Tag: Student

  • Student suicides: why stable data still demand urgent reform 

    Student suicides: why stable data still demand urgent reform 

    Author:
    Emma Roberts

    Published:

    This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford. 

    New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that student suicide rates in England and Wales for the period 2016 to 2023 remain stable – but stability is no cause for complacency. The age-adjusted suicide rate among higher education students stands at 6.9 deaths per 100,000, compared with 10.2 per 100,000 for the general population of the same age group. Over the seven years of data collection, there were 1,163 student deaths by suicide – that is around 160 lives lost every year. 

    The rate being lower than the wider population is encouraging and may reflect the investment the sector has made in recent years. Universities have developed more visible wellbeing services, invested in staff training and created stronger cultures of awareness around mental health. The relative stability in the data can be seen as evidence that these interventions matter. But stability is not a resolution. Each student suicide is a preventable tragedy. The data should therefore be read not as reassurance, but as a call to sustain momentum and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead. 

    What the ONS data tells us 

    The figures highlight some familiar patterns. Male students remain at significantly higher risk than female students, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all suicides. Undergraduate students are at greater risk than postgraduate students, while students living at home have the lowest suicide rate. The data also shows that rates among White students are higher than for Black or Asian students, though the sample sizes are small, so these figures may be less reliable. 

    In terms of trend, the highest rate was recorded in the 2019 academic year (8.8 per 100,000). Since then, the rate has fallen back but remains stubbornly consistent, with 155 deaths recorded in the most recent year. The ONS notes that these figures are subject to revision due to coroner delays, meaning even the latest year may be under-reported. 

    The key point is that the problem is not worsening, but it is also not going away. 

    A changing student demographic 

    This year’s recruitment trends have introduced a new variable. Several high-tariff providers (universities with the highest entry requirements) have reduced entry requirements in order to secure numbers. This can open up opportunities for students who might otherwise not have had access to selective institutions. But it does raise important questions about preparedness. 

    Students admitted through lower tariffs may bring with them different kinds of needs and pressures: greater financial precarity, additional academic transition challenges, or less familiarity with the social and cultural capital that selective universities sometimes assume. These are all recognised risk factors for stress, isolation and, in some cases, mental ill-health. Universities with little prior experience of supporting this demographic may find their existing systems under strain. 

    Building on progress, not standing still 

    Much good work is already being done. Many universities have strengthened their partnerships with local National Health Service (NHS) trusts, introduced proactive wellbeing campaigns and embedded support more visibly in the student journey. We should recognise and celebrate this progress. 

    At the same time, the ONS data is a reminder that now is not the moment to stand still. Stability in the numbers reflects the effort made – but it should also prompt us to ask whether our systems are sufficiently flexible and resilient to meet new pressures. The answer, for some institutions, may well be yes. For others, particularly those adapting to new student demographics, there is a real risk of being caught unprepared. 

    What needs to happen next 

    There are several constructive steps the sector can take: 

    • Stress-test provision:  
      Assess whether wellbeing and safeguarding structures are designed to support the needs of the current, not historic, intake. 
    • Broaden staff capacity:  
      Ensure that all staff, not just specialists, have the awareness and training to spot early warning signs so that distress does not go unnoticed. 
    • Strengthen partnerships:  
      Align more closely with local NHS and community services to prevent students falling between two in-demand systems. 
    • Share practice sector-wide:  
      Collectively learn across the sector. Good practice must be disseminated, not siloed. 

    These are not dramatic or expensive interventions. They are achievable and pragmatic steps that can reduce risk while broader debates about legal and regulatory reform continue. 

    Conclusion 

    The ONS data shows that student suicide is not escalating. But the rate remains concerningly consistent at a level that represents an unacceptable loss of life each year. The progress universities have made should be acknowledged, but the danger of complacency is real. As recruitment patterns shift and new student demographics emerge, the sector must ensure that safeguarding and wellbeing systems are ready to adapt. 

    Every statistic represents a life lost. Stability must not become complacency – it should be a call to action, a chance to consolidate progress, anticipate new challenges and keep the prevention of every avoidable death at the heart of institutional priorities. 

