This week on the podcast we examine the latest attacks on international student recruitment as Policy Exchange calls for new restrictions and a £1,000 levy on international fees.
Are universities really “selling immigration not education,” and what would raising English language requirements to advanced level mean for the sector?
Plus we discuss what incoming student leaders are promising in their manifestos – from subsidised laundry to lecture materials uploaded in advance – and ask whether the new metascience unit can deliver on its promise of a more efficient and transparent research funding system.
With Duncan Ivison, President and Vice Chancellor at the University of Manchester, Vicki Stott, Chief Executive at the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.
Just over one in 10 higher education institutions enroll at least 20 percent international students.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | skynesher/E+/Getty Images
Colleges and universities with a high percentage of international students face a credit risk as the federal government continues to target international students, according to a new report from Moody’s Ratings.
Those most at risk include the 11 percent of American institutions where international students make up more than 20 percent of the student body, the ratings agency said, as well as institutions that are already struggling financially. (In total, 6 percent of students at U.S. institutions come from other countries.)
“The reduction in international students presents a credit risk for universities heavily reliant on this demographic because of potential declines in tuition income, as international students typically pay full tuition fees,” the report states. “Additionally, with declining numbers of high school students over the next several years in the U.S. leading to fewer domestic students, universities intending to fill the gap with more international students may fall short.”
The report follows the Trump administration’s months-long attack on immigrants and international students specifically, which began with the sudden removal of thousands of students from the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System, putting their legal status at risk. Since then, the administration has implemented a travel ban that includes 12 countries, prohibiting students from those countries from studying in the United States, and has targeted international students at Harvard University specifically, attempting to end the university’s ability to host international students. The State Department has also increased scrutiny into student visa applicants’ social media presences.
It’s unclear as of yet how those factors will impact international enrollment in the fall. According to a recent report by the Institute of International Education, an approximately equal number of colleges and universities said they expected their international enrollment in the 2025–26 academic year to increase (32 percent), decrease (35 percent) and stay the same (32 percent) from this year’s numbers. But the percentage who expect a decrease was much higher than last year, when only 17 percent of institutions thought they might lose international students.
The hit to the sector may not be as significant as it would be in countries like the United Kingdom and Australia, where about 25 percent of all students are international, Moody’s reported. Still, if the U.S. lost 15 percent of its international student population, a substantial number of colleges could experience at least moderate financial repercussions, according to one projection.
About one in five colleges’ and universities’ EBIDA (earnings before interest, depreciation and amortization) margins would shrink by 0.5 to two percentage points, according to the ratings agency’s calculations.
“For entities that already are under fiscal stress and have low EBIDA margins (the median EBIDA for private nonprofit colleges and universities was 11.7 percent in fiscal 2024 and 10.7 percent for publics), a change of one or two percentage points could push them into negative territory, especially if they are heavily discounting domestic tuition or losing enrollment because of demographic shifts,” according to the report. “Also, many small private schools may need to contend with federal changes to student loan and aid programs, further depressing domestic enrollment prospects and stressing budgets, especially for those with low liquidity.”
The report stresses that this model does not account for any steps the institutions might take to mitigate those losses—especially at wealthier institutions. (Fifty-four percent of institutions with at least 15 percent international students are highly selective, while 25 percent are nonselective.)
“Institutions that are highly selective, or those with considerable reserves, may better absorb the impacts by adjusting operations or increasing domestic enrollment,” it states. “Some elite institutions are less reliant on tuition, deriving income from endowments, fundraising or research, thereby mitigating the financial impact.”
The traditional flipped classroom model, which reverses the conventional lecture-homework structure, has evolved significantly since its inception. In the digital era, especially post-pandemic, this strategy has gained renewed importance for fostering active learning, critical thinking, and academic resilience. Today, the flipped classroom is no longer just about moving lectures online but about curating immersive, personalized learning environments. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), microlearning, and learning analytics provides new dimensions to this pedagogical approach, enhancing both student preparation and in-class engagement. This article explores how these three components can reshape flipped learning and address persistent challenges such as student unpreparedness, fear of participation, and lack of motivation.
Flipped Classroom 2.0: Enriching the Core Strategy
The original flipped classroom model aimed to reverse the traditional structure of education by shifting the transmission of basic content, often done through lectures, outside the classroom, while using face-to-face class time for active engagement and problem-solving. While this model offered significant benefits, the ever-changing dynamics of education in the digital era demand a more adaptive and responsive framework. This has led to the evolution of Flipped Classroom 2.0, a pedagogy that not only retains the foundational principles of the original model but enhances them with modern technologies and learner-centered practices.
AI Tools
In the Flipped Classroom 2.0 model, the learning process is amplified by integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, which help personalize student learning pathways. AI-enabled systems such as adaptive learning platforms, chatbots, and generative tools like ChatGPT can provide students with on-demand explanations, simulate peer discussions, offer low-stakes quizzes, and give instant feedback. This technological support allows students to learn at their own pace and revisit complex material without feeling anxious or dependent solely on the instructor. From the educator’s side, AI tools help identify patterns in learner behavior and performance, allowing for more targeted interventions during class time.
Microlearning
Microlearning plays a central role in supporting pre-class preparation under the Flipped Classroom 2.0 framework. Instead of overwhelming students with lengthy video lectures or dense readings, microlearning delivers short, focused modules that concentrate on single learning objectives. These modules are ideal for students who are accustomed to fast-paced digital environments and may have limited attention spans. Microlearning enhances retention by segmenting information and reinforcing key concepts through repetition and brief assessments. It also empowers students to learn efficiently on mobile devices and during flexible hours, which is particularly valuable in hybrid and online learning contexts.
Learning Analytics
Learning analytics represents another foundational component of the Flipped Classroom 2.0 design. By utilizing Learning Management Systems (LMS) and built-in analytics dashboards, instructors can gain valuable insights into which students have completed pre-class activities, how they have performed, and where they may need additional support. Analytics tools also promote student accountability, as learners are able to track their own progress and receive early alerts when they are falling behind. These data-driven approaches make it possible to transition from reactive teaching to proactive guidance.
Collectively, these innovations: AI, microlearning, and learning analytics, enhance the effectiveness of the flipped classroom by aligning content delivery, student support, and real-time feedback. Flipped Classroom 2.0 is not merely a technological upgrade; it is a reimagined learning experience that promotes self-directed learning, critical thinking, and inclusivity. It encourages students to become active participants rather than passive recipients, and it positions educators as facilitators and data-informed decision-makers in the learning process.
Understanding Student Resistance in the Digital Era
Unpreparedness often stems not from laziness or disinterest, but from deeper psychological or contextual barriers that influence a student’s ability to engage. In many cases, students may feel overwhelmed by the unfamiliarity of new instructional models or lack the confidence needed to navigate them successfully. This resistance is especially prominent in environments where flipped classroom strategies are introduced abruptly or without adequate scaffolding. In digitally enhanced learning spaces, Artificial Intelligence tools can serve as diagnostic aids to help educators understand the roots of student resistance.
By monitoring metrics such as time spent on tasks, levels of participation, and types of interactions within pre-class activities, AI systems can identify patterns of disengagement or confusion. For example, if students frequently abandon certain video modules or quiz sections, this may signal content complexity, misalignment with learning styles, or underlying cognitive fatigue. Moreover, many students, especially those transitioning from traditional learning environments, may carry negative assumptions about active learning approaches. They may perceive them as chaotic, unpredictable, or more demanding than passive learning formats. Educators must dig deeper to explore these sentiments and confront the emotional undercurrents that influence classroom behavior. Addressing resistance with empathy, transparency, and gradual acclimatization is crucial for long-term student buy-in.
Addressing Fear Through Technology-Supported Safety
Fear is one of the most formidable barriers to classroom participation. Whether it’s the fear of giving incorrect answers, speaking publicly, or being judged by peers, these emotions can significantly hinder student engagement. In the flipped classroom, where much of the responsibility for learning shifts to students, this fear may become even more pronounced if not properly addressed. Technology, particularly AI-driven tools, can be strategically used to create psychologically safe learning environments. For example, private practice environments powered by chatbots or simulations can offer students a space to make mistakes, ask questions, and rehearse ideas without fear of embarrassment. These tools are particularly beneficial for introverted students or those who lack confidence in their subject knowledge.
Microlearning also plays a vital role in reducing anxiety. By breaking down complex content into manageable chunks, students can focus on mastering one concept at a time. This incremental mastery builds confidence and reduces cognitive overload. When paired with formative assessments and feedback loops, microlearning helps normalize error-making as part of the learning process. Analytics further enhance psychological safety by providing both educators and students with objective data on progress. When students see that others are also struggling with the same concepts or that their performance is gradually improving, they are more likely to perceive learning as a collective and iterative journey.
