When we want to help students succeed, we instinctively think about what to add: more programs, more reminders, more steps. But nearly two decades of evidence show that the most effective approaches subtract: simplifying processes, removing friction, and lowering the cognitive cost of action.
This tool will help you challenge those instincts and design approaches that make it easier — not harder — for students to act.
Based on Subtracting for Success: A Review of Nudges to Improve Educational Outcomes in the United States by Tom Tasche & Ben Castleman, ideas42 (April 2025).
Pick a goal you'd want to help students achieve, then brainstorm three things you'd try. No wrong answers. We just want to see where your instincts go.
Pick a goal above, then brainstorm below.
This framework maps approaches along two dimensions: add vs. subtract and increase vs. reduce cognitive load. Click any quadrant to see real examples from the research.
Removes steps but increases cognitive demand. Largely absent from the evidence base.
Gives students more without making decisions easier. Most common and least effective.
Click to see examples »Remove steps AND make what’s left easier. Consistently the largest effects.
Click to see examples »Adds something new but makes the path clearer and easier. Works well when personalized.
Click to see examples »Walk through a two-pass process: first try to subtract, then make sure whatever remains reduces cognitive load.
Pick a goal you want to help students achieve, or type your own.
To , what steps does a student currently have to take? Include the easy-to-overlook ones: finding info, creating accounts, gathering documents.
Your first move should always be to subtract. For each step in the process, ask whether it needs to exist at all.
For each step, decide: subtract it or keep it for now.
For steps you can't subtract, ask: is your approach doing the cognitive work, or is the student still doing it alone?
For each remaining step, mark whether you’ve redesigned it to reduce cognitive load.
Who delivers a message matters as much as what it says. In-person advising sees 97% take-up vs. 44% for remote outreach from unfamiliar advisors.
Who would deliver this to students?
Far more time goes into crafting message content than choosing the right sender. But the sender may matter more. Trusted, known messengers consistently outperform institutional ones.
Don't mistake low cost for high impact. Simplification sometimes requires upfront investment (like partnering with tax pros to pre-fill aid forms) that pays off at scale. A text blast that doesn't change behavior isn't actually cheap.
Understand the specific barriers students face before choosing an approach. What worked in one context may fail in another if the underlying problem is different.