Is it time for the UK to develop split-mode undergraduate degrees?
There are many differences between countries when it comes to universities and higher education. One of the starkest and growing contrasts between the UK and the US relates to online education, and more specifically the sheer proportion of students taking fully online courses as part of their university studies.
The September release of IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) higher education student data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) highlights the scale and scope of this difference. The enrolment data for the 2023–24 academic year shows that across their different types of institutions (private and public, two-year and four-year), the majority of both undergraduate and postgraduate students are studying either exclusively via distance learning or are taking some distance learning courses as part of their degree.
Focusing on one area in particular, the number of undergraduate students studying online is striking in comparison to the UK. Our IPEDS equivalent is HESA, and its student data reporting differs in that it is binary with respect to online education, showing distance-learning and non-distance-learning students, with no ‘mix and match’ category.
But if we were to draw the comparison between the UK and the US, according to the most up-to-date HESA data, approximately 8% of UK domestic students were studying their undergraduate degrees via distance learning, compared to 28% in the US. When we include students in the US who were also taking some distance learning courses, the difference becomes even more pronounced, with 8% in the UK and 65% of US undergraduate students studying either exclusively or partly via distance education.
When you put those figures alongside each other, they reveal a huge gulf and the extent to which dedicated online undergraduate degrees and modules within undergraduate programmes have permeated US higher education.
Why online undergraduate education has developed differently in the US and UK
One of the reasons behind the difference is clearly the contrasting model and structure of undergraduate degrees. In the US, these degrees are far more modular and portable, balancing general education courses with those centred around a chosen specialisation. The system is inherently credit and course-based, offering much greater flexibility in the range of subjects that full degree qualifications can comprise. As a result, there are far more conducive conditions for mixing and matching delivery modes for the courses or modules that make up a degree, and a greater ability to transfer credit across institutions.
In contrast, the UK system is built upon specialist, discipline-focused programmes, with modules more tightly integrated to deliver a coherent whole. Credits in this context are not a portable or interchangeable currency that can easily be combined across institutions but are embedded within the design of the degree as a whole. So, while credit transfer is technically possible in the UK, it is a far more difficult and burdensome process, with the underlying conditions making it hard to extract and reuse credits outside of the degree for which they were originally validated. If the US undergraduate degree is more akin to stacking LEGO bricks, the UK’s is more like assembling a set of unique jigsaw puzzles.
Quality systems, culture, and the limits of innovation in UK higher education
Another potential blocker in the UK is the higher education quality system and the process of validating degrees. It would be unusual to develop an undergraduate degree with a split model of delivery in which some modules require on-campus attendance while others are delivered fully online with no on-campus commitments.
That step in itself may cause issues, confusion, and a kind of “computer says no” pushback simply by going against the grain. And on the subject of computers, one wonders how agile institutional systems and timetabling would be in accommodating a change from the norm.
It would also be difficult to justify in the programme validation process from a market viability perspective, as there are very few precedents, and universities do tend to over-rely on comparative benchmarking in such cases. Culturally, this may be an example of how good intentions to ensure robust and viable programmes can stifle innovation and experimentation.
The cultural point is an important one, and there is a question over whether the existing culture in UK higher education genuinely supports innovation in the types and models of delivery. One could argue that the majority of genuinely new course types to emerge in the past decade have come from outside higher education. For example, MOOCs were largely driven by private companies, and degree apprenticeships were created by the government.
The idea of a split undergraduate degree, with clearly defined, fully online modules requiring no campus attendance and others that do, may also face challenges when it comes into contact with the sector’s current understanding of “blended learning”: a term that, through various tortuous reports and initiatives, seems to have lost any sense of actual identity.
Blended learning is now so completely pluralistic that if you’ve uploaded a PowerPoint, checked an email on your phone, asked ChatGPT to decipher a module description, or used the Pomodoro technique while timing yourself on a Casio digital watch, it turns out you’ve already been blending all along, you just needed to believe. Except, at the same time, we’ve now moved beyond blended learning. It appears to have entered its wellness-influencer era, deciding it’s time to stop shrinking to fit spaces it’s outgrown and to release what no longer serves it. But… simultaneously, there’s a task-and-finish group working on a tight definition and framework. It’s like a surrealist nightmarescape.
Jokes aside, there would need to be a willingness to tolerate this kind of demarcation rather than indulge in navel-gazing problematisation, and to recognise that while digital technology forms part of the entire teaching and study experience, it is possible to have distinctly different modules, with online modules offering no place-based commitments for students and, hopefully, a more focused, all-in approach to online learning.
Working students and the case for flexibility in undergraduate study
For undergraduate students studying at a UK university, this reduction in place-based attendance requirements would come at arguably the most opportune time in recent history.
