Author: admin

  • Trump’s giant budget-busting, Medicaid-shattering, shafting-the-poor-and-working-class, making-the-rich-even richer bill is a travesty. (Robert Reich)

    Trump’s giant budget-busting, Medicaid-shattering, shafting-the-poor-and-working-class, making-the-rich-even richer bill is a travesty. (Robert Reich)

    Friends,

    One of my objectives in this daily letter is to equip you with the facts you need. As the Senate approaches a vote on Trump’s giant “big beautiful” tax and budget bill, I want to be as clear as possible about it.

    First, it will cost a budget-busting $3.3 trillion. According to new estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Senate bill would add at least $3.3 trillion to the already out-of-control national debt over a decade. That’s nearly $1 trillion more than the House-passed version.

    Second, it will cause 11.8 million Americans to lose their health coverage. The Senate version would result in even deeper cuts in federal support for health insurance, and more Americans losing coverage, than the House version. Federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare would be reduced by more than $1.1 trillion over that period — with more than $1 trillion of those cuts coming from Medicaid alone.

    All told, this will leave 11.8 million more Americans uninsured by 2034.

    Third, it will cut food stamps and other nutrition assistance for lower-income Americans. According to the CBO, the legislation will not only cut Medicaid by about 18 percent, it will cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) by roughly 20 percent. These cuts will constitute the most dramatic reductions in safety net spending in modern U.S. history.

    Fourth, it will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and big corporations. The CBO projects that those in the bottom tenth of the income distribution will end up poorer, while the top tenth will be substantially richer.

    The bill also makes permanent the business tax cuts from the 2017 legislation, further benefiting the largest corporations.

    Finally, it will not help the economy. Trickle-down economics has proven to be a cruel hoax. Over the last 50 years, Congress has passed four major bills that cut taxes: the 1981 Reagan tax cuts; the 2001 and 2003 George W. Bush tax cuts; and the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Each time, the same three arguments were made in favor of the tax cuts: (1) They’d pay for themselves. (2) They’d supercharge economic growth. (3) They’d benefit everyone.

    All have been proven wrong. Here’s what in fact happened:

    (1) Did the tax cuts pay for themselves?

    No. Rather than paying for themselves, the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts each significantly increased the federal deficit. In total, those tax cuts have added over $10.4 trillion to the federal deficit since 1981 compared to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projections.

    (2) Did the tax cuts supercharge economic growth, create millions of jobs, and raise wages?

    Absolutely not. Rather than growing, the economy shrank after passage of the Reagan tax cuts. And unemployment surged to over 10 percent. Following the enactment of the Bush and Trump tax cuts, the economy did grow a bit, but at rates much lower than their supporters predicted.

    (3) Did the tax cuts benefit everyone?

    Heavens, no. Rather than benefiting everyone, the savings from the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts flowed mainly to the richest Americans. The average tax cut for households in the top 1 percent under the Reagan tax cut ($47,147) was 68 times larger than the average tax cut for middle-class households ($695). The Bush tax cut for households in the top 1 percent was 16 times larger than the average tax cut for the middle class. The 2017 Trump tax cut for households in the top 1 percent was 36 times larger than for middle-class households.

    Summary: If the bill now being considered by the Senate is enacted, 11.8 million Americans will lose their health insurance, millions will fall into poverty, and the national debt will increase by $3.3 trillion, all to provide a major tax cut mainly to the rich and big corporations. There is no justification for this.

    Never before in the history of this nation has such a large redistribution of income been directed upward, for no reason at all. It comes at a time of near-record inequalities of income and wealth.

    What you can do: Call your senators and tell them to vote “no” on this calamitous tax and budget bill. Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121.

    Beyond this, help ensure that senators who vote in favor of this monstrosity are booted out of the Senate as soon as they’re up for reelection.

    Share

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 150,000 Monthly Views in June 2025

    Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 150,000 Monthly Views in June 2025







    Higher Education Inquirer : Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 150,000 Monthly Views in June 2025




    Source link

  • College Athletics Enters Uncharted Territory July 1

    College Athletics Enters Uncharted Territory July 1

    After years of court battles, a federal judge ushered in a new era for college athletics earlier this month when she approved a settlement in the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit, effectively ending the century-old model of student athletes as amateurs.