Making Learning Visible with Analytics and Scaffolds
Visibility of learning progress is essential in maintaining student accountability and fostering meaningful classroom interactions. In traditional flipped classrooms, instructors often face the challenge of determining whether students have genuinely completed pre-class tasks or engaged with the material in a substantive way.
Flipped Classroom 2.0 addresses this issue by leveraging data and scaffolding techniques that make learning both measurable and visible. Learning analytics tools embedded in LMS platforms can track completion rates, quiz scores, engagement time, and areas of difficulty. This data is accessible to both teachers and students through visual dashboards, which serve as powerful motivators and intervention tools. Educators can use this information to adjust instruction, form differentiated groups and provide individualized support. Scaffolding further supports this visibility. Templates, guided note-taking structures, interactive mind maps, and learning journals help students organize their thoughts and reflect on their understanding. When integrated with AI, these scaffolds can be customized based on student performance and learning preferences. This transparency not only improves learning outcomes but also enhances communication between instructors and students.
Designing Pre-Class Work That Drives In-Class Success
A key feature of the flipped classroom model is the dependency on students completing pre-class work so they can actively participate in class discussions and activities. However, the perceived value of pre-class tasks directly influences student compliance and effort. To elevate this value, educators must clearly connect pre-class preparation with in-class success. AI can support this connection by generating customized content summaries, quizzes, and diagnostic questions based on each student’s pre-class performance. For instance, if a student demonstrates mastery of foundational concepts, they can be prompted with higher-order questions to challenge their thinking. Conversely, students who struggle can be provided with remedial resources and practice modules. In-class activities should build directly on pre-class efforts. Group discussions, simulations, debates, and problem-solving exercises should reference or utilize outputs from the pre-class assignments. This integration reinforces the message that preparation is essential for success and ensures that students recognize the practical benefits of investing time in asynchronous learning.
Gamification techniques, such as digital badges, progress milestones, and peer recognition can further motivate students to complete pre-class tasks. When these activities contribute to course grades or unlock exclusive learning opportunities, their relevance is amplified.
Establishing Routine and Engagement with Focusing Activities
The transition from asynchronous pre-class learning to synchronous in-class application can be challenging if not facilitated through structured routines. Focusing activities, particularly those conducted at the beginning of class, serve as critical bridges that help students activate prior knowledge and reorient their attention. These activities may include short reflective prompts, polls, problem-solving warmups, or collaborative brainstorming sessions. When enhanced with technology, focusing activities become even more impactful. For example, AI-driven polling platforms can pose adaptive questions tailored to the students’ recent performance.
Visualization tools can help students construct or revise concept maps based on their understanding of the pre-class content. Establishing predictable routines around these activities builds habits of participation. Over time, students internalize the rhythm of flipped learning: prepare independently, apply collaboratively, reflect continuously. Such engagement patterns increase cognitive readiness and reduce classroom management challenges.
Avoiding Pitfalls in Tech-Enhanced Flipped Classrooms
While Flipped Classroom 2.0 offers numerous benefits, its success is contingent upon thoughtful implementation. Several common pitfalls can undermine the model’s effectiveness. One of the most prevalent mistakes is treating technology as a substitute for pedagogy. Simply replacing lectures with videos or adding quizzes does not constitute a true flip. Without alignment to learning objectives and instructional goals, these tools can confuse rather than support learners.
Another challenge is content overload. Students may feel overwhelmed if asked to review long readings, videos, and quizzes without clear guidance or purpose. Microlearning and scaffolding should be used to break down materials and provide learning pathways that are manageable and coherent. Educator readiness is another often-overlooked factor. Successful adoption of AI tools and data dashboards requires faculty training and support. Instructors must be equipped not only with technical skills but also with an understanding of how to interpret analytics and adjust pedagogy accordingly.
Lastly, student feedback should be incorporated into the design and refinement of flipped classroom practices. Continuous evaluation, surveys, and informal check-ins can reveal usability issues and highlight opportunities for improvement.
Toward a Future-Ready Learning Model
Reimagining the flipped classroom requires more than adopting trendy tools, it demands a philosophical shift. By combining AI, microlearning, and learning analytics, educators can create classrooms that are not only flipped but also fluid, feedback-driven, and future-ready. These strategies support student autonomy, foster critical thinking, and build academic resilience in an unpredictable world. The next frontier of flipped learning is not about technology for its own sake, but about purposeful integration that places learners at the center.
N. P. K. Ekanayake
Ms. Neranjana Priyangani Kumari Ekanayake, a senior lecturer at the University of Kelaniya, teaches Investment and Portfolio Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Behavioural Finance, and Advanced Management Accounting. She holds a BBA in Accounting (Special) and an MSc in MMs. Neranjana Priyangani Kumari Ekanayake, a senior lecturer at the University of Kelaniya, teaches Investment and Portfolio Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Behavioural Finance, and Advanced Management Accounting. She holds a BBA in Accounting (Special) first-class and an MSc in Management (Specialized in Finance) and is a CIMA passed finalist. Further she has completed a Diploma in Enterprise Resource Planning in University of Kelaniya.
N.K.L. Silva
Ms. Nilanthige Kaushalya Lakmali Silva is a Lecturer at the Department of Accountancy, University of Kelaniya. She teaches Management, Economics, Human Resource Management, Marketing Management, Strategic Management and Information Management. Ms. Silva holds a B.B.Mgt. (Special) Degree in Accountancy with a First-Class Honours and an M.Sc. in Management with a Merit. Her research interests include major areas of Accounting and Finance, with a particular focus on Sri Lanka’s Capital Markets, Micro and Macro Economic Environment, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Fraud. She has published several research papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. She is a CMA Sri Lanka Passed Finalist and has completed the Diploma in Banking and Finance at the Institute of Bankers of Sri Lanka.
Day 2 of the U.S. Department of Education (ED)’s Neg Reg aimed at weaponizing Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) was… just as damning as Day 1. Here’s the recap:
Session Summary:
The session got SPICY right off the bat. ED began the day by presenting their newly revised language. Here are some key moments:
Abby Shafroth, legal aid negotiator, stated CLEARLY for the record that this Neg Reg is not about protecting PSLF; it’s about the Department of Education (ED) using it as a tool to coerce nonprofits and universities to further the Trump Administration’s own goals. The government’s response was not convincing. Watch her remarks here.
Betsy Mayotte, the negotiator representing consumers, brought more fire: “When reading the statute of PSLF, I don’t see where the Education Secretary has the authority to remove employer eligibility definition from a 501(c)(3) or government organization…but my understanding of the regulations and executive order is that they cannot be contrary to the statute. There are no ifs, ands, or buts under government or 501(c)(3).” Watch the exchange here.
In a heated discussion on ED’s proposal to exclude public service workers who provide gender-affirming care to transgender minors, Abby further flagged that no one in the room had any medical expertise, so no one had qualifications to weigh in on medical definitions like “chemical and surgical castration.”
The non-federal negotiators held a caucus to talk about large employers that fall under a single federal Employer Identification Number. They are CONCERNED that the extreme breadth of this rule could potentially cut out thousands of workers only because a subset of people work on issues disfavored by this Administration—all without any right to appeal. Negotiators plan to submit language that would allow employers to appeal a decision to revoke PSLF eligibility by ED.
Borrowers and other experts and advocates came in HOT with public commenttoday—calling out ED for using this rulemaking to unlawfully engage in viewpoint discrimination and leave borrowers drowning in debt, unable to keep food on their tables, or provide for their families.
Missing From the Table:
Today, our legal director, Winston Berkman-Breen, who was excluded from the committee (but still gave powerful public comment yesterday!) has some thoughts on what was missing from the conversation:
For two days now, negotiators have raised legitimate questions and important concerns about the Secretary of Education’s authority to disqualify certain government and 501(c)(3) employers from PSLF. And for two days now, ED’s neg reg staff—inlcuding the moderator!—have engaged in bad faith negotiations.
Jacob, ED’s attorney, asserted that the Secretary has broad authority in its administration of the PSLF program—true, but only to an extent. The Secretary cannot narrow the program beyond the basic requirements set by Congress. When pushed for specific authority, Tamy—the federal negotiator—simply declined.
It doesn’t stop there—ED representatives sidestepped, dismissed, or outright ignored negotiators’ questions and concerns. That’s because this isn’t a negotiation—it’s an exercise in gaslighting. ED is proposing action that exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority and likely violates the U.S. Constitution—all the while telling negotiators to fall in line.
The kicker? By pushing this proposal, ED itself is engaged in an activity with “substantial illegal purpose.” Let that sink in.
