This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The struggling University of New Orleans should return to the Louisiana State University system, the state’s higher education board has recommended.
UNO, founded in 1956 as part of the LSU system, transferred to the University of Louisiana system in 2011 amid enrollment declines stemming from Hurricane Katrina damage.
Transferring the institution back to the LSU system would require state legislation, which Louisiana’s board of regents voted unanimously to recommend at a meeting on Wednesday.
Dive Insight:
UNO’s enrollment has never fully recovered from the disaster of Katrina nearly two decades ago. The university even grew its student body slightly after the hurricane but has since lost those gains. For the 2023-24 academic year, full-time equivalent enrollment stood at 5,114 students — just over a third of what it was in 2004-05.
Accompanying those declines has been financial instability. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2024, UNO’s tuition and fee revenue fell about 20% to $65 million.
State fiscal support has also collapsed. Louisiana has gone through “one of the largest higher education disinvestments in the nation,” according to a March feasibility study from the regents on returning UNO to the university system. For UNO, state funding has fallen by just under 45% from two decades ago.
In addition to cost increases felt throughout higher education, UNO also faces contractual debt obligations such as for bookstore and dining services and a deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $2 billion.
The report also laid blame with the university, stating that “UNO’s lack of aggressive action to address these issues immediately as they arose has resulted in a deep budget deficit that must be strategically repaired.”
Amid all its many revenue and expense challenges — and despite job cuts and other budget efforts — UNO’s budget gap has reached $30 million, according to the study.
All of those problems indicate failed thinking behind the university’s transfer into the UL system, according to the regents’ report. Moving UNO into UL’s fold came with an “expectation that new governance would assist in reversing declining enrollment and graduation rates to yield a stronger and more vibrant UNO,” it noted.
But things did not turn out as planned. “Instead, the institution’s fiscal condition has deteriorated to its current dire state, challenging UNO’s ability to meet its academic, research and community service missions,” the report said
Yet the university “plays a significant role in advancing the intellectual and economic development of the City of New Orleans,” the study argued, pointing to well-regarded programs in jazz studies, naval architecture and marine engineering, hospitality and cybersecurity.
While the regents voted to recommend the university’s transfer to the LSU system, some board members expressed concern that doing so would just make UNO’s financial troubles a systemwide problem.
“I just worry that, when you look at the shortfall, you’re taking the shortfall from one area and transferring it to the other,” Regent Dallas Hixson said at Wednesday’s meeting.
The point of transferring the university to the LSU system would be to “unlock the full potential of UNO, fostering regional prosperity while ensuring a smooth and efficient transfer of governance and leadership,” the feasibility study stated. It offered few details, however, for how that would occur.
To ensure a smooth transfer, the regents recommended setting up a transition team that would engage the system and UNO leadership. It also called for an in-depth third-party forensic financial audit, as well as program and facilities assessments, to help enumerate and address UNO’s challenges.
Professor David Phoenix OBE is Vice-Chancellor of London South Bank University and Chief Executive of LSBU Group.
Dr Katerina Kolyva is Chief Executive Officer of The Education and Training Foundation.
Post-16 education in England is at a pivotal moment, with increasing efforts to create a more integrated and collaborative system. While elements of competition remain, the reintegration of the sector into the Department for Education presents new opportunities for colleges and universities to enhance their contributions to local communities. Both further and higher education providers play distinct yet complementary roles in supporting diverse learners, but significant challenges remain in achieving a fully joined-up system. The establishment of Skills England, along with the skills and industrial strategies, signals a growing recognition of these complexities, highlighting the need for a cross-government approach. Achieving greater alignment across the post-16 landscape could provide an opportunity to shape a system that empowers learners, strengthens local economies, and supports national prosperity.
In February, the Education and Training Foundation and London South Bank University therefore brought together a range of relevant stakeholders to discuss existing models of best practice and the workforce characteristics needed to help develop an effective tertiary education system.
University and college mergers, franchise agreements, Institutes of Technology and Group models are all examples of imaginative approaches to post-16 collaboration. Workforce characteristics found within these models include a leadership team with a clear vision, strong awareness of institutional values, and resilience against the prevailing winds of policy. Having the correct personnel with a positive and creative mindset can foster strategic risk-taking and allow for continuous learning with the avoidance of blame, though people and culture initiatives alone cannot be relied upon to deliver a coherent system.