    Source link

  • Institutions, Over Peers and Tribes, Bolster Indigenous Student Belonging

    Institutions, Over Peers and Tribes, Bolster Indigenous Student Belonging

    At all institution types, students living off campus reported a 16 percent higher sense of belonging than those living on campus.

    Daniel de la Hoz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    A new study from the American Indian College Fund and National Native Scholarship Providers found that Indigenous students report a stronger sense of belonging on campus when their college provides “perceptions of a sense of acceptance, inclusion and identity.”

    They call this “institutional support,” and it’s the primary predictor of belonging, trailed by peer support, campus climate and tribal support, the study showed. 

    The “Power in Culture Report,” released Wednesday, examined Indigenous students’ sense of belonging at the institutional and state level. NNSP surveyed more than 560 students enrolled at 184 institutions across multiple sectors, including tribal colleges and universities, predominantly white institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions. The survey was conducted between March and April of 2024. 

    Unsurprisingly, tribal colleges foster a greater sense of institutional belonging among Indigenous students than other institution types. At nontribal institutions, Indigenous students must create belonging via “informal networks and cultural resilience amid institutional neglect or performative inclusion.” Indigenous students at nontribal campuses also report experiencing more microaggressions and cultural isolation. Students at institutions with larger populations of Indigenous students report a 14 percent higher sense of belonging than those at schools with fewer Native peers. 

    When looking at Indigenous student belonging at the state level, students attending college in states with larger tribal populations actually report a lower sense of belonging and say they feel less supported than students in states with smaller tribal populations, “suggesting that population size alone does not equate to meaningful support,” the study noted. Students in states with a tribal college or university reported an 18 percent lower sense of belonging than students in states without a tribal institution. 

    At all institution types, students living off-campus reported a 16 percent higher sense of belonging than those living on-campus. 

    The report includes several policy recommendations to bolster Indigenous student belonging, including recruiting Indigenous faculty and staff, funding Native language revitalization courses, and establishing meaningful relationships with local tribal nations.

    Source link

  • Trump Targets Nevada at Reno’s Undocumented Student Supports

    Trump Targets Nevada at Reno’s Undocumented Student Supports

    Brian Sandoval, former Republican governor and president of University of Nevada at Reno, is standing up for the university’s undocumented student support program, despite threats of an investigation from the federal government.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Getty Images | Brycia James/iStock/Getty Images 

    Centers and programs for undocumented students are caught in a politically precarious moment after the Department of Justice called for an investigation of the University of Nevada at Reno’s undocumented student services. Immigrant students’ advocates say the move marks an escalation in the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on higher ed benefits for these students. And they worry campus programs supporting undocumented students might pre-emptively scale back or close altogether.

    In a letter late last month, DOJ officials directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to investigate the Nevada university over UndocuPack, its support program for undocumented students.

    According to the letter, the DOJ had received reports of the university’s “efforts to assist illegal immigrants” by providing referrals to on- and off-campus resources, student aid, and academic and career support, including helping students find “career opportunities that do not require applicants to provide a Social Security Number.”

    “We are referring this matter to the Department of Education to investigate whether UNR is using taxpayer funds [to] subsidize or promote illegal immigration,” the letter read.

    The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment; Inside Higher Ed received an automatic out-of-office message citing the government shutdown.

    But UNR is pushing back. Brian Sandoval, a former Republican governor of Nevada and the university’s first Hispanic president, responded with a forceful defense of the program.

    He stressed to students and staff that the UndocuPack program offers supports to all students, regardless of citizenship status, and uses no federal funds. He also emphasized that several state-funded scholarships don’t take immigration or residency status into account; the university doesn’t dole out state or federal aid to anyone ineligible.

    “The University has remained in compliance with federal and state law, as well as the Nevada and United States Constitutions regarding adherence to federal and state eligibility requirements for undocumented students for federal aid and scholarships,” Sandoval wrote. “In addition, we have made good, and will continue to make good on our commitment in ensuring a respectful, supportive, and welcoming environment on our campus where all our students have access to the tools they need for success.”

    He said the university plans to respond to the proposed investigation “through the appropriate legal channels.”

    A ‘Test Case’

    The threat to UNR brings fresh worries for undocumented students’ advocates, who say it’s the latest in a string of federal efforts to curb public higher ed benefits for such students.