Public Comment Mic Drops:
And Satra D. Taylor, a student loan borrower, Black woman, and SBPC fellow, who was also not selected by ED to negotiate, shared more thoughts during public comment:
“I am disheartened and frustrated by what I have witnessed over the last few days… It has become clear that this Administration is intent on… making college once again exclusive to white, male, and wealthy individuals. These political attacks, disguised as rulemaking, are inequitable and target communities from historically marginalized backgrounds. The PSLF program has provided a vital incentive for Americans interested in serving our country and local communities, regardless of their political affiliation. The Department’s efforts to engage in rulemaking and to change PSLF eligibility are directly related to the goal of Trump’s Executive Order and exceed the Administration’s authority…”
In the United States, where over 43 million people carry more than $1.7 trillion in student debt, it’s no wonder that the crisis has made its way into the bloodstream of American music. Across genres—hip-hop, punk, folk, pop, indie, and beyond—artists have given voice to the quiet desperation and loud frustration of a generation who bought the dream of higher education, only to find themselves overworked, underpaid, and perpetually in debt.
Student loans aren’t just a financial burden—they’re a cultural trauma. They delay marriages and children, block homeownership, exacerbate mental health struggles, and fuel cycles of economic precarity. For many, they are the symbol of a promise broken. Music has become one of the only honest mirrors left—naming what politicians won’t and exposing what marketing campaigns obscure.
Few songs capture this generational malaise as directly as Twenty One Pilots’ “Stressed Out.” In one of its most pointed lines, Tyler Joseph sings:
“Out of student loans and treehouse homes we all would take the latter.”
The lyric, delivered like a casual aside, cuts to the heart of the matter. The dream of adulthood has been replaced by nostalgia for childhood. Treehouse homes—imaginary, fragile, idealized—are preferred to the very real pressure of loans that never seem to shrink. The song became an anthem not just because of its catchy hook, but because it gave voice to a shared longing to escape a system that feels rigged from the start.
In folk and Americana, the tradition of protest lives on through artists like David Rovics, who sings candidly about capitalism, debt, and the false promise of meritocracy. Anaïs Mitchell’s “Why We Build the Wall,” from Hadestown, offers a parable of entrapment that mirrors the moral logic behind lifelong indebtedness—“we build the wall to keep us free,” the characters insist, as they cage themselves in the name of security.
Hip-hop, born from systemic exclusion, has long offered some of the most unflinching commentary on education, class, and race. Dee-1’s “Sallie Mae Back” is a rare moment of triumph—his celebration of paying off his loans is joyful, but also revealing: the milestone is treated like beating a boss in a video game, an exceptional feat in a system designed to trap. Meanwhile, J. Cole, Kendrick Lamar, and Noname have all touched on the disillusionment that comes from pursuing education and still being locked out of wealth and opportunity.
In the indie and emo scenes, debt doesn’t always appear as a headline—it’s in the background, a persistent hum of dread. Phoebe Bridgers’ ballads of suspended adulthood and unfulfilled expectations capture the emotional aftermath of investing in a future that hasn’t arrived. Bright Eyes’ early 2000s work resonated with disaffected students who already sensed that the system was cracking. Their songs are not about loans explicitly, but about what loans represent: being stuck, being lied to, being tired.
Punk, true to form, skips subtlety. DIY bands across the country scream out titles like “Broke and Educated” and “Loan Shark Nation” to crowds of kids who know the words by heart. These songs aren’t just cathartic—they’re organizing tools, naming the shared betrayal of a generation taught that college was a way out. Instead, it became a life sentence.
Country music has added its voice too, quietly but powerfully. Artists like Sturgill Simpson and Tyler Childers have used old-school storytelling to critique modern economic realities. Their characters are often trying to make ends meet in a world that seems designed to keep them down, and college debt is one of many invisible fences. Kacey Musgraves, in her ballads of broken dreams and gentle rebellion, speaks to the emotional toll of chasing a version of success that was never really for us.
In pop and R&B, the mood shifts but the themes remain. Lizzo’s affirmations of self-worth have become survival anthems for those trying to thrive despite systemic sabotage. Billie Eilish, with her whispered melancholy, captures the numbness that often follows years of grinding toward a goal that keeps moving.
Even instrumental genres reflect the weight of education debt. Jazz musicians and conservatory-trained artists emerge with six-figure loans and few stable jobs. Their music may not name the debt, but it carries its echoes—in the tension, the improvisation, the repetition of unresolved progressions.
Taken together, these songs form a shadow archive of student debt in America. This is not a playlist of protest songs in the traditional sense, but a collective cultural record of what it feels like to be promised opportunity and handed obligation. To be sold a degree and saddled with interest. To be told to work hard, only to discover the rules were never fair.
Twenty One Pilots’ “Stressed Out” may have sounded playful on first listen. But for many borrowers, that line about choosing treehouses over loans is all too real. It’s a cry for retreat—but also a quiet act of rebellion. It reminds us that the system has failed and that we are not alone in feeling crushed by its weight.
Let the music play. Let it say what policymakers won’t. Let it remind us that while the loans may be individual, the struggle is collective—and the chorus of resistance is still growing louder.
[Editor’s note: A 2019 version of this article is here.]
Professor Duncan Ivison is President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester.
Almost one year into the Labour government’s term, its vision for higher education is emerging. One exciting aspect of it is the role they see universities playing in helping to drive their agenda for inclusive growth. The recently announced R&D funding commitments, including regional ‘innovation clusters’, and the Industrial Strategy, all point to the role that higher education will play in driving innovation through world-class research and producing the highly skilled graduates our life sciences, technology, defence, and creative industry sectors – among others – will require. This is good news for the sector.
Baroness Smith, Minister for Skills, and Lord Vallance, Minister for Science, have made clear that they see the core principles that will shape the UK’s higher education sector over the next five years. This includes contributing to economic growth, conducting the highest quality curiosity-driven research, helping build national capabilities in key sectors, contributing to the economic and social well-being of the regions in which we’re based, and being a global force for UK soft power through international collaborations.
This is a compelling vision and one that – at least for the University of Manchester – we are keen to support, including through our forthcoming Manchester 2035 strategy.
But in politics, vision quickly runs up against political reality, and we can also see now some of the challenges the sector will face, not least in relation to immigration and the difficult fiscal situation the government faces. The recent Immigration White Paper makes that clear.
One of the more contentious aspects of the White Paper – in addition to reducing the graduate visa route from 24 months to 18 – is the proposal for a 6% levy on international student fees.
Of course, for those of us familiar with Australian higher education policy, it is, as Yogi Bera once said, déjà vu all over again. The Australian government proposed a 2% levy on international fee income in 2023, but it was never implemented. The main purpose of that levy was to redistribute fee income from the larger, research-intensive metropolitan universities to those (mainly in the regions) who struggled to attract international students. It stalled in the Australian parliament after fierce criticism from some parts of the sector, as well as the government deciding to pursue its aims through other means.
In the UK, on the other hand, the levy seems designed to do two things. First, to generate additional revenue for the Department of Education in a very difficult fiscal environment. And second, to make manifest the contribution that international students make to the UK.
There are several things wrong with this approach if indeed these are the main justifications for it. But I recognise it’s something currently being explored, rather than already decided, and so I offer my thoughts here as part of the consultations now underway.
First, it’s striking that for a government seeking to position itself as a champion of global free trade and economic growth, they are proposing what is essentially a tax on one of the UK’s most successful export industries (worth ~£22 billion a year from higher education alone).
Second, the fact that the government doesn’t feel the public understands the contribution that international students make to the UK is deeply concerning. The short answer is that they make a massive contribution: in fact, their financial contribution and talent has been crucial not only in helping the UK maintain its global standing as a higher education powerhouse, but also to the regional and local economies in which universities are based.
There are other more specific problems with the levy too, at least for a university like mine.
For one thing, a levy assumes universities can simply pass on the additional cost to our students. But this neglects the fact that we are operating in a highly competitive international market, and a significant price increase will make us less attractive to some of the fastest-growing parts of it. Moreover, many international students might not appreciate that they are now being asked to cross-subsidise other parts of the UK’s education system, in addition to the significant contribution they are already making. One perverse consequence of a 6% increase in fees might be that we end up abandoning our efforts to diversify the countries from which we recruit and focus only on those who can afford higher fees. This will only deepen the risk that successive governments have been keen for us to mitigate.
Moreover, at Manchester at least, we have already factored in increases to our international fees to account for rising costs over the next five years. Adding 6% on top of that would be unworkable. So, we would either have to absorb most, if not all, of the levy (plus inflation), or increase our fees substantially and lose market share. Assuming that we would see very little of the levy come back to us – the history of hypothecated funding is not encouraging in this regard – this would be a major financial blow. It would also, as a result, likely generate much less income than the Department hopes. For a sector already teetering on the edge of fiscal implosion, this could be the tipping point. To put it into context: for the University of Manchester, a 6% levy would mean a potential loss of ~£43M of revenue p.a by 2029/30, wiping out the slim margin we have for reinvesting in our teaching and research. The levy does nothing to address the structural challenges facing the higher education sector. In fact, it is likely to make things worse.
