The “good old days” of higher education are gone, and hoping they return won’t balance the budget or fill an incoming class. As Katherine Primus, Vice President of Marketing and Communications at Holy Family University, points out on the latest episode of Higher Voltage.
Primus joins host Kevin Tyler to unpack why campus marketers must stop relying on outdated perceptions of higher ed’s inherent value and start actively defining it for modern audiences. But before marketers can change external perceptions, they often have to change internal ones.
Primus emphasizes the need for marketing teams to transition from acting as internal order-taking agencies to becoming true strategic partners. Because everyone consumes media, campus stakeholders often assume they know how to do marketing. It is up to marketing leaders to consistently educate their campuses on their specific expertise, using revenue-generating language to tie marketing investments directly to institutional outcomes. Primus even suggests a bold budget tactic: advocating for surplus funds from other departments to be reallocated to marketing, framing it as an investment in a virtuous revenue cycle.
The conversation also tackled a perennial target for budget cuts: the print magazine. Primus argues fiercely for its retention, but insists it needs a strategic overhaul. Rather than producing a branded repository of short news blurbs, magazines should lean into 3,000-word, long-form feature stories that show the institution’s impact out in the world. By establishing an editorial board representing diverse campus constituents, marketers can embed the magazine into the fabric of the school, making it an indispensable tool for institutional storytelling rather than an expendable line item.
Ultimately, the sector can no longer wait for the media to act as its cheerleader. It is time for marketers to step up, take calculated storytelling risks, and clearly articulate the dynamic, scrappy reality of modern higher education.
Read Katherine Primus’s article for Volt here.
Read the full transcript here
Kevin Tyler
Hello and welcome to Higher Voltage, a podcast about higher education that explores what’s working, what’s not, and what needs to change in higher ed marketing and administration. I’m your host, Kevin Tyler.
Welcome back to Higher Voltage. I’m so glad to have you with us. Today we are welcoming Katherine Primus. Katherine serves as Vice President of Marketing and Communications at Holy Family University. Prior to that, she was Executive Director of Communications and Donor Relations at Wharton, where she created the brand architecture for the $1 billion More Than Ever fundraising campaign. Katherine enjoys helping others navigate their career transitions using her GPS career algorithm. Welcome to the show, Katherine.
Katherine Primus
My pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Kevin Tyler
So the article you wrote, which is available on the episode page, is called “Nostalgia Is Not a Strategy.” I would love to start with the impetus for this article. Why does it now exist?
Katherine Primus
Well, that’s a phrase that I heard. I was at an international conference earlier in the summer, and one of the presenters in their talk said nostalgia is not a strategy. It really resonated for me, because of course we’ve all heard “hope is not a strategy.” As I sat with it, I just got to thinking, that is so true. Thinking back on the way it used to be, what happened before, back before we had to defend ourselves — whatever words you want to use — it really just isn’t going to work anymore. Thinking back to the good old days isn’t going to help anybody.
Kevin Tyler
One hundred percent. I could not agree more. Throughout the article you offer a lot of ideas that I think are very exciting suggestions or recommendations for the higher education marketing function, that we’re going to go through shortly. But the trend of it is: how do we produce more bang for our buck? How do we change or shift the perceptions of marketing, not just among the audiences we’re trying to attract, but also our internal stakeholders as well? We know that budgets are being cut, resources are shrinking, but there are some really interesting ideas that I would love to go over with you today.
Starting off — with so many marketing departments across the country being understaffed, painfully understaffed, how have you redefined the power, value, and influence of marketing teams that you have managed or currently manage, in a way that has shifted those opinions and perspectives of the function?
Katherine Primus
There are a couple of different ways. None of this is rocket science, on the one hand, but one of the really easy ways that I’ve intentionally done it is to go on tour, if you will. Whoever is the leader, at whatever level the team is defined, going on tour and meeting the people that are going to be benefiting from and requesting work from you — it’s important to go to them and say, “Hey, are we your strategic partners, or are we just an agency supporting the institution internally?”
Once you get a read on that, once you take that temperature, you can first understand that the ones who tell you they want this as an agency — you have to work on that, because you don’t want to be just an agency. And the people who say, “No, I want you to be a strategic partner,” then you can remind them of that when you’re doing work with them, to help them understand: this is what I know how to do, you need to listen to my advice here. So that’s one way.