Our marketised higher education system and a focus on further-higher education transitions around level 4 could risk missing the bigger picture. We need government to develop a national framework within which local skills and innovation strategies can be developed. Such strategies would seek to consider issues related to the skills pipeline (including key areas such as adult education and gateway qualifications) but would also look at job creation by leveraging universities to drive innovation with business. Such a system-based approach needs to also consider what post-16 provision in the schools sector looks like and how this interfaces with further education, as well as the interface between further and higher education. This is essential if we are to provide alternative study pathways that meet the needs of the majority whilst also preventing duplication and redundancy at all levels.
Published in December 2024, the government’s Devolution White Paper could be a first step towards establishing a framework for regional collaboration and addressing these missing elements. Strategic Authorities could take an important role in working alongside further and higher education providers and employers to identify skills shortages and promote clear pathways from education and training into employment through a combination of specialist institutions. The government, through a coordinated approach across departments, could use various regulatory and financial levers to encourage genuine collaboration between providers where there is a mismatch between skill demands and provision, while also simplifying the complex regulatory landscape.
A greater level of specialisation and the recognition of the importance of different institutional missions has the potential to support a greater diversity of missions and a shift to a more collaborative framework. When combined with designing a corresponding careers, information, advice and guidance service, this will allow institutions to build more pathways for learners, meaning a more inclusive system. Those who are educationally disenfranchised would have more options to re-enter education and work, breaking down a key barrier to opportunity and, in the long term, boosting economic growth.
Regulation, market forces, and financial constraints can both foster and hinder collaboration. If government can find the correct balance, post-16 education will better serve learners and employers, boosting equality of opportunity and economic growth. Government commitments to boost devolution, publish an industrial strategy and reduce intra-governmental bureaucracy tacitly acknowledge the problem, but an overarching framework for addressing this is lacking. Once the IFATE Bill, which will formally establish Skills England, achieves Royal Assent, government must establish a mechanism to ensure cross-departmental coordination, bringing together Skills England, regional authorities, education providers, and employers to drive structural change.
The Lifelong Education Institute’s latest report – “Taking Higher Education Further” – shines a spotlight on the contribution of FE colleges to England’s higher education sector.
In partnership with the Mixed Economy Group of colleges – a group representing the 43 colleges with a strategic interest in HE – we have explored the rationale for college-based higher education, analysed some of the barriers holding it back from expansion, and suggested ways in which policymakers could support its growth.
The report could hardly come out at a more interesting time for FE/HE relationships. After a decade or more of relative stasis following the introduction of the £9,000 undergraduate student fee cap in England, the tectonic plates of post-18 education are shifting rapidly towards an as-yet-unknown end state. There are three key drivers behind this potential re-setting of the status quo between the college and university sectors.
First is the dramatic shift in the financial situation of universities and colleges, with many higher education institutions now facing the sort of cost-cutting that further education colleges have endured for years and needing to come up with new, more efficient business models to sustain themselves financially. Following the consolidation of many smaller colleges into large groups, there are now several colleges with larger annual turnovers than smaller universities, and the balance of power between FE and HE is moving steadily away from the traditional template of senior/junior partnership.
Second is the move towards universities having place-based strategies, with civic university agreements proliferating in all parts of the country. This has partly been driven by the rise in influential devolved authorities across England, and partly by the increase in take up of degree pathways in a range of public sector professions, such as nursing, policing, and social work, which are vital to local communities and tend to recruit from local populations.
Rising cost of living pressures have also played their part, with commuting students becoming an increasingly important segment of the HE student market. The introduction of degree apprenticeships has also pulled many universities into much more active engagement with local employers and much more of a focus on local skills development. Colleges, which have always had fairly tight catchment areas, now find themselves working their patches alongside local universities, and in some cases, through the network of 21 Institutes of Technology, offering higher technical qualifications and high level short courses directly in partnership with HE institutions.
Third, and most importantly, the arrival of a new government is rapidly moving the political paradigm away from competition towards collaboration. Education ministers have taken every opportunity since the general election to drive home the message that partnership, cooperation and coordination have now replaced markets, competition and institutional individualism as “the default way of working across all providers,” in the recent words of skills minister Jacqui Smith. We are promised a white paper this summer setting out a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education and skills, and at the same time a “radical” package of HE reforms which will also emphasise the role of HE in collaborating around local and national skills priorities.