This is due to the fact that an increasing number of full-time undergraduate students are working alongside their studies. The Student Academic Experience Survey (SAES) from Advance HE and Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has been tracking this trend, and its 2025 findings, published in June, show that 68% of full-time undergraduates were undertaking paid work during term time, up from 56% in 2024. Stories such as this one about a student having to wear their work uniform under a hoodie in a lecture so they could make a shift starting almost immediately afterwards, further reinforce the trend
The flexibility of having some modules delivered fully online, with no campus attendance requirements, alongside others that do, is likely to benefit a proportion of students balancing these commitments. Online education has a clear and proven pedigree in aligning with the needs and constraints of those juggling study with significant life responsibilities.
However, what’s interesting is that amid all the reporting on increased student work commitments, the same predictable solutions tend to be advocated, with higher maintenance loans chief among them. I should say I don’t disagree with that, but higher education exists within a broader economic reality. If the sector’s go-to response is essentially, “Let’s publish a report saying we need more money from the government,” then (A) there’s bound to be disappointment, and (B) it suggests few people are looking at the issue from different angles.
One can’t help but think that the UK higher education sector as a whole, including think tanks and the press, is, at times, mired in orthodoxy, constantly reaching for solutions that maintain the status quo or preserve the time-honoured campus experience. The UK seems to struggle to think beyond the enduring, almost immovable idea of higher education as something that happens to young undergraduates living the classic campus life.
Yet one wonders what the impact would be if students had greater options and more explicit and deliberate flexibility within a campus anchored undergraduate degree.
Reliable data and indicators of appetite for this are hard to come by, with the Jisc Digital Experience Insights survey being one of the few sources available. However, the credibility of the most recent survey is questionable. Over a third of the 15,000 responses came from a single institution, heavily skewing the findings. Only 30 providers took part, which is around 9% of UK higher education institutions, and the spread of responses was highly uneven, with nine providers contributing fewer than 100 responses. The self-selecting nature of participation also introduces a degree of volunteer bias. This is not to criticise Jisc, it’s a valuable initiative and survey, but I only wish there were greater and wider participation in it.
Although this survey’s findings are indicative at best, they show 48% of respondents expressing a preference for either a mix of on-campus and online taught classes (37%) or mainly online classes (11%). Whether that would be replicated across a wider and more diverse range of institutions and students would be really interesting to understand.
The problem with these findings, though, is that they exist within a context of wide variability and inconsistency, with people responding within the mental framework of how things are and have always been. Having clearly labelled online-only modules within a split-mode undergraduate degree is a world away from the patchy and inconsistent use of online scheduled teaching scattered across a programme. One presents a clear proposition to students, but the other feels a little Forrest Gump, and while life might be like a box of chocolates, I’m not sure the online learning experience across your modules should be.
Clearly, there are many arguments and data points that could be presented to challenge such an idea. What about the data showing barriers such as Wi-Fi connectivity, lack of a suitable device, no private area to work, or limited mobile data access? What about the potential for diminished contact with fellow students and lecturers, and the impacts this may have on community, belonging, support, and collaboration?
These are all completely valid concerns. But one would hope that, just as when people design fully online programmes, these challenges would be given dedicated attention in the design and delivery, attention that is unlikely to be applied in quite the same way to a standard campus-based module with some online learning added at the discretion of module leaders. Similarly, students would know upfront that they were choosing a split-mode programme and would have a much clearer understanding and expectation of online teaching within their degree.
Rethinking risk and how universities build the case for change
If you were so inclined, it wouldn’t be difficult to build a logical argument, with supporting data, that this is a bad idea. But I can’t help thinking a split-mode undergraduate degree is something some universities would do well to explore, and, more generally, that it represents a way for the sector to show a little boldness in its willingness to experiment. There is a certain orthodoxy in how the sector builds a case for doing something new or different, and it tends to be overly reliant on user (student) research focused on asking people what they want. UK higher education sometimes feels as though it’s trying to work out how to make horses go faster, rather than exploring more counterintuitive, behaviourally informed research methods to improve and innovate the experience.
On the point about building a case, the debate around the LLE is a good example. People point to a lack of evidence for demand, while simultaneously failing to acknowledge that it’s hard to prove demand for something that doesn’t yet exist. This is an easy trap to fall into. I’m not advocating for recklessly removing the handbrake and rolling the dice, but for striking a better balance between cautious, evidence-led portfolio development and bolder, test-the-market approaches.
Experimenting with new models of undergraduate education
Ultimately, for a split-mode undergraduate degree, as with the LLE, we can’t be sure of demand. It simply may not work. But in online education’s favour is the fact that there are examples of split-mode undergraduate degrees in the US, and online learning is slowly permeating areas that were previously untouched and fairly trad, including schools and GCSEs. In some cases, these moves have tapped into latent demand.
Whether that would also be true for split-mode undergraduate degrees is admittedly uncertain, but for a sector that uses the word innovation almost as often as Keir Starmer reminds us his dad was a toolmaker, this might actually be something more deserving of the term than much of what usually gets bandied about under its name.