I also think it’s important — I went from being deeply embedded in a revenue-generating shop at Wharton, to now being in what many would just say is not. I don’t have a revenue-generating responsibility now. That’s been an interesting transition for me. And so I talk using revenue words. I talk about the work that marketing and communications is doing to generate revenue across the institution. Even though I’m not responsible for a dollar amount that I have to meet, I’m continually reinforcing that. So that’s the second way.
The third way is that I have always been very motivated to create graphics for the team. I put together some kind of visual, and every time I went to meet somebody new on the tour, I’d put this visual in front of them and explain how my team is operating and how they should leverage the things that we do. So it’s education, in a lot of ways — that’s one way to summarize it. Educating people about our expertise.
Kevin Tyler
I could not agree with the approach and the strategy more. There is so much room left for campuses to understand the true value of the marketing function that they have at their disposal. One of the points that I love so much about your article is that campuses hire marketing experts. We come to campus with not just experience in the space, but also ideas and an eye on trends. We know how the market is moving. Trust us to do the work that we have been hired to do on your campus. Our work is more than magic, as you also point out in your article. And it’s also more than throwing together a flyer, or “throw this on social,” or making something viral. There’s way more strategy that I think we can also educate our campuses around in our function.
Katherine Primus
Yeah. One of the things that has resonated for me in the last couple of years — my sister, who was a teacher, would often say that everybody thinks they know how to fix schools because everybody went to school. So we all know how to fix education because we all went to school.
I think the parallel in our work is that everybody thinks they know how to do marketing and communications because we are all the recipients of marketing and communications. So: if I only read things online, then why are you printing a print magazine? I only consume things in podcasts, so why are you doing an event? I don’t want to come to an event. Everybody thinks the way you should do it is the way they absorb. And you have to just continually hold: no, you’re a sample of one. This is what we should be doing.
Kevin Tyler
Exactly. I love the point you made of the three around revenue and budget. One of the recommendations you make in your article is allocating leftover or surplus budget from other areas to marketing, because it is a generator of revenue at the end of the day. I’m curious if you can share how that might land in an environment like higher education, and how that could work.
Katherine Primus
Right. So I appreciate you asking the question. This is something very new that I just heard from somebody who’s on the finance side, who used to be in public banks — like way back when there were more public banks than there are now. One of the things they used to do was, every year, whatever department had a surplus budget, whatever the amount was, it all got moved over to the marketing budget. That was how they were able to sustain marketing.
So I’ve given it some thought: what would it look like in higher education? It’s especially interesting because the couple of places I’ve worked, we’ve done zero-based budgeting. So you could look at it like, well, do I really have extra money, because we’re all going to do zero-based budgeting?
The way I think we could try to implement this in higher ed is, we have specific projects. I have something right now that if I had another ten to fifteen thousand dollars, I would probably do it, and this is what the benefit of that would be. So you assemble some of these together, and then that’s part of your argument that you take to the people who hold the purse strings. “Look, here are some examples of ways that marketing could use these additional dollars.” And I’m not asking you to find those dollars — to make magic out of nothing. I’m saying, if this department at the end of the year has got fifteen thousand dollars left over, I could do this with it.
So I think it would help if we’re specific with how we think we would actually use the money. And then I think we continue to do some of what I already said: use revenue-generating words, talk about how this is an investment in what we’re doing at the institution, and continually reinforce that marketing is reinforcing revenue. So you’re making an investment to create a virtuous cycle to create more revenue.
Kevin Tyler
I think it makes a lot of good sense. In thinking about what marketing is responsible for on a campus, and then aligning that with how it’s staffed, how it’s resourced — the investment in marketing really rarely ever matches or meets the need that we’re trying to accomplish, right? The solution that we’re trying to accomplish. I think you speak a bit to that in your article: the investment in our work needs to match the importance of our work. We cannot do all the things that we’re trying to do. We cannot create the differentiation as resources get eliminated, cut back. The math doesn’t math.
Katherine Primus
Right. And that’s why I link it back to nostalgia not being a strategy, because what strikes me when I talk to people is a level of negative emotion around “Why do we have to do this? People should already understand why higher education is important.”
Some of the conversations I get into now are things like: the way we are structured, you have to go to college to become a teacher, you have to go to college to become a nurse. So there’s always going to be higher education. So why do I have to do this? And that doesn’t work anymore, to say “Why do I have to do this?” So I think that’s why I tied it together — because what you really need to be doing is being specific and being intentional and communicating why the work is important.
