Author: admin

Sonoma State University gets new leader after turbulent year of cuts
Dive Brief:
- Sonoma State University will have a new president in January as the public institution weathers continued enrollment declines and tries to pull off a financial turnaround after announcing massive budget cuts this year.
- The California State University system’s governing board on Wednesday named Michael Spagna as the new permanent leader of Sonoma State. Spagna currently serves as interim president of California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt.
- When he takes office on Jan. 20, Spagna will have to grapple with the institution’s financial challenges and continued enrollment declines — with its fall headcount down over 13% from last year.
Dive Insight:

Sonoma State has been without a permanent leader since former President Mike Lee resigned last spring after Cal State officials said he forged an agreement with pro-Palestinian protesters without proper approvals and put him on leave.

In Spagna, Sonoma State will get a veteran leader of the Cal State system, with years of experience as a provost at CSU Dominguez Hills and as a dean at CSU Northridge, among other positions.

“Sonoma State’s success is critically important to the CSU, and the committee was confident that Dr. Spagna possesses the experiences and qualities to lead the university at this consequential moment in its history,” Mark Ghilarducci, a Cal State trustee and chair of the presidential search committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The enrollment declines of recent years have taken their toll on the institution. Early this year, Sonoma State’s current interim leader, Emily Cutrer, described “sobering news” as she confronted the depth of the university’s budget hole, with what was then a larger-than-expected deficit of nearly $24 million.

In January, Cutrer announced broad-based cuts to staff jobs and faculty contracts, and further planned to axe around two dozen academic programs and Sonoma State’s NCAA Division II athletic department.

The cuts drew angry protests on campus, a rebuke from the university’s academic senate and a lawsuit over the elimination of sports.

A turnaround plan the university released in the spring called for boosting enrollment, shaving costs, and creating new programs and career pathways for students. Specifically, Sonoma State is looking to increase enrollment 20% in five to seven years, to the equivalent of 6,800 full-time students.

In June, the state gave a one-time infusion of $45 million to the university to stabilize its finances, launch new programs in high-demand areas such as data science, and undo some of the cuts to jobs and programs. A portion of the funds will also support the continuation of NCAA athletics over three years.

For now, enrollment is still falling at Sonoma State. The university’s fall headcount fell to 5,000 students, down 13.2% from last year and down 30.2% from 2021, according to an October presentation from the university. But in the presentation officials also pointed to “silver linings” in the university’s targeted enrollment efforts.

Bright spots included increased enrollment from community college students and from smaller high school districts the university focused on. The university also saw the highest application levels in five years from larger cities, including Oakland and Sacramento.

The university’s total fall head count also beat its budgeted headcount by 125 students.
Source link
November 21, 2025
DOJ targets college access for undocumented students in 6th lawsuit
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Justice has sued six states over laws that allow in-state tuition rates and scholarships for students regardless of their immigration status. The latest legal challenge was filed Thursday against California for its “California Dream Act.”
- The lawsuit seeks to enjoin California laws that allow state residents to receive in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. The lawsuits — also filed against Minnesota, Texas, Kentucky, Illinois and Oklahoma — could impact tuition for dual enrollment, adult education, and career and technical education training programs.
- “Federal law prohibits aliens illegally present in the United States from receiving in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,” the Justice Department said in its lawsuit, which is challenging the states under the supremacy clause. “There are no exceptions.”
Dive Insight:

The lawsuits come in light of a February executive order prohibiting federal resources for undocumented immigrants and as the U.S. Department of Education has implemented the order to restrict education-related programs.

As part of those restrictions, which were part of a coordinated effort across agencies, students could be required to undergo a citizenship and immigration status check to qualify for tuition for dual enrollment and similar early college programs for high-schoolers.

According to the Trump administration, that’s “because those programs provide individualized payments or assistance beyond that of a basic public education.”

The administration’s implementation of the executive order also restricted Head Start, the federal early childhood education program meant to level the playing field for low-income families, to “American citizens.” That policy change was successfully challenged in court in multiple lawsuits and is currently on pause in states that sued the government.

However, other program areas impacted by the Education Department’s enforcement of the order are still in effect in some places, including high school students’ eligibility for college-level and career courses.

“California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a Thursday statement, adding that her department “will continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, however, called the DOJ’s efforts “meritless, politically motivated lawsuits.”