But it would also undermine our ability to do the very things the government wants us to do more of. Already, international student fees help us bridge the financial gap between what we receive to teach all our students and what it actually costs, as well as the gap between the full costs of research and what funding councils and charities provide. This is under threat if we get our higher education policy settings wrong. And let’s be clear: it would hurt local students and local economies most. Almost half our students remain in Manchester after they graduate, contributing hugely to our city and region.
We are keen to contribute to the government’s vision for higher education. For example, we are spending ~£21M p.a. on helping disadvantaged students with their cost of living and studies. And from this year, we will be investing more than ever before in accelerating the commercialisation of our research and generating more student and staff start-ups, scale-ups and job creation for Greater Manchester and the country.
I understand the challenges the government faces on immigration and funding higher education. There should be no tolerance of shonky providers serving as a front for migration workarounds. And universities need to prove they are operating as efficiently as possible and collaborating in new and transformative ways – as I’ve argued elsewhere and as we’re doing with Liverpool and Cambridge.
An alternative approach to a levy would be to develop specific compacts with clusters of universities based on delivering against the government’s core priorities for HE in concrete ways – building on the new ‘innovation clusters’ in the recent R&D announcement. We’re already doing this in Greater Manchester, given the excellent collaborative culture that exists between the universities, further education colleges, and the Combined Authority. It’s a model we could scale nationally. I look forward to the discussions to come in the weeks ahead.
On stage, baton in hand, Rebecca Bryant Novak found her calling in the precarious. She says conducting an orchestra sometimes “feels like trying to do brain surgery on a conveyor belt. You don’t get to stop. You don’t get to pause and say, ‘Hold on, let me think.’” But that high-stakes intensity, the kind that crackles through a Brahms crescendo or explodes in a Mahler finale, is what drew her in. “I love that,” she says. “To conduct an orchestra once in your lifetime, much less dozens or hundreds of times, is just an enormous privilege.”
But behind the podium at the University of Rochester’s Eastman School of Music, one of the world’s premier conservatories, the peril Bryant Novak faced was not merely musical. In October 2023, she reported her doctoral program advisor and the director of orchestras, Neil Varon, for harassment. What followed, by her account and email correspondence describing the university’s own investigative findings, was a spiral of institutional dysfunction in which Eastman abandoned its own policies to retaliate against Bryant Novak for speaking out.
What began as a childhood dream — “I saved my babysitting money to buy tickets for me and my mom to go to St. Louis Symphony concerts,” she recalls — has now soured into a fight not merely for her academic degree but for her dignity, for institutional transparency, and for a measure of justice in an industry she loves.
A pianist by training, she fell for music director David Robertson’s conducting as a teenager in St. Louis, where she was captivated by his orchestra’s sound and force. “I loved the idea of being part of it,” she says. “As I look back at that person, she had no idea what she was getting into. But the draw was strong.”
Chasing the grueling dream of the podium was a particularly steep climb for a woman. “There have only been three women admitted to my program in over 20 years,” she says, referring to Varon’s conducting studio, which she estimates has accepted approximately 40 students during that time. “The resources are immense. So is the gender disparity. I mean, it’s extreme.”
Bryant Novak, a first-generation college graduate, said that upon arrival she felt “very much a fish out of water in the fancy music school scene.” Still, she was undeterred. “I said to myself, look, I won the audition. The orchestra voted, and I got an overwhelming orchestra vote. Everyone was thrilled about my being here.” She believed — naïvely, she now says — that the music would speak for itself. “Gender has nothing to do with this. My work stands on its own. So I was kind of in that mindset going in.”
Her optimism did not last.
I had jobs in this field before going back for my doctorate. I knew the scene. My actual experience is that staying silent doesn’t help you that much.
Bryant Novak claims that during one rehearsal, as she was conducting in front of about 60 students, Varon told her she was “Gibson impregnated,” a reference to her former teacher at the University of Cincinnati, Mark Gibson, with whom she had cut contact after completing her master’s degree. Bryant Novak’s history with Gibson was fraught with alleged maltreatment: she says she suffered “inappropriate behavior, including comments on [her] physical appearance” and “physical contact under the guise of instruction” that resulted in “lasting professional harm.”
Gibson and Varon were close professional contacts, and though Bryant Novak says Varon repeatedly noted Gibson’s problematic history and widely known reputation for abuse, she claims he “began referencing [her] history with Gibson as early as [her] audition.” According to Bryant Novak, Varon’s increasingly hostile and erratic behavior in class eventually forced her to end a conducting session with the orchestra, which typically lasted almost an hour, after just fifteen minutes.
In what she describes as a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” calculation, Bryant Novak chose to report Varon. “I had jobs in this field before going back for my doctorate. I knew the scene,” she says. “There have been situations where I’ve stayed silent before, as in my master’s program studying with Mark Gibson. My actual experience is that staying silent doesn’t help you that much.”
Initially, she raised the alarm privately, requesting the administration limit her contact with Varon rather than filing a formal complaint. Her request was denied. Instead, Bryant Novak says Title IX coordinator John Hain suggested she transfer. “I remember asking, ‘How is that supposed to work?’ These programs are very competitive. They’re very small. It’s not like I’m getting my bachelor’s in history. How is this the solution? It was just not at all thought through.”
“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call it sabotage,” she said, after her final recital was stacked with outlandishly difficult material. (Smiley Photography)
“I got this whole lecture about how there’s no law against being a jerk. I’m like, ‘I’m aware of that.’” Worse, she adds, “They disclosed the report to [Varon]. They kind of wagged their finger at him and said ‘good luck’ to me. I was stunned.”
Faced with Eastman’s inaction, Bryant Novak used the only tool she had left — her voice. She wrote about the experience in a post on her Substack, The Queen of Wands, sharing conversations with administrators, naming names, and describing Eastman’s lack of support.
That’s when the retaliation began.
A senior administrator threatened her with a defamation lawsuit — the very same John Hain in charge of handling her Title IX complaint. Students who once applauded her presence grew cold. Some faculty offered quiet support but refused to speak publicly. “It got very bizarre,” she says. “Very, very weird.”
According to email correspondence between Rebecca and university officials, the University of Rochester — Eastman’s parent institution — conducted an investigation that concluded Varon had indeed violated their harassment policy and that Eastman had grossly mishandled her complaint. Despite this, rather than offering protection to Rebecca, Eastman remained intent on shielding its own faculty.
Tell Rochester to Stop Muzzling its Students
Take Action
Tell the University of Rochester: Reinstate Rebecca Bryant Novak, restore due process, and stop muzzling students into a culture of silence.
By the following semester, “there was some nastiness” from some of her fellow students in the orchestra. Her conducting opportunities were reduced. The faculty grew tight-lipped. She would walk into a room and people would stop talking. One tenured professor whispered to her that he’d written a letter of support but begged her not to tell anyone.
Meanwhile, Bryant Novak continued writing publicly about her experience on Substack. Her posts were measured, personal, and often devastating. Her first post, titled “My First Year at Eastman,” told the story of the initial incident and the process that ensued from her point of view. Another, titled “Cease and desist,” detailed John Hain’s defamation threat against her.
Then, however implausibly, things got worse.
In December 2024, the University of Rochester launched a second investigation, this time into Eastman’s continued mishandling of Bryant Novak’s complaint and the retaliation she alleged had taken place against her. That might seem like a reason to think things were finally looking up — except two weeks after Bryant Novak disclosed the second investigation in a Substack post, Eastman expelled her for a “lack of academic progress.”
According to Bryant Novak, this came despite Eastman’s prior confirmation that her academic plan and credits were sufficient in order to graduate. Worse, Eastman’s letter to Bryant Novak ended with a list of non-academic allegations: “misuse of University email systems,” “creating a hostile environment,” and “language that has been perceived as threatening violence.” All this was presented without detail or evidence. It was also described as not the actual cause of her dismissal, but worth “remark.” For her part, she sees it as a last-ditch attempt to discredit her. “The double standards were pretty intense,” she says. The school claimed there wasn’t much it could do to restrain Varon but, she says, “When it was time to expel me — boy, their hands were not tied.”
People assume we’ve moved past this stuff. But no, speech is still powerful. People are still afraid of it. And they’ll try to shut you up.
In a June 18 letter to the university, FIRE detailed how Eastman skipped every procedural safeguard required by their own academic progress policy: no warnings, no probation, no appeal. It doesn’t take a bloodhound to sniff out the pretext: just after Bryant Novak disclosed the second investigation on Substack, Eastman’s concerns about her suddenly became so acute that it bypassed the two-semester review process its own policy required before dismissal. FIRE lambasted the university for this egregious betrayal of due process and charged that the expulsion — taking place amidst baseless legal threats and conflicts of interest — was retaliation against Bryant Novak for speech Rochester’s policies protected.