    Now students will be able to earn money for their athletic performance at colleges that opt in to the practice known as revenue-sharing, in which institutions share with players the money made off their teams. Former Division I athletes from the recent past will also share a $2.8 billion settlement to compensate for the financial opportunities they were denied due to now-defunct NCAA rules that prevented them from cashing in on name, image, and likeness deals.

    Although the NCAA status quo was undone in an instant, many campus leaders had been planning for months, anticipating the outcome of the ruling.

    The era of paid college athletes officially begins July 1. With it comes questions about how the landscape will evolve and concerns about equity issues, as well as what the fallout of the settlement may mean for nonrevenue sports.

    A State of Transition

    Experts view revenue-sharing as the most consequential part of the settlement.

    Institutions that opt in to revenue sharing will have up to $20.5 million to spread among their athletes. The lion’s share of that is expected to flow to football, the top revenue-earning sport, followed by men’s basketball, with the second-highest distribution amounts. The annual revenue-sharing cap will increase gradually to $32 million over the course of a decade.

    Jason Montgomery, a partner at the law firm Husch Blackwell, said that one commonly discussed formula would see 75 percent of revenue disbursed to an institution’s football team, followed by 15 percent to men’s basketball, 5 percent to women’s basketball, and the remainder spread across all other sports. But he noted institutions can adjust that formula as they see fit.

    At institutions that don’t have a football team, the bulk of the revenue will likely be directed to men’s basketball. And some universities that have top basketball programs are tweaking the formula to direct more money to hoops; the University of Houston, for example, may opt for a formula that directs 23 to 25 percent of revenue to men’s basketball, local media reported.

    The back-pay provision is also heavily tilted toward football, which has already prompted an appeal on Title IX grounds, with plaintiffs alleging women are being shorted on damages. The suit, brought by eight former college athletes who competed in soccer, track and volleyball, argues that female athletes are being deprived of more than $1 billion in past damages.

    Financial Models

    For those opting in to revenue-sharing, a major question looms: Where will the money come from?

    Sean Frazier, athletic director at Northern Illinois University and president of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, said financial models will vary by institution.

    “You’re going to see a lot more of that innovative way to revenue-share by getting this money from external sources that are not specific to the universities themselves,” Frazier said.

    Some colleges are leaning on boosters and TV deals to bankroll revenue-sharing, while others are taking different approaches. Earlier this month, the Florida Board of Governors approved the use of auxiliary funds to pay student athletes, which could flow from college bookstores, student housing, dining, parking fees and other income streams. (That measure is intended to be temporary as colleges develop long-term plans.)

    In addition to increasing revenues, colleges are looking for ways to cut costs. Montgomery said one way colleges can do that is by eliminating non-revenue-earning sports—such as swimming and track and field—which some institutions have done, though that move has also been accompanied by other financial challenges for the sector.

    Colleges that opt in to the revenue-sharing model don’t have to pay the maximum amount unless they choose to. That could yield scenarios where less resourced institutions pay much less than the $20.5 million cap.

    While experts say there is no firm data point yet on how many colleges have opted in to revenue sharing, those numbers are likely to be just a fraction of the NCAA’s member institutions. As of last summer, that number stood at 1,085 institutions, with 355 at the Division I level.

    “The vast majority of colleges are not going to be part of this revenue-share,” said Michael McCann, a professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Franklin Pierce School of Law.

    Opportunities for Innovation

    Frazier compared college athletics in the aftermath of the House settlement to flying a plane while building it. He expects colleges will adjust their approaches as they go.

    “It is clunky right now because of the fact that we do not have certain guardrails yet finalized as we go into this. That’s why it’s going to be a little bit of a wait-and-see on some things,” he said.

    He urged patience for those trying to navigate the new landscape.

    “I would caution [college] leaders to not jump to trends, to not jump to any situation as a quick fix,” Frazier said. “There’s no silver bullet to be able to manage this. We’re going to have to go through a cycle to really understand what the impacts of the House settlement mean.”