“Good luck, Trump,” said Marissa Saldivar, Newsom’s spokesperson, in an email to K-12 Dive. “We’ll see you in court.”

The office maintains that its tuition exemption applies to all residents who meet the criteria, regardless of where they were born, and it is not discriminating against U.S. citizens.

Out of the states sued so far, Texas and Oklahoma have complied, with Texas suddenly ending a 24-year-old law within hours of the Justice Department filing a lawsuit in June.

Prior to the Justice Department’s lawsuits, 25 states and the District of Columbia allowed in-state tuition for undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, which tracks the issue. That number has fallen to 22 in addition to Washington, D.C.

There are an estimated 620,000 undocumented K-12 students in the United States, with most states home to thousands of such students, according to 2021 data from Fwd.us.

According to federal data, nearly 2.5 million high school students were enrolled in at least one dual enrollment course from a college or university in 2022-23.
Source link
November 21, 2025
More Work-Life Balance in Academe Would Help Reduce the Fear of Retirement

To the editor:

I’m not quite sure why you felt the need to publish the self-indulgent “Teaching as a Sacred Life” by Joe P. Dunn (Nov. 19, 2025).

It’s great that Joe is inspired by his teaching and is so passionate about it. Of course, most faculty who chose teaching are (or were) so inspired. So what merits the article? I guess that Joe is still teaching at age 80.

Yes, some people view retirement as a goal because they don’t like their jobs. But many faculty view their profession as a vocation, so why would they retire? One reason is because of diminished effectiveness. Ossified approaches, diminished cognitive capacity and so on are the unhappy, but inevitable, results of aging. The person experiencing these declines is generally not the best at noticing them, as they creep in so slowly that they’re most visible to outsiders or when accurately comparing to yourself from long ago. (A septuagenarian Galileo, when completing Two New Sciences, his seminal 1638 work in mechanics, was disheartened to find that it was hard for him to follow his own notes and thoughts from several decades earlier.)

Another reason to retire is to give the next generation a chance. Joe talks about the plentiful faculty jobs when he was young. There are many reasons why they’re no longer plentiful, but one of them is that there is no longer a mandatory retirement age. It was legal until 1993 for there to be a mandatory retirement age for tenured faculty (later than the general 1986 ban on mandatory retirement because lawmakers felt there were several valid arguments for a mandatory retirement age for tenured professors).

Many academics pour so much into their work that they don’t develop a strong identity outside of their job. They end up like Joe, not sure what they would even do in retirement. A broader push for a better work-life balance in higher education could go a long way toward helping people develop their complete selves, and would reduce the fear of retirement among academics. Plus, there are always positions emeriti that allow you to keep your hand in the intellectual world of higher ed without continuing to draw a paycheck that you no longer need and someone else does.

Speaking of viewing teaching as sacred, clergy retire. Heck, we’ve even had a pope retire. Faculty can figure it out too.

David Syphers is a physics professor at Eastern Washington University. He is writing in a personal capacity.

Source link

November 21, 2025
FIRE warnings confirmed again | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
A federal court has once again vindicated FIRE’s longstanding concerns with the Trump administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional approach to enforcing Title VI — including combatting antisemitism — in higher education. This time, the smackdown came in a ruling for plaintiffs at the University of California.

In a blistering opinion, the court found that the Trump administration has weaponized federal funding and “flouted the requirements of Title VI and Title IX,” all with the goal of “bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune.”

In light of this and a similar victory for Harvard in federal court, universities should take note: if they stand up for themselves, their students, and their faculty in court, there’s a strong pathway to victory.

To avoid future losses in court, the Trump administration must cease its pressure campaign and follow the congressionally mandated procedure for enforcing federal civil rights laws. Failure to do so will only hurt students who have actually experienced discriminatory hostile environments and need serious, lawful federal oversight. The federal government should seek to get things right the first time and not let procedural infirmities and unlawful demands delay civil rights enforcement.

Unlike the Harvard case, which was brought by university leaders alongside other stakeholders, this suit was filed by associations and labor unions that represent over 100,000 UC employees, faculty, and students. They brought their case after the administration fined the University of California, Los Angeles $1.2 billion and froze further research funding, asserting that UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.