One of the other things I was thinking about in preparation for our conversation is a tool that I used when I was working at Wharton and building the team there. Again, a corporate person gave it to me. It’s called the multi-generational project plan for team evolution. I’m not sure if that’s a copyrighted thing — you research that, you’ll find it — but it’s a very specific way that you think about your team growth by generation.
The question that is on there is: what is the significant change that will happen in its own right, but serves as an important generation in optimizing team structure? Then you go through three questions. What can we do with what we already have in order to do that? Maybe I already have the person on my team who knows how to do that. Second, do we need more bandwidth, or do we need more expertise? And the third part is, what innovation is needed in order to be able to deliver?
That’s how I made the arguments to have positions added to my teams. I was very specific: if you give me this position, this is what I will do with it, and this is what it will then unpack further down the line. Now, did I always get the position? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is that it wasn’t just “you’re supposed to understand and agree and give me the position” without me justifying it. You have to justify it, and that’s a good way of doing it.
Kevin Tyler
I agree. I’d like to shift gears a little bit to talk about one of the points in your article that is near and dear to my heart, and that is the institutional magazine. I’m a long admirer of a really well-produced magazine. Some that come to mind most immediately are Denison — they often make a really beautiful magazine every year. Bentley University in New England makes a really beautiful magazine typically.
I think it’s very easy to lean into what others are doing to make our own magazine. It’s the typical photos, it’s all the heritage colors, and just kind of regular features. But there’s a lot of opportunity in a magazine. I’m a firm believer that print is not dead and it is a really valuable communication channel for your institution. I’d love to hear some of your ideas on pulling more value out of that piece.
Katherine Primus
Yes, thanks. I agree — and that’s why I led with that in the article. People want to cut the magazine. If there’s one thing you take away from this: please don’t cut your magazine budget.
One of the ways to do it is that the people who are doing your magazine really need to understand what your institutional messages are, but never actually come out and say it. So what you’re doing is telling stories that reinforce your institutional messages.
The other thing I would say is that it needs to have some long-form stories. I think in print, everybody still thinks you’re scrolling and no one reads more than a hundred words. And no — I think you need to write some 3,500-word articles. You need to really take a deep dive and explain, this is how the alumni of my institution are changing this field, or this is how this one particular alumnus did XYZ, or here’s this really cool research this faculty member’s doing. You can’t do that in 100 words. You have to take 3,500 words, or 3,000 words, whatever the actual number is that you settle on. So I think there need to be some really long-form feature stories.
I also think that when I look at magazines, a significant percentage of the pictures should be off campus. The point of the magazine is a place for you to show me pictures of the institution out in the world. So if you have to set some kind of guidelines, say you’re only going to use 20 percent pictures from campus, and get pictures that say, here’s how we’re moving and shaking in the greater wide world. That’s another tip I would give.
And then you said it too — I don’t think there’s enough image variety. If our colors are red and white, it’s like every page is red and white. It’s okay not to be. In fact, when we did the redesign at Wharton, I was part of that, and I do remember the CMO coming to me with, “This doesn’t really have brand colors in it.” And I was like, “Yay!” I’m glad. So I get it, but the magazine, once you get past the cover, is not intended to be a 100 percent brand piece.
The cover — I need to understand when it’s in my mailbox, and it’s the gift I’ve received in my mailbox: “Yeah, I got my school’s magazine today.” That needs to be branded. I need to immediately recognize that that’s what it is. But once I open it up, in my opinion, it doesn’t need to be 100 percent branded.
Kevin Tyler
I agree with that. The rich storytelling opportunity that exists there — because so often I have seen institutions trying to pack as many stories of success as possible, which becomes almost like a bulleted list of “here’s where these people ended up, here’s the class of 1960, they’re doing this.” It becomes more like a repository than an inspirational piece. I think there’s a lot of opportunity there for magazines to beef up the inspirational storytelling about how the institution is living in the world and existing in the world and changing it.
Katherine Primus
Right. And a lot of it is because what it is is short news blurbs. So what I would challenge editorial teams to do — I’m not saying don’t share that news, but let’s go twelve layers lower. What does this news mean? Why is it important that your institution did this thing? And what is it going to mean for the future?