    McCann expects that colleges will largely pay football players, as they have signaled. Where the money flows, he said, will depend on institutional priorities. If an athletic department is focused on keeping up with rival football teams and landing on television, revenue-sharing money will be invested in football. But he thinks leaders should consider investing in other areas, including women’s sports—which have boomed in recent years, judging from the record viewership for women’s basketball.

    “I see an opportunity for schools that opt in to revenue-share to not follow the script of spending most of the money on football players,” McCann said. “I could see some presidents being innovative and saying, ‘Let’s use that money primarily on women’s basketball; let’s try to create a top women’s basketball team, or softball.’ There are opportunities to distribute money in ways that I think are a lot more innovative than simply trying to catch up with all the other football schools.”

    The Professional Era

    To many experts, this moment amounts to the professionalization of college athletics.

    “If this isn’t pay to play, I don’t know what is,” Montgomery said.

    To Montgomery’s point, some colleges have hired general managers and other personnel with professional sports experience. Last year Stanford University tapped former star quarterback Andrew Luck, who spent seven years in the NFL, to return to his alma mater as general manager of the football program. Similarly, in March the University of California, Berkeley, hired former NFL player and head coach Ron Rivera as general manager of its football program.

    Noting that trend, McCann suggested such programs are “operating as quasi pro teams.”

    Federal Legislation?

    For years, observers have speculated that Congress might get involved in college athletics. President Donald Trump has raised the possibility of his own involvement as well; in May, he proposed establishing a presidential commission on college sports before backing off the idea.

    However, many experts don’t expect federal legislation to emerge.

    “It’s a long shot that Congress intervenes,” Montgomery said, arguing that college athletics is not a priority for lawmakers at the moment. At most, he said Congress might codify the House settlement through federal legislation.

    McCann agrees. While he believes “there will be bills introduced, and there will be press conferences and a lot of media coverage,” he doesn’t think such efforts will be fruitful.

    But Frazier, who describes himself as an optimist by nature, is hopeful that federal legislation could come to pass in the near future, and he stressed the importance of being part of those talks.

    “I think at the end of the day, we need to help [Trump], we need to help the federal government understand what will work,” he said. “Because we have a perception issue that college athletics can’t govern itself. We’ve created that perception as an industry, and what we need to do is take it back. What we need to do is to show the folks that have doubted us, that [think] we’ve lost control, that there is control, and the only way you can do that is with experience, leadership and execution.”

    Source link

  • Should students’ unions reach for the stars?

    Should students’ unions reach for the stars?

    Ahead of heading out for the summer to deliver training to new students’ union officers, as well as booking trains and hotels and placing an unfeasibly large order of (unfeasibly large) post-it notes, every year we have a run at reading and analysing all of the pledges made in their election manifestos.

    Jim recalls a time when the key challenge emerging from the exercise was convincing the incoming crop that £1 a pint might need to be an occasional offer rather than a permanent price drop – a time when “student stress” was a precursor to mental health, and a time when “grants not fees” was a viable option rather than a lost era.

    A time when promises to improve the awareness of, or to extend the range of goods on offer in the campus food bank would have been unimaginable.

    Over the years, the pledges adorning the leaflets that litter the campus every spring have become less markedly less political and increasingly parochial. Oftentimes the key challenge has been to help new officers understand where their pledges meet policy – to help them locate what they want to achieve with the right committee or the appropriate PVC.

    So there’s something quite bleak about a year in which the demands are so historically comparatively modest, yet also so simultaneously ambitious given the resource constraints facing the sector they’re about to be immersed in.

    And as we dust down the exercises and update the slide decks, we’re left wondering whether the right message isn’t how to advocate for “more and better”, but instead should be picking which things shouldn’t join the growing group of aspects of the student experience that are becoming “less and worse”.

    They are not, in and of themselves, a collection of PDFs that are fully representative of the student body’s needs and aspirations. Many tell us more about a particular university’s culture and structure, or that students’ unions’s local funding settlement, than they do the realities of the contemporary student condition.

    But taken together, they tell us quite a bit about how students see their education and the aspects of it they’d like to see change. We’ve read, coded and analysed over 1,000 of them this year – from both winners and many of the losers – and our main conclusion is that the parochialism on offer belies something more than a lack of ambition or understanding of politics.