UCLA may well have failed to protect some of its Jewish students from unlawful discrimination, and the federal government should ensure that the university is now complying with Title VI. But the court found that the administration’s goals go far beyond the issue of antisemitism, explaining:

The record shows that Defendants engaged in a concerted policy to use allegations of antisemitism to justify funding cancellations, when their intent is to coerce universities into purging disfavored “left” and “woke” viewpoints from their campuses and replace them with views that the Administration favors.

This, of course, violates the First Amendment. And the court notes that even if the administration were solely focused on combatting antisemitism, it could not “accomplish that goal by coercing the UC into adopting practices with widespread chilling effects on constitutionally protected speech.”

Accordingly, the court’s preliminary injunction prohibits federal agencies from withholding funds, “or threatening to do so, to coerce the UC in violation of the First Amendment.” And just to ensure its message is clear, the court provided examples of funding conditions that would violate the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, including:
- Requiring the UC to make hiring, firing, or funding decisions on the basis of Plaintiffs’ members’ protected speech or freedom of assembly.
- Requiring the UC to restrict its curriculum, scholarship, or research based on the Defendants’ preferred viewpoints.
- Requiring the UC to screen international students based on “anti-Western” or “anti-American” views and/or “socialize” international students to favored “norms.”
Beyond the First Amendment, the court also found that the administration failed to “follow longstanding, legally-required process that is intended to safeguard against coercive or retaliatory government actions under Title VI and IX.” These procedural failures include denying UCLA a hearing and the opportunity to voluntarily remedy alleged violations, failing to provide a written report to Congress, and failing to limit the scope of funding suspensions to noncompliant entities.

The federal government has a legal and moral obligation to ensure that schools are protecting students from discrimination, including antisemitism. But it must meet that obligation in ways that uphold the law and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the administration’s strategy has so far failed on both fronts. And ultimately, those hurt most by this failure will be students in need of lawful civil rights enforcement.
Source link
November 21, 2025
DOJ sues California over in-state tuition for undocumented students
Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Justice is suing California over its laws allowing certain undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and receive state-administered scholarships.
- In a Thursday court filing, the agency argued that in-state tuition rates for undocumented students illegally provide benefits not offered to all U.S. citizens and asked a federal judge to rule California’s laws unconstitutional.
- The lawsuit, which also names as defendants Gov. Gavin Newsom and the governing boards of California’s three public college systems, marks the sixth the DOJ has brought against states with in-state tuition policies for certain undocumented students.
Dive Insight:

California is home to roughly 103,000 undocumented residents enrolled in higher education — accounting for about a fifth of some 510,000 undocumented students in the U.S. — according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal.

Since 2001, a California law known as AB 540 has allowed students to pay in-state tuition at its three public higher ed systems if they attended a state high school for at least three years and earned their high school diploma or equivalent in California. Undocumented students must also sign an affidavit saying they have either filed an application to gain legal status or plan to once they are eligible.

A 2017 law broadened that eligibility and permits students to reach the three-year attendance threshold by combining any time spent at a California high school, community college, adult school or carceral education program.

It also allows students who completed at least three years full-time high school coursework anywhere to qualify for the waiver if they attended at least three years of their K-12 education in California.

Leaders from the state’s public college systems — the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges — supported the expansion of the in-state tuition policy.

Both laws apply to both U.S. citizens and immigrants without legal status.

But U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a Thursday statement that policies are “illegally discriminating against American students and families” and that California is demonstrating “flagrant disregard for federal law.”

Since 1998, U.S. law has prohibited immigrants without legal status from receiving any higher education benefit based on their residency, “unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

The agency’s lawsuit is not the first time California’s in-state tuition law has faced legal opposition. One challenge to AB 540 that similarly argued the policy violated federal law made it to the California Supreme Court in 2010.

However, the court upheld AB 540, ruling it did not violate federal law because students seeking in-state tuition status did not need to be California residents.

The DOJ argued Thursday that this decision was incorrect and that federal courts should reject it.

“Allocating lower tuition rates on the basis of high school attendance is a proxy for residence,” running afoul of federal law, the agency said.

Using the same argument, the DOJ lawsuit also targets a 2011 law permitting AB 540-eligible undocumented students to receive state-administered scholarships and aid and a law passed in 2014 establishing a student loan program for them.

Gaining an in-state tuition waiver for California can have big cost implications for prospective students, as the state’s public colleges charge some of the highest out-of-state tuition premiums in the U.S., according to the College Board.