Because I go back to: nostalgia is not a strategy, and we have to be our own cheerleaders. That was the other part of it. Who’s going to remind the world that higher education is important? Your magazine can do that in long form. Long form is important in the doing of that.
Kevin Tyler
Right. And that point is a really strong one in your piece — that at one point we were looking to the media to be the cheerleaders that we needed to support the industry. We need to carry that torch, one hundred percent. When I first got into higher education, what feels like a gazillion years ago, we were selling individual colleges. The value of higher education writ large was known. We are now having to sell both the brand of an institution and the idea of higher education. The conversation has changed so significantly. We are the ones responsible for making sure people understand our value — not the media. Hopefully the media picks up on the great stories that we are able to generate, but I couldn’t agree with you more on that piece around looking externally for the support we need.
Katherine Primus
Yep. Absolutely.
Kevin Tyler
So I want to shift a bit. One of the other points you make is the idea of widening what our institutions share and being willing to tell a real story, which feels like a bit of a risk. In my mind, the culture of competition in higher education has kind of stunted the development of higher education’s marketing muscle. So I’m curious how you create interest around the idea of this quote-unquote riskier storytelling that feels more real — that paints the right picture for students to be able to consider or assess when deciding where to educate themselves — and how we introduce that to a risk-averse leadership team, which feels like something we run into a bit more frequently in such a delicate environment right now.
Katherine Primus
Right. Risk can mean many different things given the situation we’re in right now. So one way to think about it is that you brought in your highest-enrolled class. “Look at this great class we brought in.” I don’t necessarily want an article to be written that explains how I did that, because now I’m teaching my peers. That’s some of what I’m getting at here — the perception of risk in that sense.
There’s not a magic answer to it. But the reason it’s an important point that I made — and I’ll give you some thoughts in a minute — is because I think part of what’s going on today is that higher education wants to tell stories that make it sound like we already had it all figured out.
And I just think, how is anybody going to understand how scrappy we can be, and how flexible we are, and how innovative we are, and how we know how to bob and weave when things don’t go the way we thought they were going to? Which is why higher education is important, because that’s what you’re teaching my child, and that’s what alumni are doing out in the world. If everything we push out makes it sound like we already knew exactly what was going to happen when we got the gift, and now it’s five years later — then it doesn’t seem real.
So that’s partially where I come from. I understand there’s some risk. I understand you don’t want to open up and let people see what’s in your closet. But I also think it’s doing us a disservice now, because we are really scrappy and we are really solving complex problems, and we aren’t sharing why.
So some ways to do it — I think a lot about voice, and what you should put in which voice. I do think you could balance some of the risk in that you don’t have to put it in the voice of the president. You don’t have to put it in the voice of the VP of enrollment management, if you stay with my enrollment example. You don’t have to put it in the voice of the person who’s the chair of your board of trustees. You could put it in the voice of an alumnus who’s doing something. You could put it in sort of an institutional voice. So you could think about the voices you have open to you, and what things they can say that will resonate and not put the institution in a position that the leadership doesn’t want it to be in. So that’s one way that I navigate it — thinking about voice.
Kevin Tyler
One of the things I find encouraging is that I’m finding, at least, more marketing leaders — and even deans in some instances — who are really hungry for new ways of doing things. Like, what got us to where we are today is not going to be the thing that gets us to where we need to be next. I think that’s really encouraging. That might be because we’re bringing marketing leaders in from external industries; it could be just a desire for different. Whatever it is, I’m excited by it, because we are now finally figuring out that slapping a fall scene of a campus on a whatever is not going to be the thing that gets the solutions we need.
Katherine Primus
Right. To your point, bring more perspective to the table, and understand that you can leverage that perspective in different ways. My experience of higher education has always been that we want to have it all tied up in a nice package with a bow before we’re going to share it. If we could just break that even just a little, then I think we could really do a lot.
Kevin Tyler
I mean, that’s what learning is — making the mistake and then fixing it and then going in a different direction. So why can’t that be reflected in other ways that we communicate about ourselves?
Katherine Primus
Right. Exactly.
Kevin Tyler
Obviously alumni engagement is really important for an institution’s success — speaking to partners, creating partnerships with local communities, these kinds of “friends of” cohorts that can help support not just the institution and its mission, but also how it communicates about itself. The “friends of” cohort I’m really curious about specifically, because that feels like a rich opportunity as well. Are there innovative strategies you’ve come by or employed to engage a “friends of” audience in ways that might be beneficial to our listeners?