    They suggest a generation struggling to believe in possibility – one for whom the world looks like it will never get better, and where making little tweaks to help students cope is the wisest way to avoid being yet another politician whose promises will be broken. The question we’re struggling with is whether to amp up their ambitions, or temper their expectations with a dose of reality.

    Back to basics

    The first thing you notice when taking a step back from this year’s crop is that universities seem to be systematically failing to deliver fundamental aspects of the educational experience. The manifestos reveal students demanding things that ought to be standard – lecture materials uploaded in advance, breaks in long teaching sessions, consistent feedback. It’s not even about demanding extras or enhancements – it’s often about institutions not delivering the basics:

    Right now, some departments give detailed comments, while others leave students guessing…feedback should help students improve, not just justify a grade.

    Helen Slater, Education Officer, SU University of Bath

    Multi hour lectures should have a short break, make this enforced. Rebecca Schofield, Loughborough Students’ Union

    When, like us, you know what’s in the Quality Code or the B Conditions of the regulatory framework like the back of your hand, the sheer volume of pledges about improvements to simple things is dispiriting. Students shouldn’t need to campaign for things like accessible learning materials, or for the VLE to work:

    …resolving issues with timetabling. This will mean you receive your timetables earlier than 1-2 teaching weeks.

    Amrit Dhillon, University of Manchester SU

    End Deadline Clumping: Two deadlines shouldn’t fall on the same day, students perform best when they can focus on one piece of work at a time.

    Aliasgar Gandhi, Birmingham Guild, Postgraduate Officer

    What also emerges is a picture of institutions that have failed to adapt to students managing multiple responsibilities – work, commuting, caring duties – whilst trying to engage with their education. The assumption that getting into university means being ready for it, and that they’ll be able to benefit from what’s there, is coming apart:

    Have timetables that work for you! No more waiting around for lectures!

    Lily Watson, President, University of Chester

    Improve assessment timetabling by involving departments, preventing deadline clashes, and ensuring deadlines are released earlier.

    Aya Haidar, Academic Officer, York University SU

    It all suggests a generation that has lost faith in institutional competence and is demanding explicit guarantees that basic teaching and learning processes function in a way that allows them to experience them. We’re left wondering whether to explain what it is that students are entitled to – even if it seems that on the resource available, many universities are struggling to deliver it.

    Time won’t give me time

    It’s long been clear that student disengagement tends to reflect time scarcity rather than apathy. Manifestos reveal students stretched impossibly thin between work, commuting, and study, making traditional university schedules completely unworkable:

    Flexible Timetables & Online Learning: University should fit around your life, not the other way around. This isn’t just about convenience—it’s about reducing stress and creating a study environment that fits your needs, whether balancing work, personal life or study preferences.

    Forum Yadav, Education Officer, Manchester Metropolitan SU

    … implement a hybrid learning system that encourages people to come into the classroom in person, without disadvantaging those who cannot make it to lectures in person. This system would allow disabled students to keep up without putting their health at risk, and allow students to actually stay home when they’re ill… or have other commitments.

    Lyds Knowles, Diversity, Access and Participation Officer, University of Sussex

    Every set of manifestos contains pledges about scheduling that acknowledge students no longer have full-time availability for academic life. Universities persist with timetables designed for a student body that could prioritise education over economic survival:

    Concurrent lectures, especially around lunch time cause students to not be able to have lunch. We will work with Vice Deans and programme officers to sort out the timetables to make sure there is an hour free at noon for students to be able to eat.

    Baiyu Liu, President, King’s College London SU

    The grouping of deadlines, it is unfair to expect students who also have to work part time jobs to submit their deadlines all in the same week. Often leading to burnout, stress and further complications. I would like to see the deadlines spread throughout a student’s academic journey allowing them the time and freedom to explore them in full.