Bryant Novak says it was Eastman itself that endangered her academic progress. After she reported his behavior, she says, “They let Neil [Varon] have control over my degree recital, which is the centerpiece of my degree. I mean, it was retaliatory. He put material on it that was outlandishly difficult — so much so that two guest faculty intervened and said, ‘This is not okay.’ One of them actually said directly to me, ‘That is a giant middle finger from him to you.’ I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call it sabotage. They did ultimately change it, although you’re supposed to have up to a year to work on this. I was left with two months. And then they were trying to get me out the door. It was very, very clear they wanted me out in any way possible. They created a situation that was unsustainable.”
“There are consequences either way. There are consequences to yourself if you stay silent. There are consequences out in the world if you speak out.” (Smiley Photography)
The situation became so upsetting that she began seeing a university therapist. In her final semester, at the therapist’s request, she started going multiple times a week. “I was just kind of personally deteriorating,” Bryant Novak recalls. “I was honestly kind of having a breakdown.” She spent roughly a month working through her difficulties with her professors and her therapist, who was willing to offer the school documentation of her situation. In turn, Bryant Novak offered to submit that documentation to the school, but says that “a week later,” the school “responded with an expulsion letter.”
In the broader Eastman community, Bryant Novak was shunned by what she describes as a “cultish culture.” Online, including on FIRE’s own social mediaposts, her classmates have left comments smearing her reputation. Some think their interpersonal issues with Bryant Novak, or whatever shortcomings they see in her as a student or conductor, justify her expulsion.
But being unpopular does not cost you your rights. It does not strip you of due process protections. It does not neuter your expressive freedom.
Bryant Novak sees her case as part of a larger trend. This isn’t the first time Eastman has allegedly blacklisted a student for standing up against misconduct. And beyond its Rochester campus, other classical music artists have suffered similar fates for stepping forward. Bryant Novak has no illusions about the conservatoryculture she sees as responsible. “The culture’s awful. It just is,” she says. “Everybody knows it. But at the same time, the music is phenomenal.”
She references a case, documented in New York Magazine, in which an alleged rape victim and an ally were pushed out of the New York Philharmonic and bullied by their peers for speaking up while the accused perpetrators remained. “That story jolted me,” she says. “And now I’m living my own version of it. People assume we’ve moved past this stuff. But no, speech is still powerful. People are still afraid of it. And they’ll try to shut you up.”
Reflecting on it all, Rebecca says that though she is grateful for FIRE’s help, she found it hard to believe she needed it for something like this. “You know, I wasn’t in a Gaza protest. It wasn’t that. It was just saying: ‘Hey, harassment is bad. Can you stop?’ The fact that speaking out against harassment is controversial in this space? That says a lot.”
Still, Bryant Novak refuses to be silenced. In April, she submitted a 200-page complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights under penalty of perjury. Believing sunlight is the best disinfectant, she is documenting everything and wants it all out in the open. “If there’s an online Neil Varon fan club,” she quips, “I think that’s good for us to know. Surface it all.”
As for her future? “I still want to conduct,” she says. “But more than that, I want a world where women can do this without fear.”
Pausing to think about it, she says, “There are consequences either way. There are consequences to yourself if you stay silent. There are consequences out in the world if you speak out. I prefer the consequences out in the world.”
Over 820,000 undergraduates are connected to the U.S. military, including those who are actively serving or enlisted in the National Guard, former service members and spouses, or dependents of military service members.
The University of Texas at San Antonio, located in Military City USA, serves over 5,000 military-affiliated students, including veterans, service members and their families, in a region that has the largest concentration of military bases in the country.
In the most recent episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader speaks with Michael Logan, UTSA’s senior director for veteran and military affairs and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, about supporting military-affiliated students through their transition into higher ed and the role of community in student veteran retention.
An edited version of the podcast appears below.
Q: Can you set the playing field for people who might not be familiar with San Antonio and the region and how that impacts your military-affiliated students?
Michael Logan, senior director for veteran and military affairs.
University of Texas San Antonio
A: It’s interesting, because the branding of the city, or the trademark, is Military City USA, and that’s not hyperbole when you consider not just the active-duty components that are here, but how many veterans retire to this area.
It’s not just the folks that are here because [the Department of Defense] is making them be here, but it’s a destination. In the county alone, there are about 100,000 veterans. If you expand into the Alamo area, Council of Governments region, it gets up to about 250,000 veterans. So you have to think, it’s not just the veterans, it’s the veterans’ spouses, all the dependents, all the family members. And so the number is probably three times that that we’re actually serving.
Q: That’s crazy, just the sheer number of people. I wonder if you can tie into this population of military-affiliated students at the university. Obviously you have veterans and then those, like you mentioned, family members, dependents. But then there’s also students who are currently engaged in the military.
A: You’ll notice if you look at our website, we lean away from using “veteran” in our terminology even in our center for military-affiliated students, and that’s intentional. Because we have so many different military-connected students that are not specifically in that veteran category. We do have a lot of National Guard and military reserve members; we do have a lot of activity duty. In fact, the family members probably outnumber the veterans and active duty two to one.
So for us, it was very important that the entire military-connected population understood that we were here to support everybody and not just that narrow swath of just those who had previously worn the uniform.
Q:When we are thinking about those students who are associated more directly with military service, so student veterans, ROTC or currently enlisted, can you talk a little bit about some of those challenges or opportunities when military-affiliated learners engage with higher education and how they look different from maybe your traditional learner on campus?
A: That’s a very good question, and I learn something every day, too. Even as someone who did time on active duty, I wasn’t doing those things simultaneously.
But what’s very interesting to me is having to articulate to folks who are not vets or not military-connected that military is a culture. So when we’re talking about validating everybody’s experiences in the classroom and making sure that we’re digging into the full richness and depth of experiences to really give everyone the best possible collegiate experience, we can’t discount military service as a separate and distinct culture.
I think what has happened previously is that there was concern where maybe a student was reframing things they were learning in their military context, and the instructor might have been thinking, “Well, you’re not getting it. I’m trying to get you to think this certain way, but you keep defaulting it back to your military context.” And then that leads to a conversation that I’ll eventually have with the instructor that talks about, “Well, the reason why this is happening is because categorically and demonstrably military service is a culture.”
I actually did research on that back in 2019, and again in 2024, we did a quantitative study. I did it with some student veterans who were graduate students here at the university, where we were able to empirically demonstrate that veteran itself is a culture.
You are all your intersectional identities, but once you’ve served and once you’ve had that military service experience, you experience all of those pieces of yourself through the lens of that military service. And so of course, when you’re teaching somebody something, when they contextualize it, it’s going to be through the lens that they see everything else, including their own identity.
Q: I’m the daughter of two veterans, and it’s funny, I remember being in high school, and the word “squad” was really trendy with young people at that time, and my mom was like, “Squad? That’s a military term. Like, what do you mean, your squad? Like, your squadron? What’s happening?” Even in the daily words that we use, there’s this affiliation that’s always going to come back to people.
So when we talk about supporting students that are military affiliated on campus, can you walk us through some of the programs and offerings that you all have?
A: There’s many, and some of them are more focused on traditional academic outcomes; we’ve got resources specific for individual tutoring.
We recognize that we have a very large relative population of veterans using what’s called veteran readiness and employment, which means they’re disabled veterans. We have over 430 of those on our campus, so we have more just from that group than most campuses have veterans. So we’re very intentional about providing services that are, first of all, diverse enough to cover all the different conditions, visible and invisible, that might be barriers to success academically.
The activities that I’m most proud of are the ones that are more impactful and [contribute] directly toward sense of belonging and community building. Because I think if you don’t have a strong sense of belonging, and you don’t have a visible and established community, then you’re not going to get true engagement. You’re just going to get a veteran or a family member that shows up, goes to the class, absorbs the information, goes home, but they’re not really engaging with their peers on campus, or campus culture. They’re not getting the other 50 percent of why you go to college, which is to develop social capital and be exposed to ideas that are new and different than your own.
Some of the programs that we’ve put together on that front are something we call Coffee With Vets, which is a very informal mixer that we do every second Wednesday of the month. When I say Coffee With Vets, you’ll notice I didn’t say with student vets, right? Because it’s for the entire veteran community. We have over 200 employees that wore the uniform as well, and it’s not uncommon to see students, employees, people from the community, stakeholders, that use that event as an opportunity to just be seen and get to know people.