The University of California published tuition and fees for out-of-state students who started in 2025-26 were $37,602 more a year than for their in-state counterparts.

At the University of California, Berkeley, that means out-of-state, full-time undergraduates who first enrolled this fall would pay $55,080 if they did not receive financial aid or scholarships — more than double the $17,478 their in-state counterparts would pay sans aid.

Even with aid and institutional scholarships, out-of-state students saw a stark difference. U.S. News & World Report estimated that the average total cost of attendance at UC Berkeley for those receiving need-based aid was $16,636 for in-state students and $66,625 for those from outside of California.

The Cal State system’s published tuition and fees for out-of-state are also higher than for in-state students. Its 23 campuses charge a base rate of $6,450 for in-state undergraduate tuition and fees for the 2025-26 academic year. This year, out-of-state students pay at least $444 more per credit.
Source link
November 21, 2025
Higher Education Inquirer : America’s Creepiest College Presidents
Across the United States, a quiet but unmistakable chill has settled over many college campuses. It isn’t the weather. It’s the behavior of a particular class of leaders—the college presidents whose decisions, priorities, and public personas have begun to feel, for lack of a better word, creepy. Not criminal, necessarily. Not always abusive in the legal sense. Just profoundly unsettling in ways that undermine trust, erode shared governance, and push higher education further into the shadows of authoritarianism and corporate capture.

This piece introduces criteria for what makes a college president “creepy,” highlights examples of the types of leaders who fit the mold, and invites reader feedback to build a more accountable public record.

Criteria for a “Creepy” College President

“Creepy” here is not about personality quirks. It’s about behavior, power, and material consequences. Based on the reporting and analysis at HEI, we propose the following criteria:

1. First Amendment Hostility

Presidents who suppress speech, restrict student journalism, punish dissent, or hide behind overbroad “time, place, and manner” rules fall squarely into this category. The creepiness intensifies when universities hire outside PR firms or surveillance contractors to monitor campus critics, including students and faculty.

2. Student Rights Violations

Presidents who treat students as risks rather than people, who hide data on assaults, who enable over-policing by campus security, or who weaponize conduct codes to silence protest movements—from Palestine solidarity groups to climate activists—fit the profile.

3. Civil Rights Erosion

Administrators who undermine Title IX protections, retaliate against whistleblowers, protect abusive coaches, or ignore discrimination complaints are not just negligent—they’re institutionally creepy. Their public statements about “inclusion” often ring hollow when compared with their actions behind closed doors.

4. Worker Rights Suppression

Union busting. Outsourcing. Wage stagnation. Anti-transparency tactics. Presidents who preach community while crushing collective bargaining efforts, freezing staff pay, or firing outspoken employees through “restructuring” deserve a place on any such list.

5. Climate Denial or Delay

Presidents who sign glossy climate pledges yet continue fossil-fuel investments, partner with extractive corporations, or suppress environmental activism on campus epitomize a uniquely twenty-first-century creepiness: a willingness to sacrifice future generations to maintain donor relationships and boardroom comfort.

Examples: The Multi-Modal Creep Typology

Rather than name only individuals—something readers can help expand—we outline several recognizable types. These composites reflect the emerging patterns seen across U.S. higher education.

The Surveillance Chancellor

Obsessed with “campus safety,” this president quietly expands the university’s security apparatus: license plate readers at entrances, contracts with predictive-policing vendors, facial recognition “pilots,” and backdoor relationships with state or federal agencies. Their speeches emphasize “community,” but their emails say “monitoring.”

The Union-Busting Visionary

This leader talks the language of innovation and social mobility while hiring anti-union law firms to intimidate graduate workers and dining staff. Their glossy strategic plans promise “belonging,” but their HR memos rewrite job classifications to avoid paying benefits.

The Donor-Driven Speech Regulator

Terrified of upsetting trustees, corporate sponsors, or wealthy alumni, this president cracks down on student protests, bans certain speakers, or manipulates disciplinary procedures to neutralize campus activism. They invoke “civility” while undermining the First Amendment.

The DEI-Washing Chief Executive

This president loves diversity statements—for marketing. Meanwhile, they ignore racial harassment complaints, target outspoken faculty of color, or cut ethnic studies under the guise of “realignment.” Their commitment to equity is perfectly proportional to the next accreditation review.