    Joshua Frost, President Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business

    The depth of these time management proposals reveals institutions fundamentally out of step with student reality. When students need explicit campaigns for reduced commute times, condensed timetabling, and online options, it suggests universities are designing education around institutional convenience rather than student availability:

    Timetabling that will be student-friendly

    Francis Ani. President for Student Communities, Hull SU

    Make NECs more easily accessible for students, and more confidential; you shouldn’t have to disclose personal circumstances to attain a needed extension!

    Ryan Turner, VP Postgraduate Candidate, Nottingham Trent Students’ Union

    It all represents a fundamental challenge to the traditional university model, which assumed students could treat education as their primary occupation rather than one competing demand amongst many. We’re torn between encouraging SU officers to challenge that – or whether they should find ways to help students meet the demands.

    The earn-and-learn economy

    The traditional full-time student model seems to have completely collapsed as financial necessity forces students into near full-time work alongside study. The manifestos treat work not as supplementary income but as a survival strategy that universities must actively support:

    Students are left with no option other than work excessive hours in their part time jobs to be able to afford basic necessities, having a negative impact on both their academic as well as their university experience.

    Aisha Lord, Vice President Falmouth, Falmouth and Exeter SU

    Almost all students commute to university… This can be very costly and stressful, and force students to work extra hours, which takes away from their study, and their overall energy.

    Komal Ashfaq, President, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Rather than treating work and education as competing demands, the manifestos demand integration – paid internships, work experience built into courses, and academic arrangements that accommodate employment. It reflects students who can’t afford to see work and study as separate:

    Lobby for part-time work experience that matches course content and enhances learning.

    Ismail Patel, Candidate for Education Officer, University of Bradford Students’ Union.

    Advocate for more internship and part-time work opportunities for postgraduate students.

    Navin Raj Ramachandran Selvaraj, Candidate for Postgraduate Students’ Officer, Oxford Brookes University.

    Their proposals go beyond simple job-finding to demand that universities take responsibility for helping students find good work that develops relevant skills. It suggests a complete rejection of the idea that student employment is peripheral to education:

    Push for More Part-Time Job Opportunities on Campus Financial stability is crucial for students, and I will advocate for more part-time roles within the university.

    Muhammad Barik Ullah, Vice President of Undergraduate Education, Westminster SU

    I will also campaign nationally for increased apprenticeship schemes that provide real-world experience beyond the lecture hall.

    Matthew Lamb, candidate for Education Officer, Lancaster University SU

    It also reflects a generation that sees no viable alternative to integrating work and education, and expects institutions to adapt accordingly rather than maintaining the fiction of full-time student focus. We can’t work out whether they should fight to reclaim the full-time student experience, or continue to try to fit too much into a tight timetable.

    The financialisation of… everything

    On that, cost-of-living concerns have invaded every aspect of university life because the student finance system has fundamentally failed to cover basic living expenses. The manifestos demand subsidised everything – meals, transport, laundry, stationery – revealing students unable to afford necessities:

    Increase the Selection and Diversify £1.50 Value Meals to ensure access to affordable, nutritious options. …Offer Free Meal Planning and Cooking Classes to help reduce grocery expenses and prevent malnutrition.

    Izzy Downer, Community Officer, SU University of Bath

    I will fight to make the university more affordable with cheaper housing and bus travel (whilst increasing frequency!)

    Lewis Wilson, Education Officer, University of Sussex

    The breadth of financial support demanded goes far beyond traditional student finance, extending to food banks, emergency funding, and discounted services. Maintenance loans are no longer functioning as intended:

    Subsidise essential supplies like period products and course materials.

    Ana Da Silva, VP Welfare & Community, Royal Holloway Students’ Union

    Lower Living Costs – Reduce food, rent, and transport expenses for students… Food on campus should be affordable for everyone. At least one cheap, healthy option should be available on every menu.

    Emma Brown, Union President, University of Southampton

    Increasing provisions of free menstrual products across campus.

    Leah Buttery, Wellbeing Officer, Lancaster University

    Students are essentially demanding that universities compensate for a broken national funding system by subsidising daily life. The manifestos treat a financial crisis as so normalised that every policy area must include cost-reduction measures.

    But with little prospect of significant relief coming from government, we’re torn between whether they should campaign into the ether for better student financial support, or find further fixes internally to provide some relief.

