries, rely on static text ads, and build campaigns around exact or phrase match keywords. These strategies offered precision but lacked adaptability and scalability.
Today, optimization is driven by automation, data and real-time decision-making. Smart bidding adjusts bids dynamically based on user behavior, intent and context. Responsive search ads tailor messaging to the user’s query, while improved broad match capabilities allow for more relevant and flexible reach. This shift demands a new approach, one away from managing structure and more on shaping signals for AI-based optimization.
Performance Max (PMax) campaigns exemplify this change. By consolidating efforts into a single campaign that spans Google’s full inventory, advertisers can let AI optimize toward specific outcomes. Institutions are increasingly shifting towards investments in branded PMax campaigns, using them to drive awareness and conversions across the funnel. Unlocking their full potential, however, requires consideration on inputs such as audience insights, quality creative and defined performance goals.
In this environment, marketers must shift their focus. Rather than managing granular campaign structures or keyword-level bids, success depends on a streamlined structure. Over-segmentation is now the enemy of AI—limiting data flow and stalling machine learning algorithms. Instead, consolidation, automation and audience-centric strategies are key to maximizing performance and achieving scale. The more robust your audience signals and creative assets, the more effectively AI can optimize for effective campaigns.
The Central Role of Brand in Modern Higher Education Marketing
Brand as a Differentiator
In a competitive and crowded marketplace, brand is your most powerful differentiator. As enrollment pressures intensify and prospective students become more discerning, a clear and compelling brand narrative is not an accessory to success; it is essential for it. Yet many institutions struggle with perceived value leaving prospective students unsure of what truly sets them apart.
According to Hanover Research’s 2024 Trends in Higher Education report, 66% of Americans believe colleges are “stuck in the past” and no longer meet the needs of today’s students. This perception gap presents a unique opportunity for institutions to not just rebrand but redefine the role and relevance for higher education in the modern world.
Brand marketing plays a transformative role in addressing these challenges. Brand is not merely visual identity or taglines, it is about storytelling that resonates across platforms and inspires connection. With students engaging across an increasingly fragmented digital landscape, institutions must show up consistently across every touchpoint.
The emotional connection is especially important today, as higher education faces intense scrutiny from multiple forces. Amid ongoing conversations about cost, access and accountability, there is a pressing need for institutions to reshape the narrative. By investing in brand marketing, institutions can demonstrate their alignment with the needs of Modern Learners, reinforce their commitment to student outcomes and build trust in a time categorized by uncertainty.
Brand and reputation go hand in hand. One reflects your promise. The other reflects your proof. When balanced well, they shape a perception that drives enrollment, builds revenue and sustains long term success.
Today’s higher education marketers must engage students before they start their search. This requires delivering authentic content across channels that builds trust and awareness over time. The Modern Learner’s journey begins with emotion, not just information. Your brand must be visible, relatable, and memorable.
In an era marked by uncertainty and choice overload, institutions must lead with empathy, clarity, and purpose. Showcase a brand that resonates, builds confidence and drives action.
Balancing Brand and Performance Marketing
In higher education marketing, finding the right balance between brand and performance marketing channels is crucial for long-term success. Historically, higher education institutions have leaned heavily into performance marketing, driven by the immediate need for results like inquiries and applications. However, this strategy is becoming less sustainable in today’s dynamic and competitive landscape. While performance marketing continues to be essential for driving immediate conversions, it cannot be the sole focus.
Brand marketing plays an increasingly important role, especially in the upper funnel, where students are still in the process of exploring and considering their options. This phase of the student journey is more about building awareness, shaping perceptions and creating emotional connections, rather than expecting immediate results. Students are making life-changing decisions that require time, research and deep consideration, so brand-building efforts often take longer to produce tangible outcomes.
To navigate this, higher education marketers must strategically allocate resources across both brand and performance media. A suggested allocation might be 20-35% for brand marketing, including channels like Connected TV (CTV), OTT streaming video and audio, out-of-home (OOH) ads, display ads, and paid social. The remaining 65-80% can be allocated to performance marketing, focusing on paid search, paid social and website marketing. This balance allows for consistent brand presence while still driving immediate performance goals.
However, finding the right mix will depend on your institution’s unique needs and goals. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. It’s important to embrace a testing mentality when allocating your budget, understanding that this is a multi-year investment. Brand marketing’s impact often requires indirect measurement and time to mature, with a holistic cost per enrollment being a long-term goal.
By adopting a balanced approach and a willingness to test and iterate, institutions can achieve the right blend of short-term performance and long-term brand growth.
Adapting to Thrive in the New Era
The higher ed landscape is evolving and so are your students. Marketing strategies that once worked are no longer enough. To succeed, leaders must challenge the status quo, evolve their higher education marketing strategies, and fully embrace the behaviors, tools and technologies that are shaping this new era.
Now is the time to invest in transformation. Whether that means rethinking your website, shifting your media mix or consolidating campaigns to improve performance, the path forward begins with taking action.
The transformation does not have to be navigated alone. A higher education marketing agency can be a vital partner in this evolution. At EducationDynamics, we bring together proprietary research, full-funnel strategy and decades of expertise to help institutions like yours grow with confidence.
Let’s shape the future together. Connect with an EDDY expert to assess your current strategies and identify new opportunities for growth.
The institutions that succeed will be the ones that are bold enough to evolve—strategically, creatively and with purpose. Now is your opportunity to lead that change.