Is the future for England tertiary?
HE/FE collaboration has tended to be relatively transactional and fluid in England, and there is no standard blueprint for forging partnerships. A small number of colleges can now claim to be tertiary institutions, having been granted degree awarding powers, although with the Office for Students having currently suspended the application process until August, it’s now far from certain how quickly this number will grow in future. There are four universities which by virtue of having absorbed a failing FE college have become tertiary – Derby, London South Bank, Greater Manchester (formerly Bolton University) and the University of West London. But this is the result of specific local circumstances, not national policy.
Arguably, these institutions are a microcosm of exactly what the government is trying to achieve at a national level. Tertiary institutions are able to develop coherent progression pathways from basic to undergraduate level for students of all aptitudes, embracing both academic and technical education routes without competition between them. David Phoenix, vice chancellor of London South Bank University, has been an articulate advocate for this model, and his vision, as set out in his November 2023 report “Connecting the dots: the need for an effective skills system in England” has been highly influential in Labour-leaning circles.
It’s possible the government will introduce much greater incentives for universities and colleges to consider merger, and even be prepared to act as “matchmaker” for reluctant or hesitant brides and grooms. It would certainly make it much easier to develop integrated apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications and Lifelong Learning Entitlement offers if there were more tertiary providers.
The Taking Higher Education Further report is generally supportive of greater tertiary integration, but with several important reservations. To begin with, although most FE colleges are appreciative of the relationships they have with universities – mostly still based on validation agreements – there are many who are critical of the cost and in some cases one-sided nature of the partnership, with some having experienced the disruption caused by an HE institution deciding unilaterally to withdraw from the agreement. Another concern has been the proliferation of foundation years at many universities, which was seen as unwelcome competition for Level 3 students and met with dismay by many in the FE sector. This has abated considerably since the introduction of a much reduced fee cap for foundation years.
While some institutes of technology have strengthened FE/HE relationships, others have struggled to bridge the gap between the two sectors. One aspect of that gap – the difference in pay and conditions between FE and HE lecturers – has proved particularly troublesome. But those institutes of technology which have been successful have demonstrated that joint working between FE and HE can be highly effective. Overall, despite the caveats, the FE leaders consulted as part of the research for the report were generally positive about the idea of working more closely with HE.
In a political climate where economically relevant skills and wider access to job-related skills are now central to the government agenda, college-based higher education has both issues at its heart. The HE students who study in FE colleges are overwhelmingly, adult, very local and from disadvantaged backgrounds. The courses they take are typically directly related to opportunities in the local labour market and focused on career progression. Whereas the student loan system has tended to incentivise HE institutions to prioritise three year degree courses, FE colleges offer a much more incremental approach, with multiple entry and exit points and a high proportion of part-time and modular options. This could be a significant advantage as colleges prepare for the implementation of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement in 2026–27.
In summary, the report is a plea for government to give more support to the expansion of HE in FE, but is not in any way antagonistic towards the HE sector. The aim is to strengthen the relationship between colleges and universities, not to weaken it. As the foreword says, “Working together, colleges and universities can open up accessible opportunities and make a real difference to people’s lives.” In this, FE and HE share a common purpose.
The University of California System’s president announced a systemwide hiring freeze and other “cost-saving measures, such as delaying maintenance and reducing business travel where possible.”
“Because every UC location is different, these plans will vary,” president Michael V. Drake said in a Wednesday letter to the campuses of one of the country’s largest higher education systems. He said “every action that impacts our University and our workforce will only be taken after serious and deliberative consideration.”
Drake pointed to a “substantial cut” to the system in the California state budget atop the Trump administration’s disruptive national reduction in support for postsecondary education. He said the administration’s executive orders and proposed policies “threaten funding for lifesaving research, patient care and education support.”
“The Chancellors and I are preparing for significant financial challenges ahead,” Drake wrote.
Whenever hiring does resume, UC universities and their components will no longer be able to require that applicants submit diversity statements. Janet Reilly, chair of the UC Board of Regents, said in a separate statement Wednesday that the board directed the system to eliminate such mandates.
“While the University has no systemwide policies requiring the submission of diversity statements as part of employment applications, some programs and departments have used this practice,” Reilly said.