    Radical transparency as a default expectation

    More than ever this year, candidates are demanding real-time access to information about every aspect of institutional decision-making, reflecting a generation raised on social media expecting constant updates and complete visibility:

    I will push for minutes of all committee meetings to be published on the student portal within a week.

    Sophie Elsey, Candidate, University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union

    More transparency from the university management in decision making, including budget allocations.

    Candidate, Queen’s Students’ Union

    Manifestos go far beyond traditional accountability to demand that previously private institutional processes become completely transparent. Students want detailed financial breakdowns, accessible decision-making explanations, and immediate access to information that universities have historically kept internal:

    Provide an open-access dashboard showing real-time spending on student services and capital projects.

    William Garvey, Officer Candidate, University of the Arts London Students’ Union

    Push for module leaders to share assessment marking rubrics with students in advance.

    Hasan Chowdhury, Candidate, University of Chester Students’ Union

    Traditional consultation processes and annual reports are treated as inadequate relics. Students expect real-time feedback systems, open access to committee discussions, and quarterly updates that explain exactly how decisions are made and money is spent:

    I will advocate for livestreamed town halls where university leaders take student questions unfiltered.

    Jasmine A., Candidate, Edge Hill Students’ Union

    Push to publish all course changes on a centralised, searchable hub before implementation.

    Priya Chandra, Academic Officer candidate, University of Bedfordshire Students’ Union

    That isn’t just about accountability but about fundamental assumptions around information access. Students treat transparency as a default setting rather than something institutions graciously provide when pressed:

    Introduce opt-in alerts so students are notified whenever the university makes a policy change that affects them.

    Mohamed Khaleel, Candidate for VP Academic Affairs, Cardiff Metropolitan University SU

    The depth of the transparency demands suggest a rejection of traditional institutional opacity and a belief that students have the right to understand exactly how things work rather than trusting authority figures to act appropriately. We could encourage them to demand clarity – or we could prepare them for a year during which confidential discussions are more likely to be the norm.

    Bureaucracy as liberation technology

    Rather than seeing formal processes as obstacles, students genuinely believe that better systems and structured procedures can solve problems that previous generations addressed through personal relationships or protest:

    I’ll lobby for a standardised extension policy across departments to remove ambiguity and favouritism.

    Aisha Khan, Education Candidate, Aston Students’ Union

    The manifestos systematically replace informal advocacy with process-driven representation that offers genuine agency rather than tokenistic consultation. This reflects deep scepticism about personal relationships as reliable routes to change:

    Create template emails and appeal guides for students contesting grades or procedures.

    Liana Dsouza, Candidate, Solent Students’ Union

    Mandate response times for all university emails affecting students’ academic progress.

    Zehra Al-Khatib, Candidate, University of the Highlands and Islands SA

    Students want predictable, systematic responses that don’t depend on who happens to be in charge or what mood they’re in. The proposals assume that good design can guarantee fair treatment regardless of individual personalities or relationships:

    Create an online portal where students can see the status of any ongoing issue or query.

    Lydia Spencer, VP Education Candidate, Bucks Students’ Union

    Replace paper-based mitigating circumstances with an automated and transparent digital system.

    Jayden Moore, Candidate, University of South Wales Students’ Union

    It reads like an inversion of traditional anti-bureaucratic politics, suggesting a generation that trusts systems more than individuals and sees formal processes as tools of liberation rather than oppression. But we are left wondering whether they should advocate for more human approaches – or whether they should place faith in systems that at least appear to them more consistent and fair.

    Change is inevitable (except from the vending machines)

    Not nearly as much as we’d like, we are starting to see the wide-ranging organisational change processes and restructures come through in manifestos. But while a decade or so ago we might have seen pledges to “fight the cuts”, more often than not we see candidates keen that students are at least kept in the loop:

    One of the biggest frustrations students have is feeling like decisions are made about them, not with them. Whether it’s changes to course structures, university policies, finance or support services, students often feel out of the loop or unsure about where to raise concerns. I want to push for better transparency between students and the university, ensuring that major decisions are clearly communicated and that student voices are involved from the start.

