New UCAS research reveals what students really mean when they tell us they make decisions based on ‘course content’. This blog will discuss the key friction points and provide a practical checklist of actions HE marketers can take immediately.
Back in November 2025, Jo Richards, Senior Insight Lead at UCAS, invited her connections on LinkedIn to share any words and phrases that they loved or hated in course descriptions.
Her starter for ten was ‘interdisciplinary’.
I watched as colleagues poured their anguish into those LinkedIn comments. ‘Industry-standard!’ several declared. ‘Real world’ another added.
I too have been thinking about the most (and least) effective course descriptions for decades – so I was delighted to be asked by Jo if we could collaborate on the outcomes of the research. The aim was simple: to understand how students interpret the language used in course descriptions, and what makes them want to explore further.
Why is this so important?
Like many of you, I’ve read just about every piece of research on prospective student behaviour. But one topic has always felt frustratingly vague: what actually drives a student’s final decision?
There have been several pieces of research that tell us the main driver is ‘course content’.
This intel, alone, is extremely valuable. It reinforces the point that all HEIs must strive to make sure that their courses are fit-for-purpose.
But if you’ve ever worked with an academic audience you’ll know that the follow-up question is usually ‘but, what does that really mean?’ I’ve encountered many colleagues reacting strongly to this finding – insisting that it is ‘the beach location’ or ‘better facilities’ at another institution that might be deterring a student from enrolling at their institution.
Not the course or the course write-up.
Sometimes, the concept of the course being the main driver – feels rather unpalatable. Sometimes, if we’re honest, it’s easier to believe that under-recruitment is driven by factors outside our control.
The problem until now is that, if we’ve been asked to explain what is really meant by ‘course content’ – we’ve had little more than instinct to go on. So, for decades I’ve relied on intuition and guesswork to answer this question. If you’re in the same boat, I think you’re going to find a lot of answers in this research. And if you’re anything like me, when you read the report, it’s possible that you may experience three emotions:
- Vindication – because you always suspected that ‘interdisciplinary’ meant nothing to an 18-year-old.
- A slight sense of guilt because many of your course descriptions probably lean on familiar phrases like 'cutting-edge' and 'research-led'.
- Massive overwhelm at the scale of the challenge.
What does ‘course content’ really mean, and what can we do about it in practical terms?
There’s plenty of research gold in the full report, but here are my three main takeaways (and ideas to address them).
1. Course descriptions really matter
91% of respondents said that course descriptions were ‘very useful’ or ‘somewhat useful’.
So, whilst you’re busy trying to establish an overarching brand strategy for your institution, never forget that just as much time (or perhaps ever more time?) should be spent finessing the course copy on your website, in UCAS Collect, in your open day pitch, and in your CRM comms.
2. They're boring
Respondents said that, above all, they prioritised course descriptions that ‘matched their interests’.
They want to feel like the experience being offered represents the perfect match. They likely want to feel that the next 3-4 years of their life will be thrilling, energising and deeply satisfying. And yet, only 24% of the respondents found course descriptions 'very exciting'.
This gap is a problem.
I have a few ideas on how we can fix this.
We could employ some proper market research – either by commissioning focus groups of prospective students or by using a ready-made student panel (did you know that UCAS offers this service? I didn’t). My feeling is that we rarely spend enough time/money on foundational research to get our individual products and pitches right – even though this additional insight could completely transform the appeal of our courses.
Or here’s a lower-budget option. Simply dig out a few years’ worth of UCAS applications for each course and cluster the major themes and motivations described in the personal statement sections. Even just identifying the key feeder subjects for each course title could help unlock any unique hidden drivers motivating your students to put your degree title on their shortlist.
And then, crucially, bring that to life. Tell stories. Use real student journeys. Move beyond over-used words and into something that feels human. Be exciting!
3. They're vague
If marketing is about differentiation, then we have an issue.
Only 22% of students said they decided a course was right for them based on their ability to compare options, but the qualitative feedback tells a different story. Students struggled to find detail relating to the specifics of module content, clarity on assessments and modes of delivery/contact time.
Many of the words employed in course descriptions are not understood. Many students were familiar with the types of phrases they may currently hear in their school/college settings. ‘Critical thinking’, ‘work experience opportunities’ and ‘curriculum’ were well-understood, for example.
However, they were less familiar with ‘credits’, ‘professionally accredited’ and ‘industry-trusted tools’. A huge 60% of respondents didn’t know or weren’t sure what 'interdisciplinary' meant.
We’re asking students to make high-stakes decisions using language they don’t fully understand.
No wonder it feels difficult to compare options.
So, how do we make sure our course descriptions feel less vague? The report states that ‘prestige, proof points and industry names drove the strongest perception of value’. My advice, therefore, is to work with your academic colleagues to make your course descriptions as tangible and specific as possible. Use real (impressive) stats (e.g. employment metrics, graduate outcomes), show real experiences (e.g. field trips, impactful placements) and include recognisable signals of quality (logos and partner testimonials).
If we are aiming to motivate and write for understanding, perhaps sending your academic colleagues a spreadsheet to complete every year for the next round of web copy will always produce the same results. Work closely with academic colleagues to decide on their course’s source of differentiation. Uncover the real gems – the ‘money can’t buy’ experiences associated with their course.
And instead of turning to the same, over-used phrases and academic jargon, let’s try our best to explain the benefits of our best features.
Instead of saying the course is ‘professionally accredited’ why not attempt to explain what this external stamp of approval unlocks in terms of job prospects, global experiences and connections? Instead of telling the audience you have ‘industry-standard facilities,’ try to put this in context. Exactly what facilities do you have? Do you have a special piece of equipment that most universities don’t possess? What will students actually do with it to help them understand their subject in greater depth or make them more employable?
Where to go from here?
There’s much more to glean from the research report – but if you’re feeling overwhelmed at the thought of reinvigorating 400+ lacklustre course descriptions – my advice is to be pragmatic. Start small, find your most eager academic colleagues and make a start.
You might just love this new approach.