Paulette Granberry Russell, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, told Inside Higher Ed that, “while I think diversity statements added value on the front end of a search,” it’s far more important to have a structured approach to faculty hiring. She said this approach should eliminate biases and consideration of “non–job-related criteria,” such as accents or lack of eye contact, from the process.
Diversity statements, she said, are “not the defining factor in whether or not somebody’s going to be successful” if they earn the position.
Atticus Finch is remembered as one of literature’s greatest heroes for his willingness to defend an unpopular client despite great professional and personal cost. I was reminded of Atticus when the Trump administration recently retaliated against attorneys explicitly because they represented clients and causes the president dislikes.
On March 6, President Trump issued an executive order targeting a law firm, Perkins Coie, for activities that are protected by the First Amendment. The order cites the firm for “representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton” and commissioning opposition research into the Trump campaign. Trump also critiqued Perkins Coie for bringing a lawsuit to challenge election laws Trump supports, “including those requiring voter identification.”
This order came after the president revoked the security clearances of attorneys at another firm for representing a client the president dislikes: former Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had led the government’s investigations into Trump’s role on January 6 and his handling of classified documents.
In yet another order, Trump also singled out attorneys at a third firm, Paul Weiss, for bringing a lawsuit against individuals who protested at the Capitol on January 6, and for hiring an attorney who had investigated Trump while in government service. Trump’s orders against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss not only barred federal agencies from engaging the firms’ services but also suspended the security clearances of its attorneys and restricted their access to federal buildings. These sanctions cripple the attorneys’ ability to represent clients in disputes with the federal government. The administration points to no evidence that these firms are a genuine security risk, and expressly targets these firms for their client selection and speech.
This is deeply troubling regardless of where one stands on the activities or firms affected. The process of defending constitutional rights relies heavily on the ability of private attorneys to bring lawsuits against the government. This requires lawyers to be free from official government pressure when choosing which clients and causes to represent. If lawyers are put in fear of federal government retaliation for representing clients who challenge the government or stand for unpopular causes, many injustices will never be challenged.
The administration’s actions represent a direct assault on this freedom. Punishing firms for their choice of clients or the nature of their legal work cannot help but intimidate the legal community, discouraging attorneys from taking on cases that may be politically unpopular or present a challenge to those in power.
History is repeating itself with Trump’s latest efforts. What is at stake here is nothing less than the legal profession’s capacity to fulfill its role in a democratic society.
It also sets an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. If the Trump administration can target specific firms on this basis, what prevents future administrations from blacklisting firms that represent, say, gun-rights groups? This concern is hardly theoretical: just last year, the Supreme Court had to slap down a New York state official for trying to punish a third party for doing business with the NRA. Could religious organizations be next? Or animal-rights activists? Could the next Democratic president ban from federal buildings any attorneys that represented Republican candidates? What is the limiting principle?
Furthermore, how can a lawyer who is considering representing a politically controversial client know that she will not be targeted the next time control of the White House changes hands? The safest course of action will be to avoid representing clients of any political salience, right or left, even if their cause is just.
Even before Trump’s latest actions on this front, a number of law firms have already shown their willingness to run from controversial causes, such as when Kirkland & Ellis withdrew from its representation of the NRA because the NRA advocates for gun rights. Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement, one of the firm’s most famous attorneys, had to leave the firm entirely simply so he could continue to represent his gun-related clients. Clement could afford to do this precisely because he was so well-known. But if the government can punish an entire law firm over the nature of the work of one of its attorneys, less influential attorneys will face enormous pressure from colleagues to avoid taking controversial cases and clients.
These actions also directly violate the First Amendment. They explicitly target these firms for the clients they have represented and the legal positions they have taken on election law matters. The Supreme Court has recognized the First Amendment right of lawyers “to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights.” By officially punishing lawyers on the basis of these associations, the executive order therefore is unconstitutional viewpoint-based retaliation and violates the right of freedom of association. For this reason, a federal judge this week issued a temporary restraining order blocking the order against Perkins Coie.
There is a long, troubling history of trying to silence advocacy through fear and intimidation of the advocates. Attorneys who fought for abolition and civil rights were frequently harassed, or even subjected to threats and violence such as when Thurgood Marshall barely escaped a lynch mob while arguing civil rights cases in the South before Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Many other civil rights attorneys, including those working for the NAACP, were investigated by the FBI, accused of communist sympathies, and faced professional blacklisting. More recently, government officials pressured the firms that represented Guantanamo Bay detainees in the 2000s to drop the cases.