    The Justice Department has already sued five states over policies allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition, successfully quashing state laws in Texas and Oklahoma after their attorneys general swiftly sided with the federal government. Over the summer, the Education Department announced it would investigate five universities for offering scholarships intended for undocumented students, claiming such programs violated civil rights law. The department also ended Clinton-era guidance that allowed undocumented students to participate in adult and career and technical education programs in response to Trump’s February executive order demanding that “no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.”

    Diego Sánchez, director of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, said going after UNR’s UndocuPack program is “part of a broader effort by the administration to intimidate colleges and universities that seek to serve undocumented students.” But it also takes the campaign a step further, “targeting any form of campus support for undocumented students,” including academic and career services. “It’s definitely a pattern of escalating attacks via different avenues of law.”

    The DOJ’s letter cites the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which bars undocumented immigrants from many public benefits, but Sánchez maintains that “no court has ever interpreted PRWORA to bar universities from offering support offices, mentoring resource centers for undocumented students.”

    Those kinds of supports for undocumented students exist at colleges and universities across the country. A 2020 study found at least 59 undocumented student resource centers on campuses nationwide, mostly in California but also in other states including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington.

    Sánchez worries that colleges and universities could modify or scrap perfectly lawful programs out of fear after seeing the DOJ chide UNR for such common supports. He also expects the Trump administration to target more programs like UndocuPack.

    UNR feels like “a test case,” he said.

    Gaby Pacheco, president and CEO of TheDream.US, a scholarship provider for undocumented students, said other colleges and universities with undocumented student supports are already weighing what to do in response to the developments in Nevada.

    “Do we duck and hide and lay low so that we don’t get picked on, or do we stand together with others and potentially become a target of this? It’s a question that a lot of people and institutions … are asking themselves,” Pacheco said.

    She worries canceling or minimizing undocumented student support programs will send those students a message—“that they don’t belong.” And she doesn’t believe trying to lie low or scale back programs will deflect federal attention.

    “This is just month nine into this administration. We still have a full three more years to go,” she said. And the administration seems like it plans to “continue full force until, in essence, there are no policies left where undocumented students have access to higher education.”

    Source link

  • Podcast: Student protest, TNE, Tory conference

    Podcast: Student protest, TNE, Tory conference

    This week on the podcast as pro-Palestinian student protests mark the anniversary of October 7, an intervention from Keir Starmer sparks a national debate on campus safety, antisemitism, and free speech.

    Plus the Prime Minister is leading a trade delegation to India alongside sector leaders, we explore the growing opportunities in transnational education and ask whether UK universities are ready for a TNE surge – and at Conservative Party Conference, Kemi Badenoch announces plans to slash student numbers and redirect funding.

    With Jess Lister, Director (Education) at Public First, Liz Hutchinson, Chief Executive at London Higher, James Coe, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and hosted by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    OfS rebalances the free speech/harassment see-saw on antisemitism

    Conservatives have a poor quality higher education policy

    A TNE policy primer for anyone seeking new funding streams

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link

  • How teachers and administrators can overcome resistance to NGSS

    How teachers and administrators can overcome resistance to NGSS

    Key points:

    Although the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released more than a decade ago, adoption of them varies widely in California. I have been to districts that have taken the standards and run with them, but others have been slow to get off the ground with NGSS–even 12 years after their release. In some cases, this is due to a lack of funding, a lack of staffing, or even administrators’ lack of understanding of the active, student-driven pedagogies championed by the NGSS.

    Another potential challenge to implementing NGSS with fidelity comes from teachers’ and administrators’ epistemological beliefs–simply put, their beliefs about how people learn. Teachers bring so much of themselves to the classroom, and that means teaching in a way they think is going to help their students learn. So, it’s understandable that teachers who have found success with traditional lecture-based methods may be reluctant to embrace an inquiry-based approach. It also makes sense that administrators who are former teachers will expect classrooms to look the same as when they were teaching, which may mean students sitting in rows, facing the front, writing down notes.

    Based on my experience as both a science educator and an administrator, here are some strategies for encouraging both teachers and administrators to embrace the NGSS.