    Humphrey Kasale, President, Manchester Metropolitan University

    “The University and its partner colleges have embarked on a process to explore new operating models including merging into a single institution to help save money and make the institution more sustainable…I will push for any savings to be made through greater efficiencies from the university and colleges working closer together on back office functions and not at the cost of the frontline student experience.

    Xander McDade, Students’ Association President, UHI (University of the Highlands and Islands)

    In some cases manifesto sets seem oblivious to announced redundancy rounds or major change projects that are bound to dominate their year. In others, students see problems coming that others may have missed:

    I hope to ensure that grading and marking stay consistent with the merging of departments soon so continuing students don’t get marked down for writing essays in a specific way they’re used to when taking modules outside of their departmental subject that have different essay structures.

    Noor Abbass, candidate for Education Officer, Goldsmiths

    Ensure smooth transition during departmental mergers

    Jeevana Sandhya, Education Officer candidate, University of Leicester

    Again, we are puzzled. Should we explain just how tough the year looks set to be across many of the universities we’ll be visiting, or keep them focussed on the aspects of the experience they’d like to see improved?

    Power as something you practise

    One thing that is a constant from previous years, and very much reflects the Gen-Z preference for horizontal support, is plenty of pledges on peer support – on everything from wellbeing to study skills:

    I pledge to create an anonymized essay-bank showcasing past student work to illustrate degree classifications, helping students understand grading standards and academic expectations.

    Gina Tindale, Academic Officer, Newcastle University

    Expand Buddy Schemes and Pastoral Support for undergraduates and postgraduates.

    Joshie Christian, Vice President Education, University of Southampton

    I will launch a mentorship programme for new volunteers to gain a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of student media and its dynamics.

    Libby Griffiths, Student Media Officer, Newcastle University

    Even on this one, we can’t work out what to do. Explain how hard it’s getting to find and support student volunteers to deliver the student experience for each other, or encourage them to explore the sorts of schemes we see on the continent that offer academic credit,a payment (or both) – building students’ skills in the process?

    Climb every mountain higher

    In most universities every summer, there’s a careful little dance being played between new SU officers and the senior managers they most often meet with.

    On the SU side, pledges get converted into exploratory conversations to test the appetite for change in the year ahead. On the university side, managers will be sussing out the leaders that students have picked – are these ones who we can work with, or ones that need to be disabused of their assumptions and ambitions?

    Having discussed the choices at length, for what it’s worth, we’ll be doing what we always do – not making assumptions or carefully manipulating them towards particular actions, but laying out what’s going on and why so they can make those choices for themselves. After all, they are almost always perfectly able to.

    But as well as our usual advice to listen and be curious about the underpinning experiences that lead to their policy ideas, we do have one additional bit of advice this year.

    The “sunshine indoors” decade of promises to provide pretty much everything to do with the student experience reflects what universities have been doing too. It might have made sense when there was money around to invest – but it’s now not only proving impossible to deliver, it obscures the role that other areas of government should be playing in the student experience.

    Whether it’s the business department’s dismal failure to think about students at work, the absence of the recognition between health and successful study for health ministers, or (in England and Scotland) housing legislation seeming to be silent on struggles students face, it does feel like we’re close to the end of what universities can do to improve things – with untapped potential for the rest of the public realm to step up to support students.

    Student leaders and university managers may well come from different worlds, and may well need to respectively deepen their understanding of those worlds – but whether working in close partnership or public opposition, they ought to be able to agree to explore together how and why we got here – and the sorts of external lobbying and campaigning that can get us somewhere else.

    It’s almost certainly external to the university where the real possibilities can be found – and feels like students advocating for students while universities advocate for universities is a separation that should come to at least a temporary end.

    Source link

  • A Framework for Moving Up or Moving On (opinion)

    A Framework for Moving Up or Moving On (opinion)

    Over my 16-plus years in higher education, mostly in administration, I’ve had many colleagues reach out and ask a version of the same question:

    “How do I know if I should stay or move on?”

    They are leaders in their field. Most are excelling on paper, teaching, mentoring, leading committees, serving on task forces and writing grants. But they’re tired, stuck or sense that something in the role, or the institution, no longer fits.