History is repeating itself with Trump’s latest efforts. What is at stake here is nothing less than the legal profession’s capacity to fulfill its role in a democratic society. As the judge in Perkins Coie’s lawsuit warned, the administration’s decision “threatens to significantly undermine our entire legal system and the ability of all people to access justice.”
Public interest organizations like FIRE understand this principle well. Because we are committed to the nonpartisan defense of free speech, we are routinely accused of being “right-wing hacks” or “left-wing radicals,” often during the same week. But defending the rights of the unpopular is not about political allegiance — it’s about ensuring that fundamental freedoms apply to everyone. Civil rights groups must be able to defend speech and causes that challenge those in power, regardless of who holds office.
Atticus Finch understood how crucial vigorous representation is. In his impassioned speech to the jury, he explained, “In this country our courts are great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.” If lawyers fear retaliation for simply doing their jobs, then the courts can no longer serve as the “great levelers” as unpopular or politically powerless individuals and causes are unable to get their day in court. We’re all better off when even “bad people” can get a good lawyer — whoever those in power have deemed “bad people” today.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine said the pause on federal agriculture funding for her state’s public colleges and universities has been lifted, WMTW reported Wednesday.
The Department of Agriculture froze all spending Tuesday as part of an investigation into the institutions’ compliance with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. USDA launched the investigation shortly after a heated exchange between Maine’s Democratic governor and President Trump in late February.
The state’s flagship institution, the University of Maine, requested clarification Wednesday on the status of USDA’s Title IX compliance review and the extent of the pause. Collins also consulted the Trump administration about the freeze. Relief followed quickly after.
“This USDA funding is critically important not only to the University of Maine but to our farmers and loggers,” Collins said in a statement. “Now that funding has been restored, the work that the university does in partnership with the many people and communities who depend on these programs can continue.”
The system has nearly $63 million in active grants from the Agriculture Department and is expecting $35 million to be paid out for ongoing statewide education, research and extension activities, a system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed.
“Since our flagship’s founding as Maine’s land grant 160 years ago, funding from USDA has enabled us to strengthen and grow the state’s natural resource economy, sustain rural jobs and communities, and support hands-on 4-H youth development opportunities,” system chancellor Dannel Malloy and University of Maine president Joan Ferrini-Mundy said in a joint statement. “The University of Maine System was thrilled to learn from Senator Collins that the USDA has agreed to lift its plan to temporarily pause our federal funding, which has been an unnecessary distraction from our essential education, research and extension activities that benefit Maine and well beyond.”
In a quick reversal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has restored funding to the University of Maine System after pausing it on Monday.
On Wednesday evening, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, announced that USDA funding for UMS programs had resumed after she had consulted with the Trump administration.
“This USDA funding is critically important not only to the University of Maine, but to our farmers and loggers, as well as to the many people who work in Maine’s agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry industries,” Collins said in a statement.
UMS leaders learned of the funding restoration from Collins. System Chancellor Dannel Malloy and University of Maine President Joan Ferrini-Mundy said in a joint statement late Wednesday that the shutoff was an “unnecessary distraction from our essential education, research and extension activities.”
Altogether, UMS has $63 million in active USDA grants — most of which goes to the flagship University of Maine campus in Orono, the system said.Of that, about $35 million is left to be paid out.The funding helps finance a wide array of programs, including agricultural research, the youth agricultural engagement program 4-H, and plant and tick disease testing.
The funding freeze came weeks after a tense public exchange between President Donald Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat.Trump threatened Mills on Feb. 21 with pulling all federal funding to the state if it did not comply with his executive order barring transgender women from K-12 and college sports teams aligning with their gender identity.
The day after the exchange, USDA announced a compliance review of the University of Maine under Title IX, which bars sex-based discrimination at federally funded education institutions. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also announced a civil rights investigation into the state on Feb. 21, finding just four days later that its education department had violated Title IX.
UMS said it heard nothing from USDA between Feb. 26 and March 10, when the system learned via a forwarded email that USDA had temporarily cut off all funding.
UMS maintains that it is “fully compliant” with all state and federal laws as well as with updated NCAA rules. The college sports association changed its rules to adhere to Trump’s executive order the day after it was signed.