    For teachers: Shift expectations and embrace ‘organized chaos’

    A helpful first step is to approach the NGSS not as a set of standards, but rather a set of performance expectations. Those expectations include all three dimensions of science learning: disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), science and engineering practices (SEPs), and cross-cutting concepts (CCCs). The DCIs reflect the things that students know, the SEPs reflect what students are doing, and the CCCs reflect how students think. This three-dimensional approach sets the stage for a more active, engaged learning environment where students construct their own understanding of science content knowledge.

    To meet expectations laid out in the NGSS, teachers can start by modifying existing “recipe labs” to a more inquiry-based model that emphasizes student construction of knowledge. Resources like the NGSS-aligned digital curriculum from Kognity can simplify classroom implementation by providing a digital curriculum that empowers teachers with options for personalized instruction. Additionally, the Wonder of Science can help teachers integrate real-life phenomena into their NGSS-aligned labs to help provide students with real-life contexts to help build an understanding of scientific concepts related to. Lastly, Inquiry Hub offers open-source full-year curricula that can also aid teachers with refining their labs, classroom activities, and assessments.  

    For these updated labs to serve their purpose, teachers will need to reframe classroom management expectations to focus on student engagement and discussion. This may mean embracing what I call “organized chaos.” Over time, teachers will build a sense of efficacy through small successes, whether that’s spotting a studentconstructing their own knowledge or documenting an increased depth of knowledge in an entire class. The objective is to build on student understanding across the entire classroom, which teachers can do with much more confidence if they know that their administrators support them.

    For administrators: Rethink evaluations and offer support

    A recent survey found that 59 percent of administrators in California, where I work, understood how to support teachers with implementing the NGSS. Despite this, some administrators may need to recalibrate their expectations of what they’ll see when they observe classrooms. What they might see is organized chaos happening: students out of their seats, students talking, students engaged in all different sorts of activities. This is what NGSS-aligned learning looks like. 

    To provide a clear focus on student-centered learning indicators, they can revise observation rubrics to align with NGSS, or make their lives easier and use this one. As administrators track their teachers’ NGSS implementation, it helps to monitor their confidence levels. There will always be early implementers who take something new and run with it, and these educators can be inspiring models for those who are less eager to change.

    The overall goal for administrators is to make classrooms safe spaces for experimentation and growth. The more administrators understand about the NGSS, the better they can support teachers in implementing it. They may not know all the details of the DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs, but they must accept that the NGSS require students to be more active, with the teacher acting as more of a facilitator and guide, rather than the keeper of all the knowledge.

    Based on my experience in both teaching and administration roles, I can say that constructivist science classrooms may look and sound different–with more student talk, more questioning, and more chaos. By understanding these differences and supporting teachers through this transition, administrators ensure that all California students develop the deeper scientific thinking that NGSS was designed to foster.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Go8 defends 50% overseas student cohort – Campus Review

    Go8 defends 50% overseas student cohort – Campus Review

    Australia’s oldest university has come under fire after it was revealed international students made up the majority of its enrolments last year.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Introducing the SPFI Sentinel: Free speech stories by — and for — student journalists

    Introducing the SPFI Sentinel: Free speech stories by — and for — student journalists

    Thirteen hundred student newsrooms across the country prove each day that the news doesn’t wait until graduation to break. And no one’s closer to the ground where free speech debates are blazing on college campuses than student journalists. 

    So far this year, FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative has received 84 calls for help from student journalists. In 2024, there were 140. As they cover the battle for free speech on campus, they face their own fights for press freedoms, often combating censorship without the recognition they deserve. 

    That’s why we created the SPFI Sentinel. With the Sentinel, we’re celebrating the student journalists on the front lines of the First Amendment by recognizing their unflinching reporting and sharing their stories with 1,300 other student newsrooms in the U.S.

    The following are the featured journalists for the 2025 edition of the Sentinel.

    Nikita Osadchiy, The Heights, Boston College:

    I’m Nikita Osadchiy, an assistant news editor at The Heights. With nearly a year on our editorial board and amid a presidential administration intent on battering higher education nationwide, the need for accountability journalism has never felt more urgent. Newspapers serve as watchdogs, holding institutions — academic or otherwise — to the principles from which journalism itself springs. When those institutions fail, it is the press’s mission to confront them, expose wrongdoing, and reaffirm the public’s right to truth. Student journalism has been the chance to preserve integrity where it falters and to give voice where silence would otherwise prevail.