Katherine Primus
Yeah, some of that depends on what kind of university you are. Another part of my personal experience now has been that I went from an international brand to a very regional university. And the “friends of” in many ways is even more important here than it was where I was before. So a lot of how we think about it is that we are in the community, of the community, by the community, in a way that wasn’t the case before.
Now, I’m not saying you can’t do this in other places, but I do think if you are an institution that has as part of its natural DNA that you are connecting with “friends of” in more areas than others, then you can really leverage that in a lot of ways.
Kevin Tyler
People can read the article when they have a chance — again, that will be linked on the episode page. But really what I would love to learn from you, Katherine, is how you’ve been able to activate some of the suggestions that you’ve provided here. You’ve gone over some of them, obviously, but if there are others that you’ve been able to initiate on your campus, either the current campus or previous ones, I’d love to hear how you were able to do that and how you got to yes. Because we’re hearing a lot of no’s in higher education today.
Katherine Primus
Yes, there are a lot of no’s. Well, I’ll start my answer by saying that one of the things I did mention in the article that was really significant to me was the understanding that people thought my team was interchangeable. That was really an eye-opening moment for me. Because if you think about other areas of the university — if I am dealing with something in athletics and the athletic director can’t go with me, I’m not going to go get somebody from finance to come with me. But that’s what was happening.
So one day it just occurred to me: wait a minute, you’re telling me that if my photographer can’t come, just bring the writer? Or if the person who writes the proposals can’t come, bring the social media person? So that was really meaningful to me. Maybe everybody else already knew that.
One of the ways that I worked to get to yes was I started breaking that — that these are skills, this is education, this is expertise that these people have brought to the table. So we need to recognize that they do these various different things, and we’re going to deploy them as we should based on that expertise. So one of the ways I got to yes was holding and continually reinforcing that there’s expertise here and you should be leveraging the expertise.
That seems obvious in some ways, but it really took some intentional work for me to do that. I’d be interested to know whether other parts of the institution feel the same way — do they feel like they’ve been treated the same way? But I think it’s particularly true in marketing and communications, because it gets back to that “Well, I think I know how you should write that, because I read stuff.”
For the magazine in particular that we were talking about earlier — one of the ways that I kept it, it never became a conversation I was in. Maybe others were in it, but I was never in a conversation about doing anything with the magazine through budget cutting and the implications of the pandemic and all of that. One of the reasons I think that may be so is because, when I got to Wharton, I created a magazine editorial board, and I staffed it with two types of people.
I staffed it with somebody who represented every population we were serving. So we had undergraduates, we had graduates, we had executive MBA, we had PhD. And then I staffed it with somebody from all the areas across the school that were creating content. In some cases it wasn’t a true “this is the dean’s cabinet,” but there were people on that editorial board who were on the cabinet, and they were on the editorial board because they were the vice dean of the PhD program. And then if you quit being the vice dean of the PhD program, you’d go off and the new one would come on.
I tasked them with two things: you’re supposed to help make sure that the magazine represents the school in its entirety, and you’re supposed to rep the magazine to your constituents. So I think that elevated the magazine to “this is a product of the school.” And this is where we tell these stories that we talked about earlier. There’s no way we could get rid of it, because look — it’s embedded across the school, and everyone is using it, and everyone understands how it’s a tool to do their work. So it just became ingrained. It wasn’t just this thing over here that’s a line item that we could cut.
Now, I don’t know one hundred percent that that’s why it never got cut, but I can say to you that it never got cut.
Then when I changed institutions, that’s what we did too. We redesigned the magazine, actually. Our magazine was very much what I was saying earlier that I don’t think magazines should be. We redesigned it, and the first issue came out in June. It’s the same kind of thing. I had the editor — we’ll say the previous issue maybe had 20, I forget the exact numbers, but we’ll say 20 alumni in it. This one had 250. So by the time you’re putting those kinds of numbers in front of somebody: look, we stewarded 250 alumni because they were in the magazine. Look, we had 37 faculty members talk about their work. How would you get rid of it? Where are you going to put that if you get rid of it? That’s some of what you articulate — if that’s just going to dissipate, is that good? Or where would we tell these stories if you take this tool away?