“At no point since USDA announced its Title IX compliance review on Feb. 22 has that Department, or any other party, alleged any violation by Maine’s public universities of Title IX or any other federal or state law,” UMS said in a release Wednesday.
On the eve of the release of HEPI’s Student Generative AI Survey 2025, HEPI hosted a roundtable dinner with the report’s sponsor, Kortext, and invited guests to discuss the following essay question:
How will AI change the university experience for the next generation?
This was the third roundtable discussion we have hosted with Kortext on AI, over three years. Observing the debate mature from a cautious, risk-averse response to this forward-looking, employability-focused discussion has been fascinating. We spent much of the evening discussing a potential pivot for teaching and learning in the sector.
The higher education sector places the highest importance on creating, collecting, and applying knowledge. ‘Traditional’ assessments have focused on the recollection of knowledge (exams) or the organisation and communication of knowledge (in essays). The advent of search engines has made acquiring knowledge more accessible, while generative AI has automated the communication of knowledge.
If knowledge is easily accessible, explainable, and digestible, which skills should our graduates possess that cannot be replaced by ChatGPT, now or in the future? It was suggested that these are distinctly ‘human’ skills: relationship building, in-person communication, and leadership. Are we explicitly teaching these skills within the curriculum? Are we assessing them? Are we rebalancing our taught programmes from knowledge to irreplaceable skills to stay ahead of the AI curve?
And to get a bit meta about it all, what AI skills are we teaching? Not just the practical skills of application of AI use in one’s field, but deep AI literacy. Recognising bias, verifying accuracy, understanding intellectual property rights and embracing digital ambition. (Professor Sarah Jones of Southampton Solent University has written about this here.)
Given recent geopolitical events, critical thinking was also emphasized. When and why can something be considered the ‘truth’? What is ‘truth’, and why is it important?
Colleagues were clear that developing students’ knowledge and understanding should still be a key part of the higher education process (after all, you can’t apply knowledge if you don’t have a basic level of it). In addition, they suggested that we need to be clearer with students about the experiential benefits of learning. As one colleague stated,
‘The value of the essay is not the words you have put on the page, it is the processes you go through in getting the words to the page. How do you select your information? How do you structure your argument more clearly? How do you choose the right words to convince your reader of your point?’
There was further discussion about the importance of experiential learning, even within traditional frameworks. Do we clearly explain to students the benefits of learning experiences – such as essay writing – and how this will develop their personal and employability skills? One of the participants mentioned that they were bribing their son not to complete his Maths homework by using ChatGPT. As students increasingly find their time constrained due to paid work and caring responsibilities, how can we convince students of the value of fully engaging with their learning experiences and assessments when ChatGPT is such an attractive option? How explicitly are we talking to students about their skills development?
There was a sense of urgency to the discussion. One colleague described this as a critical juncture, a ‘one-time opportunity’ to make bold choices about developing our programmes to be future-focused. This will ensure graduates leave higher education with the skills expected and needed by their employers, which will outlast the rapidly evolving world of generative AI and ensure the sector remains relevant in a world of bite-sized, video-based learning and increasing automation.
Kortext is a HEPI partner.
Founded in 2013, Kortext is the UK’s leading student experience and engagement expert, pioneering digitally enhanced teaching and learning in the higher education community. Kortext supports institutions in boosting student engagement and driving outcomes with our AI-powered, cutting-edge content discovery and study products, market-leading learner analytics, and streamlined workflows for higher education. For more information, please visit: kortext.com
How many higher education institutions are overseen by Florida’s university and college systems. This week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis launched the state’s own version of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency and directed it to work with education officials to cut “unnecessary spending, programs, courses, staff, and any other inefficiencies.”
As a school administrator or marketer, you’re likely already familiar with the challenges of traditional admissions processes: manual paperwork, miscommunication, long timelines, and a lack of transparency.
Implementing an online enrollment system can revolutionize your institution’s operations. It can help you create a seamless experience for prospective students while significantly easing administrative burdens.
At Higher Education Marketing, we’ve spent years partnering with institutions to understand their unique needs. Our Student Portal is designed specifically for education providers like you, offering an all-in-one solution to streamline admissions and enhance the student journey.
Let’s explore ten benefits of adopting an online admissions and enrollment system and how HEM’s Student Portal can help you transform your processes. You’ll see how much value you can add to your student experience and how a sophisticated CRM can boost enrollment.
Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!
Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.
Understanding Online Enrollment Systems
What does an enrollment system do? An online admissions and enrollment system is a digital platform that streamlines student recruitment, application management, and enrollment. By moving these processes online, institutions can eliminate manual paperwork, reduce processing times, and improve the overall experience for students and staff.
These systems typically include customizable application forms, real-time tracking, automated communication tools, and integration with other institutional systems like CRMs and financial platforms. Now, let’s get to the good part–the many benefits of enrollment system tools.
Want to know what our Student Portal System can do for your school? Let’s connect!
A Brief Overview of the Enrollment Process
To maximize the benefits of an online admissions and enrollment system, it’s important to understand the enrollment funnel. What is the process for enrollment? It’s a framework that outlines the four key stages prospective students go through when deciding to enroll at your institution. These include awareness, interest, decision, and action.
Awareness is the first stage, where students become familiar with your school through marketing efforts, social media, or word-of-mouth. During this phase, you aim to make a positive impression and highlight what sets your institution apart.
Interest follows as students actively seek more information about your programs and offerings. At this stage, providing detailed program descriptions, virtual tours, and engaging content becomes crucial to capturing their attention.
Decision is the third stage, where students weigh their options and determine if your institution aligns with their goals. Clear application processes, transparent cost estimates, and personalized communication can help sway their decision.
Action is the final stage, where students commit by completing their application and enrollment. An intuitive and efficient online system, like HEM’s Student Portal, ensures this final step is seamless and stress-free, setting the tone for a positive student experience.
Source: HEM
1. Simplifying the Application Process
An online admissions system allows you to simplify and accelerate the application process, providing a smoother experience for prospective students. Instead of requiring students to navigate complex paper forms or disjointed systems, you can offer them a centralized, user-friendly portal where they can complete their applications step-by-step.
HEM’s Student Portal includes a customizable WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) form builder, allowing you to tailor applications to your institution’s specific requirements. With options for e-signatures, document uploads, and guided prompts, your students can complete their applications quickly and confidently.
For administrators, this streamlined process means less time spent tracking incomplete applications and more time focusing on strategic initiatives. You can view, manage, and update application statuses in real time, ensuring nothing slips through the cracks.
Example: The key benefit of online enrollment systems regarding the student journey is convenience. Here, American Public University is the perfect example.
At the click of a button, students can begin their applications.
They are immediately led to a simple, free application form where they’ll provide vital information needed for the American Public University to determine whether admission into their program will be granted and allow them to track their journey.
Source: American Public University
2. Enhancing Recruitment Efforts
With an online system, you can improve how you engage with prospective students from the beginning of their journey. HEM’s Student Portal integrates powerful marketing automation tools, allowing you to nurture leads with personalized communications at every stage of the admissions funnel. You can keep prospective students engaged and informed by sending timely emails, reminders, and updates, increasing their likelihood of completing enrollment.
Furthermore, the system’s data insights enable you to identify trends in student inquiries, monitor which marketing campaigns are most effective, and adjust your strategies accordingly. This data-driven approach ensures your recruitment efforts are consistently targeted and impactful.
Example: Once a prospect has filled out a contact form or inquired about a program, they should receive a personalized follow-up message that provides program details and prompts them to follow the next steps.
Here, the Academy of Learning sends an automated email about its Accelerated PSW Program to a prospect who recently expressed interest. Our Student Portal integrates email and messaging services to facilitate and automate communication with prospects, a key part of the recruitment process.
Source: Academy of Learning | Gmail
3. Reducing Administrative Burden
One of the most immediate benefits of implementing an online admissions and enrollment system is the reduction in administrative workload. Manual processes can be time-consuming and prone to errors, but with an online platform like HEM’s Student Portal, you can centralize all tasks in one intuitive interface. From managing inquiries to processing payments, every step is organized and automated.
Staff members across departments can collaborate more effectively, ensuring seamless communication and reducing duplication of efforts. The result? A more efficient admissions team with more time to focus on higher-value tasks, such as building relationships with students and refining institutional strategies.
4. Offering Real-Time Insights
Making informed decisions is essential in a competitive education landscape, and real-time insights from your admissions system can give you a critical advantage. HEM’s Student Portal provides robust reporting and tracking tools, giving visibility into key metrics such as completed applications, outstanding payments, and enrollment trends.