    Dylan Hembrough, The Alestle, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville:

    I’m Dylan Hembrough, editor-in-chief of The Alestle at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. I’m a second-year pharmacy student and in my third year as editor-in-chief. I got into journalism because I love to write, and that has blossomed into a passion for disseminating information and giving people the unfiltered truth they deserve.

    Glenn Hedin, The Michigan Daily, University of Michigan:

    My name is Glenn Hedin, and I am a student journalist. I report on university governance and campus activism, and I like to tell myself that if powerful people aren’t mad at me then I’m doing something wrong. Free speech in America is eroding fast, with even major media institutions preemptively capitulating to censorship. Journalists need to rise to this occasion by intensely scrutinizing powerful institutions and seeking out silenced voices to listen to. Student journalists play a part there, and I hope that when I’m old I’ll be able to look back and say that I did mine well.

    Barrett Dolata, The Michigan Daily, University of Michigan:

    My name is Barrett Dolata and I am a student journalist pursuing my final year of a BA in English, with a minor in art and design at the University of Michigan. Student journalism holds a special place for me because it gives voice to the students and community members I pass every day in Ann Arbor. What makes it particularly unique is the immersion, as we’re not distant observers writing about issues from the outside. We’re experiencing many of these same challenges and moments right alongside the people we’re covering, which brings a depth to our reporting that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

    Chloe Platt, The Spectator, Seattle University:

    I’m Chloe Platt (she/her), a Seattle-based journalist, poet, and writer whose work is rooted in empathy and poetic connectivity. As editor-in-chief of The Spectator, Seattle University’s student newspaper, I held fast to the belief that journalism is both a vessel for amplifying vulnerable voices and a force for challenging oppressive systems. I carry this conviction into my professional work, viewing student journalism as essential in shaping critically minded, outspoken storytellers who see narrative as a tool for social change.

    To these and all of the other talented journalists across the nation, SPFI has one message: We have your back. 

    As the 2025 academic year begins, we encourage any journalists facing censorship on campus to contact our 24-hour hotline at  717-734-SPFI (7734) for guidance, resources, and answers to your legal questions. For information on topics like defamation and privacy law, visit SPFI’s clickable guide to common media law and First Amendment Questions: Can I Publish This?

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: How will universities respond to the 6 per cent international student levy?  

    Weekend Reading: How will universities respond to the 6 per cent international student levy?  

    Author:
    Vincenzo Raimo

    Published:

    This guest blog was kindly authored by Vincenzo Raimo, an independent international higher education consultant 

    The UK government’s proposed 6 per cent levy on international tuition fees has added yet another layer of complexity to the already fragile international student recruitment landscape. The levy is intended to fund the introduction of targeted maintenance grants for home students, but for universities it represents an additional cost that could reshape recruitment strategies and, in some cases, make international activity unviable. 

    Higher education providers will not all respond in the same way. Their choices will be shaped by their position in the market, their pricing power, and their cost of acquisition (CoA) – the real cost of recruiting through to enrolment of each international student. 

    In a previous blog I set out five institutional archetypes in international student recruitment: Prestige Players, Volume Hunters, Strategists, Opportunists, and Outsourcers. These archetypes can help us think through the likely responses to the levy, and where the risks and opportunities lie. 

    Levy Responses: From Resilience to Retreat 

    • Pass-throughs (High Brand, Low CoA): These are the strong Prestige Player institutions with the brand power to raise fees by 6 per cent (or more) without losing applicants. For them, the levy will likely be passed straight on to students. In fact, some may look back and wonder why they had not already increased fees earlier. The impact on recruitment will be minimal. 
    • Squeezed Prestige (High Brand, High CoA): Some universities occupy a less comfortable position. They may have strong brands, but their recruitment costs are high often due to heavy scholarship spending and dependence on expensive marketing and recruitment strategies. They can pass on some of the levy, but margins will erode. Expect this group to look carefully at their agent portfolios, renegotiate commission deals, and cut back on scholarships. Opportunists often sit here, swinging between good years and bad. 
    • Absorbers (Low Brand, Low CoA): A number of institutions will choose to absorb the levy, keeping international fees flat to remain competitive. Margins will tighten, but recruitment volumes are likely to remain stable. These are often Strategists or Outsourcers, who have already kept their CoA under control through efficiency or partnerships. They will see absorbing the levy as a necessary cost of staying in the game. 
    • Exits (Low Brand, High CoA): For some, the levy may be the final straw. Institutions already dependent on discounting and agent commissions who charge low international fees to chase volume, may no longer see international recruitment as viable. Volume Hunters are the most exposed here. Their models are built on fragile margins, and the levy risks pushing them into unsustainable territory. For some, exit will not mean giving up on international students altogether. But it may mean dramatically scaling back, consolidating markets, and retreating from high-risk geographies. 