The Climate Hypocrite

At Earth Day, they pose with solar panels. In the boardroom, they argue that divesting from fossil fuels is “unrealistic.” Student climate groups often face administrative smothering, and sustainability staffers are rotated out when they ask uncomfortable questions.

Why “Creepiness” Matters

Creepy leaders normalize:
- an erosion of democratic rights on campus,
- the quiet expansion of surveillance,
- the targeting of vulnerable students and workers, and
- a form of managerial governance that undermines the public purpose of higher education.
Higher education is supposed to be a refuge for inquiry, dissent, creativity, and collective imagination. Presidents who govern through fear—whether subtle or overt—pose a deeper threat than those who merely mismanage budgets. They hollow out the civic core of academic life.

A Call for Reader Feedback

HEI is building a more comprehensive and accountable registry of America’s Creepiest College Presidents, and we want your help.
- Who on your campus fits these criteria?
- Which presidents (past or present) deserve examination?
- What specific stories, patterns, or documents should be highlighted?
- What additional criteria should be added for future reporting?
Send your confidential tips, analyses, and suggestions. Together, we can shine light into administrative corners that have remained dark for far too long.

Higher Education Inquirer welcomes further input and encourages readers to share this article with colleagues, student groups, labor organizers, and university newspapers.
Source link
November 21, 2025
Why international education must be central to the Square Mile’s success

Earlier this month, the City of London staged one of its most time-honoured traditions: the annual parade marking the inauguration of its new civic leader. But this year’s event was historic for more than its pageantry.

For the first time in 697 years, the Lord Mayor’s Show became the Lady Mayor’s Show, as Dame Susan Langley DBE took office under a title that signals both continuity and change.

The Lady Mayor’s pledge to “un-square the Square Mile” – to make the City more open, inclusive and innovative – could also not be more timely. If she is serious about modernising the mayoralty, then championing international education must be at the heart of her agenda.

Education as trade and investment

The City of London is not just a major global financial centre; it is a thoroughly international student city. As well as being home to the large multi-faculty institution of City St George’s, University of London, the City also boasts the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and has historic links to several prestigious further and higher education providers across the capital.

The overseas students that these institutions collectively attract feed a talent pipeline underpinning every sector of the City’s economy. According to research by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), just one year’s cohort of international students in the Cities of London and Westminster brings in £352 million of net benefits annually, equating to £2,940 per resident.

London’s businesses understand this importance. New research from London Higher shows 90% of firms in the capital say global graduates are essential for filling skills gaps and driving innovation, and more than half admit they would consider relocating if access to this talent were curtailed.

From financial services to tech companies and the creative industries, London’s employers value the language skills, cultural awareness and global networks that international graduates provide. These are the assets that give the Square Mile its competitive edge in a fiercely global marketplace.

Storm clouds ahead

However, these assets are under threat. Headwinds facing UK higher education are stiffening: financial pressures, rising operating costs and ongoing policy uncertainty around visas and an international fee levy are all working to lessen London’s overseas appeal. Universities are continually being asked to do more with less, while negative rhetoric around immigration risks deterring the very global talent that the City needs to thrive.

Universities are continually being asked to do more with less, while negative rhetoric around immigration risks deterring the very global talent that the City needs to thrive

Should the City of London’s higher education institutions start losing ground in the international education export market then the ripple effects will be felt far beyond their campuses – from student housing markets, restaurants and local coffee shops to the big city businesses that rely on a steady flow of skilled graduates with the nous to operate in a globally connected world.

Convening power

This is where the Lady Mayor’s convening power matters. Her role is not merely ceremonial. As the elected head of the City of London Corporation, she is a global ambassador for the UK’s financial and professional services sector, tasked with driving growth and innovation through diplomacy and engagement.

In an era when rival financial centres such as New York, Singapore and Dubai are doubling down on talent attraction, London cannot afford to be complacent. A modern mayoralty should see universities and colleges as strategic assets in the City’s success, not peripheral players around its financial prowess. Opening the doors of Mansion House for events that champion education as a cornerstone of competitiveness would send a powerful signal of support.