I think what we’re guilty of, myself included, is that a veteran might look at a resource and think, “I don’t need that today, so it’s not relevant to me,” and then when they do need it, then there’s this issue with trust: “I’m only going to engage with something I trust.” And so Coffee With Vets is an opportunity for someone like me to maybe engage with VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs] staff. And even though I may not need what they’re doing right now, I may need it in six months or a year, and I’m going to remember that person that I commiserated with over a bacon-covered doughnut and some Black Rifle coffee. I’m much more willing to engage in whatever that support is.
That’s just one example. And the reason why we do that, the reason why we emphasize community building and building that trust is because when you look at some of the barriers to completion and matriculation, a lot of them are vets putting something off or not engaging with something. So if we can minimize hesitation and maximize trust, then we can get those vets to fully utilize the wraparound services that we provide and ultimately be successful, not just in school, but beyond school, because they’re only here for a little while. And what we’re trying to do is set them up for success in the future.
Q: I’m so glad that you mentioned that role of helping students see that resources might be useful later on. Because one of the common barriers that we hear from student veterans is that the military is so structured and that there’s so much told to them about what your next step is and where you’re going to go and what your job is, that when you come to higher ed, you really have to find a sense of self-advocacy and start finding things on your own that might just be unfamiliar or different.
I love that you all provide a space for students to explore but also be connected with people who think like they do and understand that it might be a totally different culture change to have somebody like you have to ask for help sometimes.
A: The two things you bring up are advocacy and what I like to call cultural considerations. I don’t like to say cultural competency, because that implies incompetency. It’s not incompetency, it’s just cultivated.
Advocacy is a big thing. There’s a significant amount of my time spent doing that, sometimes at the request of veterans, sometimes not. Sometimes it’s because I need to help the veteran figure out how to learn to live in the world that they’re in now. But it’s not uncommon for me to have a veteran reach out and say, “I want to have this conversation with an instructor, but I don’t know how to do it without coming across as just super aggressive or knife handing or using the F-word as a comma,” which sometimes they’re still in the habit of doing. But they’re self-aware, right? So they’re coming in, they’re asking, “I don’t want the message to get lost in how I’m delivering it. So please help me.” And we’ll do that.
But the other side of that is also the self-advocacy piece, which I’m glad you mentioned, too, because there’s just, like you said, when you’re on active duty, there’s somebody who’s responsible for you. As you mentioned, you’ve got a squad leader, you’ve got a battle buddy, you’ve got somebody, even when you check into a base, somebody walks you around and shows you everything. And that’s just not the case in higher ed.
You may not know what Student Disability Services is. You may not know that if you have a 50 percent or higher [disability] rating, you get free [ADA] surface parking. So here you are paying for it. Or testing accommodations—just all these different things that vets are leaving on the table, and it’s hurting them in some form or fashion, because they’re not able to maximize their potential.
It’s a weird tightrope where we’re trying to figure out, “How do we give them all this information, but in a way where it’s not like sipping water from a fire hose or this is going to be information dumped five minutes later?” We have to be very, very intentional about parceling out that information.
We kind of do it in layers. First, here’s who we are, then if you have an interest in these things categorically, and then it eventually it gets into the into the weeds of things. But that’s actually been very successful for us.
As a matter of fact, we asked some of our vets, “Hey, what do you wish you would have known the first day, now that you’re here towards the end, what do you wish you would have known?” And they actually put together a booklet that has everything that they all said: “Here’s what would have been super helpful on day one to know.” So now that’s turned into something that our student vets maintain.
My transition off of active duty was—I’m going to date myself here—over 20 years ago, probably over 25 years ago. My experiences and my needs are very, very different than a service member becoming a veteran in the year 2025. So it’s very important that we maintain that close connection with these subsequent cohorts of veterans that are showing up on our campus and giving them the agency to drive—“Here’s the information we need, so hey, please provide it.”
That requires a lot of psychological safety on behalf of my staff, because you get that thought about, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But at the same time, something that was relevant two years ago may not be relevant to the folks that are getting out in a very different environment.
Q: You touched on this a little bit earlier, but I think just having that staff that has military experience or military affiliation as well can be really helpful. And like you said, translating to higher education, but also understanding, like, even if it’s not right now, what service members might need, but having a little bit of empathy for that circumstance and what they might be transitioning through.
A: I agree with that 100 percent. All of the staff members that I have today in summer of ’25 I had in fall of 2018, every single one of them. I haven’t lost anybody through COVID—if you’re in Texas, Snowvid—or the great resignation.
I think that is a very clear indicator of the orientation of my staff. We’re all military connected, either veterans or family members themselves, and they’re here because the work that we do here is what fills our cup.
As a matter of fact, we have a purpose statement that is taped up everywhere, and it’s derived from an old story about President Kennedy visiting NASA. He sees a janitor, and he asks the janitor, “Hey, what do you do here?” And the janitor says, “I’m helping put someone on the moon.”
We’ve adapted that, and if you were to walk into UTSA Center for Military Affiliated Students and you see somebody shredding paper or filing or helping a student all across the range of things we could be doing, and you ask them, “Hey, what are you doing here?” The answer is going to be “I’m trying to provide a level of support for students that I wish I would have had for myself.”
Q: I wanted to talk a little bit about careers, because military students often come in with lots of life and career experience, but often enter higher education as a pivot or as an exploration of doing something else. I wonder if you can talk about navigating that space and understanding where higher education is a bridge for military-affiliated students.
A: That’s a tricky one in that you’re right, some of them come in and that pivot sometimes is intentional. If you look at our chief information officer [Kendra Ketchum], who was a Navy corpsman, and then postmilitary pivoted into, she’s our CIO.
But I think what’s very important when trying to help a service member navigate what they’re going to do with their higher education experience is you have to ask almost the five whys. If you’re familiar with Lean, you know what the five whys are. If you have a toddler, you know what five whys are.
But if you ask a vet, “Hey, why are you here?” The first answer you’re probably going to get is, “Because you’re supposed to use the GI Bill.” That’s what you’re told. You leave active duty, you go to college, you use the GI Bill.
“So what do you want to get out of it?”
“I wanted to get a degree and get a good job.”
But really, what it comes back to is trying to get them to be reflective on who it is you want to be, rather than what it is you want to do. What we uncover is that most veterans are looking for two things: to continue serving and community.
So once we figure out what that piece is for them, it’s a lot easier to guide them through the process and not just tell them all, “Here’s the major you should take, or which classes or which instructor,” but actually provide opportunities for academic inquiry.
I mentioned earlier that we did research for sense of belonging and identity. It started years ago when a veteran came to me, and she was frustrated because she had this great idea for doing a study to create a rubric based on positive psychology to figure out what motivates a veteran, what makes them tick, what fills their cup. Because she wanted to focus on that, not on the deficit discourse: What’s wrong with you and how do we address your problem today?
She had gone to different places and couldn’t get any traction because nobody was studying that; that wasn’t a topic that anyone was researching. And I said, “Well, I’m not a psychologist, but I’ll do everything I can to help you.”
Fast-forward to the end of that story: She did the study, and then she got accepted to two national conferences to talk about it, and she graduated with her master’s in social work and has returned to our university as an internship coordinator to start our first-ever veteran case management program. We’re going to pilot it under her watch. She invented the rubric.
That’s one example and I can give you many more. But again, it’s very nontraditional. We’re not just talking about advising students, we’re talking about providing opportunities for students to develop and cultivate their inquiry so they don’t lose that through the college process and then end up being something other than what they intended when they graduate.
Q: Regarding sense of belonging, I think it’s natural for student veterans to fall in step with each other. But then there’s also the wider campus community and finding that sense of belonging just on campus as well. I wonder if you can talk about those two avenues, one connecting like-minded, military-affiliated students, and the other encouraging them to get out, explore and see what else the campus has to offer?
A: That’s an excellent point, and it is a strange kind of rut that we fall into where we want to gravitate towards what we know. We show up on a campus and everything’s weird, and people are different, and so we’re looking for other people that are like us, and that’s kind of missing the point.
What I do to try and encourage engagement outside of just vets hanging out with vets is I will encourage vets to cultivate the thing that they want to keep doing, which is continue serving, but expand that vision beyond vets.
For example, our local Student Veteran Association chapter, they were doing a lot of programming that was vet-focused, vet-centric. And I said, “You know who doesn’t have a lot of support on this campus is military family members, like the kids in the center for military families. So maybe we connect with them and we look for a broader opportunity to support where there’s a gap.”
We had vets that would ask me, “How come I’m having trouble getting nonvets to see the value in us, or not look at us sideways or appreciate our presence in the classroom?” And I said, “Well, why don’t we look at service projects that benefit them, and not necessarily just y’all?”
So a group of vets got together, and they came up with this great idea to provide golf cart shuttle service for folks with mobility issues. It was the vet group that was like, “All right, we’re going to write the grant, we’re going to get the golf cart, we’re going to drive it, but it’s going to be available to anyone who’s got any kind of mobility issue.” They didn’t even say disability, just mobility. It could be a sprained ankle.