Kevin Tyler
I think what you’ve written is required reading. It offers really fertile ground for new ideas on how we do the work that we do on behalf of these institutions. Obviously not every recommendation is going to fit inside of every institution, but it does offer some brainstorming space for folks who have really specific issues or challenges that they’re trying to solve internally and externally. Some of the points you raise around internal communication versus external impact — there’s some really great thinking in there.
But the other thing about the piece that may or may not have been in your mind when you drafted it is the idea of this nostalgia not being a strategy when it comes to what we are saying. Like, what we used to be, and “we are four hundred years old,” and whatever. Alumni asking, “Where’s that building?” Those are not the stories we need to talk about. We need to talk about the future, and how we are shaping the world, and how ideas and innovation are both born on these campuses. The things that we use in our daily lives are typically created from some sort of higher education experience. How do we know what’s possible without learning all of those things on a college campus?
So I think it’s twofold in my brain: the idea of nostalgia not being a strategy, from a “how we’ve always done it this way” standpoint, to also not being so reflective on our own greatness from the past, versus the future.
Katherine Primus
Right, I think that’s important. Although one nuance I would make to what you just said is that you can go back to your history and you can pull what is still relevant today. Just yesterday, we were having some conversation about AI, and one of my colleagues shared something that was written 25 years ago about this institution that applied to AI. They didn’t know it was AI 25 years ago — they were talking about just computers in general that long ago, or the web maybe at that point.
So the world is not black and white. It’s time for us to recognize that in order for us to continue to be the dynamic, appreciated sector that we are, we need to do these things. Then that will hopefully have more success.
Kevin Tyler
So the last question — if you’ve been listening to Higher Voltage for a while, you know we always like to land on what a future might look like in higher education. I’m curious, Katherine, what your perspective on that is. What do you think the next five or ten years looks like in higher education, generally speaking?
Katherine Primus
It’s a great question. Thank you. I do think we’re going to continue to see the market compress. I think there are a lot of schools that exist that won’t be here in five to ten years. What I hope that we do as a sector is figure out how to honor and respect alumni of those institutions, in ways that recognize what that change might engender emotionally. So that’s one thing.
But I also think it’s not accurate to say that only all the small ones will close. If you’re going to look at what happened in any retail sector — all the little mom-and-pop stores that go out of business because the big box retailer came in, and now all the big box retailers are ending because of all the things that happened online. I don’t think it’s that simple.
There’s still going to be a really important need for the smaller regional institutions that serve those who have some credits and didn’t finish a degree. We do a lot of that here. We were talking about it earlier when I was saying about regional. I think the regional, and the state, and the public, and the private — I think there still needs to be a really healthy mix. So that’s a lot of what I am hopeful for.
And then I continue to think that our particular piece of it, marketing and communications, will continue to evolve and be an important partner at the table — be at the right leadership tables, be guiding and directing and being consulted, as opposed to just being asked to be an agency. In my career, I’ve had people say, “Here, will you push this out? I want to say this.” Well, if that’s all you want, then you don’t need me. You can just hire an admin to do that. So I think that’ll be another part of what happens in the sector too — we’ll continue to grow in our influence.
Kevin Tyler
I hope so. And I think it’s almost mandatory that that be the case. I really appreciate the point you make around the regional institutions. I think it’s an easy destination to come to, that it’s going to be the smaller ones that close. But as we see more institutions charging over a hundred thousand dollars for a degree, I think there will be a very important space for smaller regional institutions that feel more cost-accessible.
Katherine Primus
Right. And meet you where you’re at, I think. And I wouldn’t argue that the big ones need to be that. This is where I go way back to: what is your DNA? What is your institutional message? We’re not all the same. Not every school is the same. So what is your piece of it? I don’t think every school has to meet every student where he or she or they are at. We need to be able to serve society, which is what higher education has always been. I think we can continue to be that. We just have to get savvier about how we make sure people know that that’s what we do.
Kevin Tyler
I can’t think of a better place to end our conversation than right there. That’s a beautiful closing argument for why we do what we do. Katherine, thank you so much for joining me today on Higher Voltage. If you would like to read her article, that will be available on the episode page. And if you have thoughts to share about what you see happening in higher education, reach out and we can get you to be a contributing author as well. Thanks so much.
Katherine Primus
Thank you, Kevin.
Kevin Tyler
That’s it for this week’s episode of Higher Voltage. We’ll be back soon with a new episode and until then you can find us on Twitter @VoltHigherEd and you can find me Kevin Tyler on Twitter @KevinCTyler2.