Imagine identifying bottlenecks in your process as they happen, enabling you to resolve issues before they escalate. With this level of visibility, you can forecast enrollment numbers more accurately, allocate resources efficiently, and continuously optimize your processes.
Example: The Student Portal allows you to create comprehensive, updated CRM reports to track enrollment data. Find out what kind of requests are being made, what desired action has been taken, and what’s next.
Source: HEM
5. Improving Communication and Transparency
A common frustration for both students and staff in traditional admissions processes is a lack of clarity. With an online system, communication becomes seamless and transparent. Students can log into their portal anytime to check their application status, access important updates, and even chat with a virtual admissions assistant for guidance.
HEM’s Student Portal goes a step further with its integrated communication tools. From automated notifications to direct messaging capabilities, the platform ensures that every student feels supported and informed throughout their journey. This transparency fosters trust and builds a stronger connection between students and your institution.
6. Enhancing the Student Experience
Your admissions process is often the first interaction prospective students have with your institution, making it crucial to leave a positive impression. An online admissions and enrollment system demonstrates that your school values convenience, efficiency, and modern technology, which resonate with today’s tech-savvy students.
HEM’s Student Portal includes features like virtual admissions assistance and a quote builder, which allows students to estimate program costs upfront. These tools empower students with the information they need to make confident decisions, enhancing their overall experience and reinforcing their trust in your institution.
Example: The Student Portal prioritizes a seamless experience for students, guiding them from step to step, making it easy to share important files, and providing a full picture of their enrollment journey.
Source: HEM
7. Facilitating Financial Planning
Financial concerns are one of the most significant barriers prospective students face when considering enrollment. You can address these concerns head-on by incorporating tools like HEM’s quote builder and seamless payment gateway integration. The quote builder provides students and their families with transparent cost estimates for tuition and fees, enabling them to plan their finances effectively.
The payment gateway integration simplifies the payment process, allowing students to make secure transactions directly through the portal. You can also track real-time payment statuses, ensuring that financial records are always current.
Example: Accademia Italiana Salerno utilizes our Student Portal’s Quote Builder feature, which provides students with a close estimate of their school expenses. Your students will appreciate being able to plan when making a significant investment in their education.
Source: HEM
8. Supporting Institutional Flexibility
Every institution is unique, with its own set of requirements and processes. That’s why customization is essential in any online admissions system. HEM’s Student Portal offers a flexible framework that adapts to your needs, whether you’re managing applications for a university, language school, or K-12 provider.
You can customize application forms, workflows, and communications to align with your institutional goals. This flexibility ensures that the system serves as a seamless extension of your team rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.
9. Boosting Efficiency with Integrated Tools
Efficiency is at the heart of any successful admissions process; integrated tools can make a significant difference. HEM’s Student Portal combines essential functionalities like CRM systems, marketing automation, and data analytics into one centralized platform. This integration eliminates the need for multiple disconnected systems, streamlining your operations and improving collaboration across departments.
For example, marketing teams can use the portal to track campaign effectiveness, admissions staff can manage inquiries and applications, and financial teams can monitor payments—all within the same system. This level of integration enhances productivity and ensures that every team member has access to the information they need.
10. Preparing for the Future
As the education sector evolves, embracing technology is no longer optional but essential! Implementing an online admissions and enrollment system positions your institution as a forward-thinking leader ready to adapt to changing student expectations and market demands.
HEM’s Student Portal is built with the future in mind, incorporating scalable features that grow with your institution. Whether you want to expand your programs, attract international students, or enhance your digital presence, the portal provides the tools you need to succeed.
Why Choose HEM’s Student Portal?
At Higher Education Marketing, we consider ourselves your partners in success. Benefit from the advantages of enrollment system technology, from simplifying application management to enhancing communication and providing real-time insights. Our platform empowers you to transform your admissions process. Request a demo today and discover how HEM’s Student Portal can help you achieve your institutional goals while creating a superior experience for students and staff.
Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!
Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does an enrollment system do?
An online admissions and enrollment system is a digital platform that streamlines student recruitment, application management, and enrollment.
What is the process for enrollment?
It’s a framework that outlines the four key stages prospective students go through when deciding to enroll at your institution. These include awareness, interest, decision, and action.