Advocacy for higher education is not a fringe issue. It is ultimately about future-proofing the City for the challenges that lie ahead. Higher education fuels innovation, entrepreneurship and cultural capital – all the qualities that the City prizes in its pursuit of growth and prosperity. Alumni of London’s institutions go on to become global decision-makers in a variety of sectors and industries and carry with them an affinity for the City that often translates into investment and influence later down the line.

A new narrative for growth

At a time when the City’s economy is crying out for high-level skills – and the UK government is doubling down on local responsiveness through a civic policy lens – the Square Mile has a golden opportunity to lead by example under its new Lady Mayor: forging partnerships between business and education, supporting pathways into high-demand sectors and amplifying the City of London’s message as a welcoming destination for learners and workers from all backgrounds – particularly women inspired by their new figurehead.

The Lady Mayor has said herself that, “The City is not about walls to keep people out, but about welcoming people in.” That ethos should extend to students as much as to investors because, if we fail to keep London open to global talent, we risk diminishing the City’s universities and weakening the very foundations of the Square Mile’s success.

The Lady Mayor’s tenure in Mansion House offers a chance for the City to reset its narrative and show that international education is a strategic lever for the City’s growth. By championing international students and forging stronger ties between academia and industry, the City can secure its place as the world’s most connected financial hub – thriving on openness, talent and ideas.

If the City of London wants to remain the beating heart of global commerce, then it must also be the beating heart of global learning.

Source link

November 21, 2025
London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

As the UK prepares for the Graduate Route to be shortened from two years to 18 months, London’s business leaders have had their say on international graduates in the workforce, with 90% showing support.

The results of London Higher‘s recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that international talent is highly valued across London businesses – 62% of respondents view international talent as essential and a further 28% say it is important. Only 10% say foreign talent is not very important or not at all important.

“Global graduates give London its competitive edge. Every sector of our economy benefits from the talent and energy they bring. This research shows that they don’t take opportunities away – they help create them,” said Liz Hutchinson, chief executive of London Higher – the membership organisation that promotes and acts as an advocate for higher education in the city.

The majority of those surveyed believe that international talent plugs skills gaps (93%), drives innovation (89%) and supports London’s global competitiveness, while only a small minority of business leaders felt it reduced scope for domestic talent and innovation.

Some 93% of respondents say that international talent helps address skills gaps in their industry, with only 4% saying that international workers reduce opportunities for UK talent.

“By helping businesses expand, [global graduates] generate more jobs and opportunities for everyone. As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors,” added Hutchinson.

As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors
_{^{Liz Hutchinson, London Higher}}

Elsewhere, 91% of those surveyed view international workers as essential or helpful for the city’s competitiveness against global cities such as New York, Singapore or Paris, with only 7% saying that their relevance is limited or non-existent.

The survey shows that support for international talent is strongest in larger, growth sector companies – and in those that think they are outperforming their competitors.

The survey comes as anti-immigration rhetoric in the UK intensifies and the government pushes ahead with stricter immigration rules.

As domestic politics play out in headlines overseas and concerns grow around the UK’s stance as a welcoming destination for international talent, Harry Coath, head of the talent and skills programme at London’s growth agency, London & Partners, said he sees an opportunity for London to position itself as a city that truly embraces diversity – a factor he noted is central to why so many businesses choose to be here.

Speaking at London Higher’s conference this week, alongside Coath, Ruth Arnold, executive director of external affairs at Study Group, said the latest research is arguably the most important report London Higher has ever produced, taking into consideration this political context and the importance of employability and post-study work to today’s international students.

The UK government’s decision to cut the Graduate Route visa from two years to 18 months was first announced in May in the UK government’s white paper on immigration, and the change is set to to take effect from January 2027.

The survey showed that business leaders think international students should be able to access work visas – 59% want to see easier access for international students to stay in the country 28% feel the current system works, while only 10% are vying for tighter controls.

John Dickie, CEO of BusinessLDN, commented on the report’s findings, highlighting the importance that the UK “does all it can to remain attractive to highly skilled individuals from across the globe, particularly at a time when some of our rivals are closing their doors to international students”.

Dickie noted the government’s proposed levy on international student fees, and urged ministers to scrap these “misguided plans” that he said would “hit growth, exacerbate the sector’s financial challenges and undermine [the UK’s] soft power”.