    Alternative Paths 

    Alongside these responses, two further groups are worth highlighting. 

    • Innovators: Some universities will take the levy as a trigger to rethink their model entirely. Expect more to explore transnational education, offshore hubs, or pathway partnerships as a way of diversifying income and reducing exposure to UK-based fee inflation. Innovation may prove the most sustainable long-term response, if vice-chancellors and governing bodies have the stomach for it. 
    • Niche/Selective Recruiters: For specialist institutions – arts, theology, agriculture, or mission-driven providers – international student recruitment has never been about volume. For them, the levy is simply the cost of doing business. They will continue to recruit selectively, valuing diversity and global presence more than surplus. 

    What Does This Mean for the Sector? 

    The archetype framework helps us see that there is no single sector response. Institutions will react in line with their pricing power, cost base, and strategic orientation. Prestige Players may pass through the levy with little concern. Absorbers will hold their nerve and tighten margins. Volume Hunters, by contrast, risk being forced out of the game altogether. 

    For these institutions, scaling back international recruitment will not just be a strategic shift but a financial shock. The loss of international fee income raises an uncomfortable question of how they will fill the gap – whether by yet more cost cutting, chasing riskier sources of income, or considering more fundamental changes to their operating models.   

    The levy therefore brings the deeper issue into sharp focus: the sustainability of international student recruitment. Chasing volume is no longer enough. Institutions must use this moment to confront the costs of recruiting and support these students, rethink pricing, and reconsider the value they offer. Those that do so will be far better placed to build resilient, sustainable futures in international education.  

    Source link

  • Designing a Seamless Student Journey

    Designing a Seamless Student Journey

    Every Gap Is a Broken Promise 

    Ever call a service provider only to get bounced between departments, retelling your story to every new agent, each one promising a fix that never comes? You hang up frustrated, unheard, and uncertain.

    This same dynamic plays out in higher ed every day. A prospective student tells an admissions counselor, “I need to finish my graduate degree in one year.” That context gets lost in the handoff. The student success team never hears it. Course sequencing doesn’t line up. Frustration builds. Momentum stalls.

    That isn’t just a communication slip. It’s a broken promise.

    Too often, institutions treat the student journey as a series of separate phases — marketing handles outreach, admissions manages enrollment, and student success supports retention — but students don’t experience their education in phases. They experience it as one journey.

    And when we don’t design for that, we create invisible gaps that undermine trust, break continuity, and erode outcomes.

    This isn’t a marketing problem. Or an admissions problem. Or even a student success problem. It’s an alignment problem. 

    The real challenge is that internal teams aren’t playing from the same sheet of music. Without shared data, shared metrics, and shared goals, it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation about where the student journey breaks down.

    It also makes improvement feel like guesswork. One team pushes harder on applications. Another tries to boost first-term persistence. But without a full-funnel view, efforts remain disjointed and hard to scale.

    To grow enrollment and retention sustainably, you need institutional alignment around the full journey, from first click to graduation.

    Full-Funnel Enrollment Planning as a Solution for Growth

    A full-funnel strategy doesn’t just connect dots — it puts everyone on the same map. Sustainable enrollment growth requires moving beyond early-stage efforts and focusing on a unified enrollment strategy that carries a prospective student from interest all the way through graduation. That means marketing, admissions, and student success teams need to share the same data, vision, and goals. Here’s what that looks like in practice.

    Connect Marketing, Admissions, and Student Success

    Replace handoffs with collaboration. That means shared access to student data, from first inquiry to graduation. When teams see the same big picture, outreach becomes more relevant, timing improves, and support gets proactive.