And it’s a service that they were going to leverage their capital. Because vets can go and they can ask for these things and get these donations, but [they] make it available to the entire campus population and that lines up exactly with their values. They enlisted to serve, and they served folks. This was kind of a microcosm of that.
It’s great to see how, when they’re thinking it through and they’re ideating, all of a sudden, that light bulb goes off, and it makes sense that we don’t have to circle the wagons because we’re in a strange environment. What we need to do is do what we’ve always been doing and leverage everything that we bring to the table to lift everyone else around us.
Q: You’re a veteran and a veteran in this space in higher education. For those who might be unfamiliar with working with military-affiliated students or looking to do more on their campus to support these students, what’s a point or two you would give for someone who wants to do better?
A: First and foremost, I think that there might be a misconception out there that vets maybe see themselves as apart from or maybe even above [others]. You hear about Billy Madison syndrome: “I’m older and I know more things.”
While that might be true for some vets, vets are typically not looking for differential treatment—especially in the classroom or among their peers or from instructors or even from staff; they’re just looking for their experiences to be as validated as anybody else’s. So it’s very important that we’re aware that there are some things we can do and say that will be received as microaggressions. The issue is, when a vet experiences a microaggression, they don’t get aggressive. I think some people think, “Oh, man, they’re about to snap and lose their minds,” and that’s not what they’re going to do. What the vet’s gonna do is absolutely shut down, and they will disengage, and you will have lost any opportunity going forward to regain their trust and to have them feel a part of the community.
So first and foremost, just if one could shift their mindset and understand veteran [experiences] is a culture, and think of it as any other culture you support on campus. No. 1, that’s going to help you as the nonvet to really inform your perspective.
Then second of all is listen and don’t be prescriptive. And that applies not just for nonvets, but for people like me as well. Like I mentioned, my [military] experience was a long time ago versus what people are experiencing now. And as much as I’m tempted all the time to say, “I know what you’re going to need, I know what’s going to happen to you in six months and in two years, and the stages of going from active duty to civilian and the wall you’re going to hit. I know all these things are coming, so I’m going to set all these things up, and I’m gonna expect you to do them.” Every vet is sitting there saying, “Oh, that’s not me. You don’t know me.” And I know, because I was that guy that did the same thing.
It’s important to kind of push down my own impulses and stay very, very actively engaged and just constantly ask, “What is it you need? What is it I can do to support you?” By doing that, you’re building that trust, so that when those other [challenges] inevitably do happen, you don’t have to go find them and save them from it. They’re going to come to you and ask you, “Hey, can you help me through it?”
That’s the difference between, I think, being effective and going through the motions, is when they’re asking for it and they want to engage with it. But those are the two biggest things. Vets aren’t all that different. They’re just actually, weirdly, looking to be part of the crowd.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.
Higher education enrollment no longer begins with a handshake on campus; it starts the moment a student finds your website. That first digital interaction sets the tone for everything that follows. If the process feels outdated, impersonal, or clunky, students move on.
Modern applicants are tech-native. They expect fast responses, personalized support, and mobile-first tools that feel like the apps they use every day. Schools that deliver that level of experience build trust and convert more students. Those that don’t? They lose out, often silently.
A well-built student portal is your opportunity to meet those expectations head-on. It centralizes the entire admissions process, from initial inquiry to application to enrollment, into one streamlined, student-friendly platform. It also reduces stress, automates admin work, and gives admissions teams the tools they need to focus on students instead of paperwork.
This blog post breaks down how a modern portal transforms the student experience and what your institution needs to build one that works.
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM Student Portal!
What Is a Student Portal?
A student portal is more than an application tool. It’s a fully integrated digital experience that connects prospective students with your institution at every stage of their journey. The best portals:
Guide students through applying, uploading documents, paying fees, and accepting offers
Offer real-time updates and personalized communication
Integrate with back-end systems to eliminate double entry and bottlenecks
In short, it simplifies life for students while maximizing your admissions team’s productivity.
What is the purpose of a student portal application tool? A student portal provides a centralized, secure platform for applicants and students to access essential services, like submitting documents, tracking applications, receiving updates, and completing enrollment tasks, streamlining communication between the institution and the student.
Why Student Portals Matter More Than Ever
The rise of Gen Z and Gen Alpha has transformed expectations. These are digital natives. They don’t tolerate friction, and they certainly don’t want to print forms or play email tag with admissions.
To put this into context, nearly 70% of students believe their university’s digital experience should match the quality of commercial platforms like Amazon or Facebook.
And it’s not just about convenience. A poor online experience can actively damage your brand and lead to lost enrollments. Whether you’re a large research university or a small career college, students expect you to meet them where they already are: online, on-demand, and on mobile.
A New Standard: Digital-First From First Click
The student journey doesn’t begin with an application form. It starts at the moment of first contact; usually a website visit, ad click, or social media link. A well-designed student portal captures this moment and turns it into momentum.
Replicating the admissions process online is all about providing prospective students with a valuable experience from the moment they land on your website until the day they start their courses.
That starts with smart lead capture tools:
“Download a brochure.”
“Schedule a virtual tour.”
“Chat with our admissions team.”
“Apply now.”
Each of these CTAs feeds into a connected CRM. That’s where the magic happens: the CRM begins tracking the prospect’s interests and behaviors and triggers follow-ups that feel personal, not automated.
Example: London Business School attracts applicants worldwide to its MBA program, so it streamlines the process by funneling everything through its online system. In fact, the school states that its “preferred format for receiving applications is via our online portal.” London Business School sends accepted candidates a series of email workflows that highlight unique aspects of the LBS experience, including video messages from faculty. These aren’t generic updates; they’re trust-building touchpoints.
From Interest to Application: Streamlining the Process
How does a student portal improve the admissions process? A student portal automates manual tasks, improves application visibility, accelerates document collection, and enhances communication. This reduces staff workload and provides a seamless experience for students, resulting in higher conversion rates and faster admissions cycles.
Once a student decides to apply, the expectations only grow. They want simplicity. They want speed. And they want control.
A modern student portal delivers all three by centralizing the application process into a single, intuitive interface. Students can:
Create an account
Save progress and return later
Upload documents (transcripts, ID, essays)
Track their application status in real-time
Pay application fees securely
Example: Keio Academy of New York (a boarding school with students from over 30 countries) manages its intake via a dedicated Admissions Portal. Applicants create an account and complete all steps through the portal, downloading required forms and submitting their documents online. Importantly, exam results and admission decisions are posted on Keio’s portal as well; they do not send results by postal mail.
What students expect in a digital application portal:
A secure login system
A mobile-friendly design
Dynamic forms with autosave
Document upload support
Progress tracking
In-portal or multi-channel messaging
Transparent decision notifications
Example: University of British Columbia’s Applicant Service Centre provides a 24/7 window into one’s application. Applicants can log in to see real-time status updates, upcoming deadlines, and any outstanding items or fees needed to complete their file. Once admitted, UBC uses the same portal to guide students through the next steps: from accepting the offer online to planning finances and registering for courses, each step is laid out in order.
Portals also cut down administrative chaos on the backend. Admissions teams benefit from CRM and SIS integration, automated workflows, and centralized communication tools. Instead of wasting time on data entry or chasing down missing documents, staff can focus on what matters: building relationships.
With centralized, automated workflows, institutions can save time and resources and improve tracking and reporting for better decision-making.
Beyond the Application: Supporting Students After Acceptance
Here’s a critical truth: admissions doesn’t end with an acceptance letter.
There’s a critical period between “You’re in!” and “I’m enrolled.” This is where many institutions experience summer melt: when admitted students silently drift away before showing up on campus.
A modern portal helps close that gap. Once accepted, students often get access to a new-student dashboard with a personalized checklist:
Confirm acceptance
Pay deposit
Submit housing preferences
Sign up for orientation
Upload immunization records
Apply for financial aid
The portal handles checklists, deadlines, and reminders, so students stay on track and don’t ghost between acceptance and enrollment.
Schools that automate this process don’t just reduce summer melt. They create a sense of structure, confidence, and connection before students even arrive.
Each task is tracked. Each deadline is visible. And the portal nudges students forward with timely reminders via email, text, or even WhatsApp.
And it’s not just about logistics. Portals can foster community through:
Access to student forums
Links to private social groups
Welcome videos from faculty or alumni
Example: Loyola Marymount University takes engagement a step further with its “Future Lions” portal for admitted students. LMU’s portal serves as a one-stop welcome platform: new Lions are reminded to log in regularly for important enrollment information, access orientation resources, and even find roommates through a dedicated matching system. By consolidating these tools, LMU’s portal is actively building a community, connecting future classmates and helping them feel at home before they even set foot on campus.