Source link

November 21, 2025
Phoenix Education Partners, FAFSA Fraud, and the Familiar Dance of Blame

When Phoenix Education Partners (PXED) CEO Chris Lynne publicly blamed the U.S. Department of Education for missing fraud in FAFSA applications—fraud that allowed the University of Phoenix to enroll individuals engaged in financial-aid misconduct—he likely hoped to redirect scrutiny away from his own shop. Instead, the maneuver sent up a flare. For many observers of the for-profit college sector, it felt like the return of a well-worn tactic: deflect, distract, and deny responsibility until the heat dies down.

The pivot toward blaming the Department of Education does not merely look defensive; it echoes a pattern that helped bring down an entire generation of predatory schools. And it raises a simple question: why is PXED responding like institutions that have something to hide?

The Old Script, Updated

The University of Phoenix, under PXED’s ownership, carries not just a long memory of investigations and settlements but a structural DNA shaped by years of aggressive enrollment management, marketing overreach, and high-pressure tactics. When the industry was confronted with evidence of systemic abuses—lying about job placement, enrolling ineligible students, manipulating financial-aid rules—the typical industry defense was to claim that problems were caused by bad actors, by misinterpreted regulations, or by a sluggish and incompetent Department of Education.

Those excuses were not convincing then, and they ring even more hollow now.

If individuals involved in financial-aid fraud managed to slip into the system, an institution with PXED’s history should be the first to strengthen internal controls, not pass the buck. Schools are required under federal law to verify eligibility, prevent fraud, and monitor suspicious patterns. Pretending that ED is solely responsible ignores the compliance structure PXED is obligated—by statute—to maintain.

Why Blame-Shifting Looks So Suspicious

Instead of demonstrating transparency or releasing information about internal controls that failed, PXED’s leadership has opted for a public relations gambit: blame the regulator. This raises several concerns.

First, shifting responsibility before releasing evidence suggests that PXED may be more focused on reputational management than on institutional accountability. If the organization’s processes were sound, those facts would speak louder—and more credibly—than an accusatory press statement.

Second, the posture is déjà vu for people who have tracked the sector for decades. Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Education Management Corp., and Career Education Corporation all blamed ED at various stages of their collapses. In each case, deflection became part of the pattern that preceded deeper revelations of systemic abuse.

When PXED’s CEO adopts similar rhetoric, observers reasonably wonder whether history is repeating itself—again.

Finally, PXED’s argument undermines trust at a moment when the University of Phoenix is already under skepticism from accreditors, policymakers, student-borrower advocates, and the public. Instead of strengthening compliance, PXED’s messaging signals defensiveness. Institutions with nothing to hide usually take a different approach.

The Structural Issues PXED Doesn’t Want to Discuss

PXED acquired the University of Phoenix with promises of modernization, stabilization, and responsible stewardship. But beneath the marketing, core challenges remain:

A business model dependent on federal aid. The more a school relies on federal dollars, the stronger its responsibility to prevent fraud—not the weaker.

A compliance culture shaped by profit pressure. For-profit education has repeatedly shown how financial incentives can distort admissions and oversight.

A credibility deficit. PXED took over an institution known internationally for deceptive advertising and financial-aid abuses. Blaming ED only magnifies the perception that nothing has fundamentally changed.

A fragile regulatory environment. With oversight tightening and student-protection rules returning, PXED cannot afford to gesture toward the old for-profit playbook. Doing so suggests they are trying to manage optics instead of outcomes.

What Accountability Would Look Like

If PXED wanted to demonstrate leadership rather than defensiveness, a different response was available:

• Conduct and publish a full internal review of financial-aid intake processes
• Outline steps to prevent enrollment of fraudulent actors
• Acknowledge institutional lapses—and explain how they occurred
• Invite independent audits rather than blaming federal partners
• Demonstrate an understanding of fiduciary obligations to students and taxpayers

This is the standard expected of Title IV institutions. It is also the standard PXED insists they meet.

A Familiar Pattern at a Familiar Institution

Every moment of pressure reveals something about institutional culture. PXED’s choice to immediately fault the Department of Education—without presenting evidence of its own vigilance—suggests that the company may still be operating according to the old Phoenix playbook: when in doubt, blame someone else.

But in 2025, the public, regulators, and students have seen this movie before. And they know how it ends.