    Build a Shared Road Map With Clear Metrics

    Institutions need to establish a single road map that charts the student journey from inquiry to enrollment to graduation and attach measurable goals to each phase, such as enrollment yield, first-term persistence, and long-term retention rates. A shared scorecard keeps the discussion focused on the big-picture student journey, rather than team silos.

    This shared dataset should be analyzed to detect patterns and trends. Where are students dropping out of the funnel? Which programs retain the best-fit learners? Which messages produce the best engagement? The insights you glean from your analysis can help you tweak targeting and support.

    Align Around Student Fit Early

    Retention starts with recruitment. When marketing and admissions teams are aligned with student success, they can spot patterns of persistence and adjust targeting accordingly. It’s not just about getting more students in the door — it’s about attracting students who will thrive.

    Structure Cross-Team Check-Ins

    Yes, it means more meetings, but structured, purposeful alignment sessions across departments can surface insights you’d otherwise miss. Better yet, tie every meeting to shared key performance indicators (KPIs) and use that data to drive strategy.

    Treat Technology as a Bridge, Not a Band-Aid

    Modern customer relationship management (CRM) platforms give you visibility into every stage of the funnel. Real-time reporting and alerts enable teams to identify issues — where students are disengaging, where more support is needed, which outreach messages are failing to resonate — and respond quickly before they become systemic.

    Reframing Retention as a Targeting Opportunity 

    Strong retention doesn’t begin in week eight of the semester. It begins the moment a prospective student clicks “Learn More.” Strategies for success include the following:

    • Target right-fit students using behavioral and demographic data.
    • Tailor outreach to meet the expectations of adult and online learners.
    • Use predictive insights to intervene before a student disengages.

    When you design a journey that prioritizes clarity, continuity, and fit, your enrollment and retention numbers start to reflect that.

    Key Takeaways

    With the value of higher ed under scrutiny and students facing more choices than ever, institutions must start treating the student journey like a customer journey.

    That means designing around measurable satisfaction at every stage. Rallying around shared information. And giving every team a role in both the promise and the delivery of student success.

    Because when students fall through the cracks, they don’t just feel confused. They feel let down.

    Enrollment growth requires an end-to-end student journey approach, not a single-stage fix. 

    Full-cycle planning drives stronger enrollment and better retention.

    Alignment among internal teams is the foundation for sustainable results.

    It’s Time to Close the Gaps

    At Archer Education, we partner with institutions to connect marketing, enrollment, and student success into one seamless journey. We help you build full-cycle strategies that grow enrollment, increase retention, and, most importantly, deliver on your promises to students.

    Ready to start the conversation? Let’s talk.

    Contact our team to learn more about our tech-enabled strategy, marketing, enrollment, and retention services.

    Source link

  • Higher education needs a plan in place for student “pastoral” use of AI

    Higher education needs a plan in place for student “pastoral” use of AI

    With 18 per cent of students reporting mental health difficulties, a figure which has tripled in just seven years, universities are navigating a crisis.

    The student experience can compound many of the risk factors for poor mental health – from managing constrained budgets and navigating the cost of learning crisis, to moving away from established support systems, and balancing high-stakes assessment with course workload and part-time work.

    In response, universities provide a range of free support services, including counselling and wellbeing provision, alongside specialist mental health advisory services. But if we’re honest, these services are under strain. Despite rising expenditure, they’re still often under-resourced, overstretched, and unable to keep pace with growing demand. With staff-student ratios at impossible levels and wait times for therapeutic support often exceeding ten weeks, some students are turning to alternatives for more immediate care.

    And in this void, artificial intelligence is stepping in. While ChatGPT-written essays dominate the sector’s AI discussions, the rise of “pastoral AI” highlights a far more urgent and overlooked AI use case – with consequences more troubling than academic misconduct.

    Affective conversations

    For the uninitiated, the landscape of “affective” or “pastoral” AI is broad. Mainstream tools like Microsoft’s Copilot or OpenAI’s ChatGPT are designed for productivity, not emotional support. Yet research suggests that users increasingly turn to them for exactly that – seeking help with breakups, mental health advice, and other life challenges, as well as essay writing. While affective conversations may account for only a small proportion of overall use (under three per cent in some studies), the full picture is poorly understood.

