Over-advertised and under sold? Higher education in the 2020s
For those attending this year’s party conferences, join HEPI for our 2026 Party Conference ringe events, at the Labour Party Conference on Monday 28 September in Liverpool and the Conservative Party Conference on Monday 5 October in Birmingham.
At both conferences, HEPI will host two events exploring some of the biggest issues facing higher education:
- Higher Education Question Time, bringing together sector leaders to answer your questions about the key challenges and opportunities for universities,
- Soft power in a hardening world: is the UK making the most of its global assets?, examining the UK’s international influence and the role of higher education within it.
All events take place outside the secure zones, so no conference pass is required. Register your interest now. As with all party conference fringe events, attendance is first come, first served and registering does not guarantee you will get a seat.
This blog was kindly authored by Dr John Cater, Vice-Chancellor, Edge Hill University (1993-2025), current chair of the Unite Foundation.
The escalator clanks its way skywards from the bowels of the underground. Eyes averted and heads turned to the wall, each passing A3 poster advertising a provider of higher education. Emerging at ground level, beneath rotating neon signs – January starts, flexible learning – the message is reaffirmed by the billboard posters and the rear panel of a passing red bus.
Surfaced, internet signal regained, the smartphone pings, a course here, a programme there…
But, opening the pages of the morning’s broadsheet, a counter message. The newspaper incessantly queries the value of higher education, debunking its worth, focussing on ‘debt’, championing apprenticeships. And, under attack, higher education feels under-appreciated, seems unsure of how to respond.
One hopes that no civilised society would argue that it should be less educated, less skilled, but the implicit, and increasingly explicit, message, “don’t go”, is writ large in the media and in political newspeak. For now, universities – or at least a proportion of them – remain at the top of the perceptual hierarchy when it comes to the choices of many (and their families and peers) at the age of eighteen, as is evidenced by the stable (and, based on applicant statistics, arguably increasing) proportion of the age cohort submitting their UCAS form. But, notwithstanding the absence (to date) of mass take-up of apprenticeships or T-levels, the siren sounds grow louder. And, with 16% fewer eighteen-year-olds in the 2030s and the likelihood of increased State control of in-migration, the need for higher education to sustain and increase its appeal to the present populace, the politicians and the press, is of paramount importance if the sector is to prosper or, indeed, if some providers are to survive.
Part of securing this sustenance can be driven by product and mode, but there is much to be gained in changing perception, and, in particular, repeatedly challenging the false dichotomy between ‘academic’ learning and skills, between universities and further education colleges and between universities and the labour market. The most important skills in securing initial employment are generic skills and attributes, developed and delivered at least equally well in a university context. Further, in most universities, specific job skills and programmes leading to professional accreditation – medicine, nursing, teaching and much more – constitute a significant part of the portfolio.
But how universities present themselves matters too. Emerging from the Underground, bombarded by advertising, there is a danger that the message was one of desperation, not aspiration. And this is reinforced by the sector’s use of social media. All too often universities pour money into Google Adwords, but with very low click through rates and extremely short ‘dwell’ times, without asking themselves whether this should be the principal vehicle through which we are seeking to persuade an individual to make one of life’s more important decisions, educatively, personally, financially.
For this author, whilst a necessary part of a marketing strategy, the predominant use of social media is a measure of the laziness of an institution’s approach to recruitment. Clicked and swiped in a fraction of a second, social media is consumed, if it is consumed at all, by a single individual. Swamped by other uses and other users, and, doubtless, by more engaging content, its impact is clearly waning, and at pace. And, is this really the place to determine the next three years and beyond? The place to make one of the most significant financial decisions of an entire working life (a commitment to pay an additional nine percent income tax once above the threshold for up to four decades)?