What features should I look for in a student portal? Look for CRM and SIS integration, mobile optimization, multilingual support, payment processing, real-time messaging, automated reminders, customizable dashboards, and secure document uploads.
These are the features you can’t compromise on:
1. Mobile-Optimized Application Forms
Students are on their phones, and your application process better be, too. Forms should adapt to any screen size, load quickly, and allow uploads and progress saving without hassle.
Example: Concordia University (Canada) recently replaced its old applicant site with a unified Student Hub that offers single sign-on access to all student services – from applications to course registration – in one convenient interface. This new portal features a more modern user interface and is fully mobile-responsive.
Your portal should talk to your CRM in real time. Every form submission, download, or contact should create or update a record automatically, so no prospect slips through the cracks.
Example: Georgia State University’s admissions portal doesn’t stop at the acceptance letter; it presents each admitted student with a personalized “Next Steps” checklist to smoothly transition them toward enrollment. Upon acceptance, students unlock an Intent to Enroll form in their status checklist, allowing them to confirm their enrollment online without delay. All subsequent requirements – from submitting final transcripts to signing up for orientation – are tracked through the same portal, so nothing falls through the cracks.
From applicant to enrolled student, data should flow seamlessly. Integration with your SIS means no double entry and a smoother transition into class registration, billing, and campus life.
Example: The University of Melbourne provides a one-stop solution through its portal. This student portal provides a single place for students to manage course administration and university life. In practice, that means a student logs into one dashboard for everything: enrolling in classes, viewing schedules, checking financials, and accessing support resources.
Set up triggers for missing documents, incomplete applications, or upcoming deadlines. Automated nudges keep students moving forward and reduce the load on your staff.
5. Multichannel Communication Tools
Meet students where they are: email, SMS, chat, ideally all three. Your portal should support direct messaging, automatic confirmations, and personalized updates through multiple channels.
6. Live Application Tracking
Students hate waiting in the dark. Let them see whether their application is submitted, under review, or accepted, along with their checklist status and next steps.
Example: The University of Toronto directs every applicant to its “Join U of T” portal, where they can track application status, upload documents, and receive admission decisions all in one place. About a week after applying, students get instructions to access the portal and are told to check it regularly for status updates, required documents, and eventual offers. In fact, U of T applicants even accept their offers of admission through the portal instead of mailing forms.
From transcripts to ID cards and essays: make it simple and safe for students to submit everything online. Support all common file formats and include e-signing where needed.
8. Role-Based Access for Staff
Admissions, faculty reviewers, and financial aid each group needs the right level of access. Role-based permissions let your team collaborate efficiently without compromising security.
9. Internationalization Support
If you’re enrolling global students, your portal should handle different time zones, document types, phone number formats, and (ideally) multiple languages.
Example: The International Language Academy of Canada (ILAC), which enrolls students from dozens of countries in its English programs, emphasizes a fully digital application. Prospects are invited to “start your journey” by completing ILAC’s online form and making a payment, after which they receive an electronic letter of acceptance needed for visa processing; no paper forms or international mail delays.
The portal shouldn’t stop working after admission. Use it for onboarding: orientation sign-ups, housing applications, deposit payments, and beyond. A one-stop platform improves both experience and yield.
A quick rule of thumb is, the more customizable and connected your system, the more you can reduce friction and boost results.
Example: Northwest Career College in Las Vegas is a more intimate vocational school that prides itself on personal guidance. Their admissions process blends human interaction with digital convenience: a prospective student first speaks with an admissions advisor (often by phone or in person) and only then receives an invite to the online student portal to formally apply. In doing so, Northwest ensures that every applicant gets one-on-one support in navigating requirements, while the portal handles the data capture, document uploads, and progress tracking in the background.
At Higher Education Marketing, we’ve built HEM-SP. A purpose-built student portal that integrates CRM for higher education, student enrollment systems, and behavioral analytics. It enables institutions to centralize data, improve the student experience, and meet digital expectations.
Implementing a student portal isn’t just a digital transformation; it’s a mindset shift.
You’re not just moving forms online. You’re creating a student-centric experience that matches the speed and personalization of the rest of their digital life. That makes your school more attractive, more trustworthy, and ultimately more successful.
In the era of digital admissions, a student portal is no longer a luxury; it’s rapidly becoming a standard. Institutions that modernize are already seeing:
Higher completion rates
Lower melt
Better data
More efficient staff workflows
Stronger enrollment outcomes
Those that don’t? Risk losing applicants to schools that are simply easier to work with.
Partner With Hem for Success
From the first click to the first day, every moment matters. A student portal connects those moments into one seamless experience.
It’s the digital front door. The application guide. The welcome mat. The checklist. The counselor. The map.
When built right, it becomes more than software; it becomes part of your institutional promise: we’re here to make your education journey clear, personal, and achievable. Do you want help evaluating or implementing a student enrollment system that works for your institution? Get a free demo and see what HEM’s Student Portal can do for you today!
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM Student Portal!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is the purpose of a student portal? Answer: A student portal provides a centralized, secure platform for applicants and students to access essential services, like submitting documents, tracking applications, receiving updates, and completing enrollment tasks, streamlining communication between the institution and the student.
Question: How does a student portal improve the admissions process? Answer: A student portal automates manual tasks, improves application visibility, accelerates document collection, and enhances communication. This reduces staff workload and provides a seamless experience for students, resulting in higher conversion rates and faster admissions cycles.
Question: What features should I look for in a student portal? Answer: Look for CRM and SIS integration, mobile optimization, multilingual support, payment processing, real-time messaging, automated reminders, customizable dashboards, and secure document uploads.
An estimated 57 percent of college students cannot complete their degree on time because their institution does not offer required courses during days and times—or in a format, such as online—that meet their needs, according to data from Ad Astra.
A recently published study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that female students are more likely than their male peers to be shut out of a college course, which can have long-term implications for their success and outcomes.
The findings point to the role course shutouts can play in students’ major and career choices, with those unable to enroll in science, engineering, math or technology courses in their first term less likely to attempt a STEM course at any point during college.
The background: A common way for colleges to navigate budget cuts is to reduce course offerings or academic majors. But that can increase the number of students who are unable to enroll in, or find themselves shut out of, courses they want to take. Students at community colleges in particular are less likely to remain enrolled if they face a shutout, choosing instead to take zero credits that term or to transfer.
Federal funding cuts by the Trump administration have ramped up some institutions’ existing budget woes, requiring them to reduce program offerings. Some groups have advocated for minimizing costs via course sharing, which allows students to meet requirements and earn credits for their home institution while enrolling in a shared online course.
Methodology: The research, authored by faculty from Purdue and Brigham Young Universities, analyzed registration processes at Purdue in fall 2018, when first-year students were enrolled using a batch algorithm. Researchers considered a student shut out of a course in their first year if their primary request was not met or the student enrolled in a different, secondary course instead.
The data: Among the 7,646 first-year students studied, only 49 percent received their preferred schedule, meaning 51 percent were shut out from at least one of their top six requested courses. Eight percent of shutouts made it into their course eventually, according to the report.
Of the 241 courses that were oversubscribed, required English and communications courses were most likely to shut students out; the other overbooked courses represented a variety of subject areas.
The effects of a student not taking a preferred course in the first term were seen throughout their academic career. First-year students who were initially shut out from a course were 35 percentage points less likely to complete the course while enrolled and 25 percentage points less likely to ever enroll in a course in the same subject.
While a student’s first-term GPA was not impacted by the shutout, by senior year, students had a GPA two hundredths of a point lower compared to their peers who enrolled in their preferred classes. The study also found that each course shutout led to a 3 percent decrease in the probability of a student graduating within four years, which is economically meaningful but statistically insignificant.
Registration barriers also made it less likely that students would choose STEM majors, which researchers theorize could be due to a lack of substitution options to meet major prerequisites. Each shutout a student faced in a STEM course decreased the probability that a student majored in STEM by 20 percent.
The impact was especially striking for female students. For each course a female student was unable to enroll in during her first year, her first-semester credits dropped by 0.4, cumulative GPA by 0.05 and the probability of her majoring in a STEM field by 2.9 percentage points. The long-term effects extended into life after college: A shutout female student’s probability of graduating within four years dropped 7.5 percent and had an expected cost of approximately $1,500 in forgone wages and $800 in tuition and housing costs.
“In contrast, for male students, shutouts do not have a significant effect on credits earned, cumulative GPA, choosing a STEM major or on-time graduation,” researchers wrote.
Male students who didn’t get into their top-choice courses first semester were more likely to switch to a major in the business school and have a higher starting salary as well. “At this university, men are 19 percent more likely than women to major in business and this entire gender gap can be explained by course shutouts,” researchers wrote.
Researchers therefore believe finding ways to reduce course shutouts, particularly in STEM courses, can improve outcomes for women and others to widen the path to high-return majors.
Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.