    Then there are AI “companions” such as Replika or Character.AI – chatbots built specifically for affective use. These are optimised to listen, respond with empathy, offer intimacy, and provide virtual friendship, confidants, or even “therapy”.

    This is not a fringe phenomenon. Replika claims over 25 million users, while Snapchat’s My AI counts more than 150 million. The numbers are growing fast. As the affective capacity of these tools improves, they are becoming some of the most popular and intensively used forms of generative AI – and increasingly addictive.

    A recent report found that users spend an average of 86 minutes a day with AI companions – more than on Instagram or YouTube, and not far behind TikTok. These bots are designed to keep users engaged, often relying on sycophantic feedback loops that affirm worldviews regardless of truth or ethics. Because large language models are trained in part through human feedback, its output is often highly sycophantic – “agreeable” responses which are persuasive and pleasing – but these can become especially risky in emotionally charged conversations, especially with vulnerable users.

    Empathy optimisations

    For students already experiencing poor mental health, the risks are acute. Evidence is emerging that these engagement-at-all-costs chatbots rarely guide conversations to a natural resolution. Instead, their sycophancy can fuel delusions, amplify mania, or validate psychosis.

    Adding to these concerns, legal cases and investigative reporting are surfacing deeply troubling examples: chatbots encouraging violence, sending unsolicited sexual content, reinforcing delusional thinking, or nudging users to buy them virtual gifts. One case alleged a chatbot encouraged a teenager to murder his parents after they restricted his screen time; another saw a chatbot advise a fictional recovering meth addict to take a “small hit” after a bad week. These are not outliers but the predictable by-products of systems optimised for empathy but unbound by ethics.

    And it’s young people who are engaging with them most. More than 70 per cent of companion app users are aged 18 to 35, and two-thirds of Character.AI’s users are 18 to 24 – the same demographic that makes up the majority of our student population.

    The potential harm here is not speculative. It is real and affecting students right now. Yet “pastoral” AI use remains almost entirely absent from higher education’s AI conversations. That is a mistake. With lawsuits now spotlighting cases of AI “encouraged” suicides among vulnerable young people – many of whom first encountered AI through academic use – the sector cannot afford to ignore this.

    Paint a clearer picture

    Understanding why students turn to AI for pastoral support might help. Reports highlight loneliness and vulnerability as key indicators. One found that 17 per cent of young people valued AI companions because they were “always available,” while 12 per cent said they appreciated being able to share things they could not tell friends or family. Another reported that 12 per cent of young people were using chatbots because they had no one else to talk to – a figure that rose to 23 per cent among vulnerable young people, who were also more likely to use AI for emotional support or therapy.

    We talk often about belonging as the cornerstone of student success and wellbeing – with reducing loneliness a key measure of institutional effectiveness. Pastoral AI use suggests policymakers may have much to learn from this agenda. More thinking is needed to understand why the lure of an always-available, non-judgemental digital “companion” feels so powerful to our students – and what that tells us about our existing support.

    Yet AI discussions in higher education remain narrowly focused, on academic integrity and essay writing. Our evidence base reflects this: the Student Generative AI Survey – arguably the best sector-wide tool we have – gives little attention to pastoral or wellbeing-related uses. The result is, however, that data remains fragmented and anecdotal on this area of significant risk. Without a fuller sector-specific understanding of student pastoral AI use, we risk stalling progress on developing effective, sector-wide strategies.

    This means institutions need to start a different kind of AI conversation – one grounded in ethics, wellbeing, and emotional care. It will require drawing on different expertise: not just academics and technologists, but also counsellors, student services staff, pastoral advisers, and mental health professionals. These are the people best placed to understand how AI is reshaping the emotional lives of our students.

    Any serious AI strategy must recognise that students are turning to these tools not just for essays, but for comfort and belonging too, and we must offer something better in return.

    If some of our students find it easier to confide in chatbots than in people, we need to confront what that says about the accessibility and design of our existing support systems, and how we might improve and resource them. Building a pastoral AI strategy is less about finding a perfect solution, but more about treating pastoral AI seriously, as a mirror which reflects back at us student loneliness, vulnerabilities, and institutional support gaps. These reflections should push us to re-centre these experiences, to reimagine our pastoral support provision, into an image that’s genuinely and unapologetically human.

    Source link