Sources
U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Handbook
Senate HELP Committee, For-Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success
Federal Trade Commission, University of Phoenix Settlement Documents
U.S. Department of Education, Program Review and Compliance Requirements
Higher Education Inquirer archives

Source link

November 21, 2025
Liverpool University’s India campus to open in major Bangalore township

While more details are expected at the University of Liverpool India’s launch event in Bangalore on December 15, the campus in the integrated township — which includes residential, commercial, and institutional facilities — will feature “flexible spaces”, according to the university.

The campus will have smart classrooms, research and collaborative spaces, specialised labs, and comprehensive co-working hubs for faculty, students, and entrepreneurs, offering a “state-of-the-art, 360-degree learning environment” for its inaugural cohort, set to begin in August 2026.

“We are looking forward to welcoming our inaugural cohort of talented students in 2026 and providing them with an exceptional learning experience that strengthens their skills and employability,” said Lucy Everest, chief operating officer, University of Liverpool.

She visited Bangalore and Mumbai this week to meet educators, potential applicants, and alumni as the university plans to grow the campus to 5,000 students in five years and 10,000 in 10.

“Alembic City is the perfect place to realise this vision and our new campus will provide our students with the very best facilities to support their learning journey with us.”

By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students
_{^{Tim Jones, University of Liverpool}}

The university has also opened admissions for 2026, offering postgraduate programs in accounting and finance and computer science, alongside undergraduate courses in business management, biomedical sciences, computer science, accounting and finance, and a game design program — “which combines the university’s music and computer science departments, something not many other UK campuses are offering in India”, according to vice-chancellor, Tim Jones.

“What we will ensure is that there’s a ‘Liverpool feel’ to the campus. Students who come to the University of Liverpool, Bangalore, should experience the distinctive elements of Liverpool,” Jones told The PIE News.

“There will be unique features in the design that I hope students will really appreciate.”

For Jones — who was part of the 126-member UK delegation to India led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which included entrepreneurs, cultural figures and university leaders following the landmark trade deal between the two countries — Bangalore was a natural choice for the new campus for a range of reasons.

The city, a major IT hub with leading Indian and multinational tech and biotech firms, is familiar ground for the red-brick Russell Group university, which has a long-standing, research partnership with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) and ongoing collaborations with the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore. Both institutions also happen to have two of the world’s oldest and most prominent biochemistry departments.

Moreover, one of the University of Liverpool’s biggest corporate partners is Unilever, which has an R&D centre in Bangalore, with pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca and IT firms like Wipro also expected to play a role in research, innovation and industry collaboration through the India campus.

“We did explore other cities, but it was quite easy for us to pick Bangalore because we had already begun building strong relationships in the city and the wider Karnataka region,” stated Jones, who praised the city’s tech-entrepreneurial culture and the opportunities it offers for a university to “engage, collaborate and grow”.

“By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students. This is a big focus for us this year — we have already started, and we’ll be doing much more.”

In the lead-up to the campus opening next year, the University of Liverpool will focus on faculty exchanges between the Liverpool and Bangalore campuses, attracting international students, and expanding scholarship opportunities for its India-based cohort, according to Jones.

But the university — which views global engagement and partnerships as central to its Liverpool 2031 strategy — is not the only UK institution advancing its India campus plans.

Nine UK universities now have approval to establish campuses in the South Asian country, with the University of Southampton leading the pack, already welcoming around 150 students in the first cohort at its Gurugram campus in August this year.

In this landscape, the University of Liverpool aims to distinguish itself from other UK institutions by offering distinctive programs and embedding research from “day one”, drawing on lessons from its only other international branch campus — the Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou, China — as it shapes its approach in India.

“We have experience from our successful campus in China, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary and has nearly 30,000 students. That experience gives us confidence that we can succeed in India as well,” stated Jones.

“The funding model was also different 20 years ago. But the exchange of staff and students is embedded in what we do in China. I see the same happening with India as the campus develops.”

However, despite the China campus’s success, recent reports suggest it may require stronger oversight amid concerns about teaching methods, class sizes, and students’ English proficiency.

While the rapid push to establish branch campuses in India has also sparked debate about the trend among major UK universities, Jones says he is focused on making Liverpool’s India launch a “big success”.

“It took us 20 years to go from China to India. There will likely be other ventures in the future, but right now, I’m very focused on making this a big success — for the students, for the university, and for India,” stated Jones.

Source link

November 21, 2025