So what is the alternative? Brand awareness matters, and that can be achieved by advertising, ideally through a wide range of media – using differing mediums (see, hear, read), and sufficient frequencies (see, recognise, engage). But, for real impact, create conversations. A communication with one person is unlikely to extend beyond that person. If two people knowingly receive the same communication, there are two possible engagements (A>B, B<A); if three, (A>B, A>C, B>C, C>B, C>A, B>A), six; if four, twelve. And recognise the importance of tailoring and sharing communications with stakeholders other than potential applicants – peers and tutors, parents and, increasingly, grandparents.
But building a reputable brand requires more than an ad-word, a billboard or the back of a bus. Effective marketing is hard work, and it requires personal contact and relationship-building. It is two decades since the first iteration of Aim Higher drew to a close, but what underpinned it, universities working coherently and consistently with schools (from key stages 1 and 2 onwards) and colleges, with careers advisers, with stakeholders and communities, was of real value. Notwithstanding workload pressures and resource constraints, there is no greater priority. The bedrock of financial stability and job security comes from successful recruitment and retention, and ensuring the quality of the student experience, of which more in a follow-up blog.
Comments
Amanda McCrory says:
This is an interesting argument, particularly the distinction between promoting individual courses and making a wider case for higher education. I wonder, though, whether part of the difficulty is that in defending the value of higher education we can still reach quite quickly for skills, employment and professional outcomes. These are clearly important, particularly for students for whom the financial consequences of studying are significant, but they are not the whole of educational value. Knowledge, intellectual curiosity, understanding and the opportunity to encounter ideas that change how we see the world also have value that does not need to be justified through a subsequent economic outcome. Perhaps the challenge is not simply communicating the value of higher education more effectively, but being clearer about the plurality of what we mean by value in the first place.
Reply
Dr John Milliken says:
John Cater makes an important distinction between advertising higher education and actually engaging people with it.
Perhaps the argument can be taken one stage further. The problem is not simply that universities have become too dependent upon social media, Google Adwords or billboards; it is that much of our engagement with prospective students has become episodic and transactional. We appear when we want an application.
The great strength of the Aim Higher model Cater recalls was not merely that it provided another recruitment channel. It created relationships between universities, schools, colleges, teachers, families and communities. Those relationships could begin long before an application was contemplated and, potentially, continue long after graduation.
That matters particularly if we are serious about rejecting the increasingly artificial divide between “academic” and “vocational” education. Universities should not need to defend themselves against apprenticeships, further education or technical education as though education were a zero-sum market. They should be part of a connected educational ecosystem in which learners can move between institutions, forms of learning and stages of life.
There may therefore be a more fundamental question behind the advertising debate. Rather than asking how universities can market themselves more effectively to eighteen-year-olds, should we be asking how universities can become more permanently embedded in the educational lives of the communities they serve?
If that relationship is strong enough, recruitment becomes partly an outcome of engagement rather than the reason for it.
Reply
Jonathan Alltimes says:
What is a brand?
The argument assumes branding communications are more cost effective than the utilisation of social media, but how likely are these practices to cause financial stability and job security for higher education? The effect of newspaper criticisms about higher education determining the choices after secondary education is unknown. Tertiary education communicating with pupils, parents, and schools is obviously what is required, but whatever branding is, why does higher education need it to differentiate itself from other choices? Higher education has already structured and determined choices after secondary education through the system of qualifications, for what else are secondary school qualifications designed for other than higher education? Pupils deserve choices other than higher education. The emaciated Further Education and apprenticeships needs more support, as higher education has divested from the more costly technical education: our mission needs to be reindustrialization and infrastructure renewal, which why we need a technical education pathway. The causes of the financial crisis and redundancies in higher education are well documented. There is a major problem, unless it has the endowments and investments, higher education needs to stop dabbling in research and other missions with unforeseen costs and unsustainable revenues: research does not generate surplus cash and is cross-subsidised by tuition fees. The other missions are also only partially supported by short-term government funded projects. The onus is on the State to generate investment for employment and employment is on the mind of students and their parents.
Reply
Add comment