    Lately, I’m finding that we don’t talk enough about what to do when we’ve outgrown a role but aren’t sure what comes next. In academic culture, staying where we are is often seen as loyalty, moving up is luck and leaving can feel like defeat. But I’ve learned that career momentum doesn’t always mean climbing a ladder. Sometimes it means building a bridge or choosing a new path entirely.

    So, what do you do when you hit a fork in the road? I recently saw a post on LinkedIn that outlined a relatively simplistic framework, aligned with the business world, which can help if you find yourself questioning your next move: assess, align, act. I’ve taken the liberty to modify it, without losing the concept: reflect, revise, recommit.

    Reflect: Where Are You?

    Before planning your next move, take an honest look at your current professional state. Start by asking yourself the following:

    • Have I grown in the past year, or am I mostly going through the motions?
    • Am I viewed as a contributor or an afterthought?
    • How do I feel at the end of the day, mostly energized or mostly depleted?
    • Are my ideas welcomed or tolerated?
    • Do I see myself staying here for five more years?

    These questions aren’t about job satisfaction alone. They’re about where you are professionally. Assess your responses to the questions above. If you feel stuck where you are and don’t see changes or opportunities for professional growth in the future, it may be time to shift.

    Revise: Is This Still the Right Place for You?

    Consider how your values and contributions align (or don’t) with your work environment.

    In one of the classes I teach, we spend a considerable amount of time discussing values, both personal and professional. Keeping this in mind, ask yourself whether the following statements are true for you:

    • I can ask difficult questions or present unconventional ideas.
    • I feel heard and my input is valued.
    • I can contribute in ways that reflect my strengths.
    • My work is recognized, and not just when it’s convenient.
    • I feel hopeful about my professional future here.

    If you answer “no” more times than “yes,” it’s not a failure on your part. Instead, look at it as an opportunity to implement changes strategically.

    Recommit: Move Up, Move Over or Move On

    Once you’ve assessed your growth and alignment, you’re ready to make a deliberate decision to go deeper, shift roles or step toward something new. Here are three potential paths, each with concrete next steps:

    1. Move Up (Internal Advancement)

    If you still believe in the institution and want more responsibility:

    • Build your case: Document leadership wins, pilot programs or change initiatives—things that show you’re already operating at the next level.
    • Get visible: Let your supervisor or mentor know you’re open to advancement. Ambition isn’t arrogance; it’s clarity.
    • Ask for expanded roles: Volunteer to chair a new initiative or represent your unit on a strategic planning team.
    • Find advocates: You need more than mentors. Advocates promote and back you behind closed doors.
    1. Move Over (Lateral Change)

    If you like the institution but not the role:

    • Explore cross-campus opportunities in centers, institutes or new initiatives.
    • Consider a hybrid position that merges your skills (e.g., combining research and student success).
    • Talk with human resources or a trusted senior leader about other opportunities within your organization—professionally, quietly and strategically.

    Remember: lateral doesn’t mean lesser. Sometimes a lateral move can be the smartest option for long-term impact (and sanity).

    1. Move On (External Transition)

    If the position and the institution don’t fit your needs anymore:

    • Name what you want next: More autonomy? More responsibility? A different kind of leadership role?
    • Update your materials: Be sure to identify transferable skills. If you’ve led change, managed crises or built programs, remember these skills are valued in most industries.
    • Use your network: Former students, collaborators and conference contacts might hold the key to your next chapter.
    • Leave well: Give your employer sufficient notice. Offer to train your successor. Write a transition plan. Protect your reputation and exit with grace and gratitude.

    A Final Note: You’re Not Alone

    I recently spoke with a colleague who worried her career had stalled over the last several years and that she hadn’t grown in her position. When we discussed her accomplishments, we saw that she’d proposed several new initiatives, launched a new program, mentored students and staff, and learned to navigate the complexity of higher education with professionalism and courage. In short, she hadn’t wasted any time; she’d built resilience and capacity. She also realized she was more ready for change and leadership opportunities.

    If you’re at that fork in the road, know this: Moving on isn’t quitting; it’s choosing. Moving up isn’t selling out; it’s stepping in. And staying where you are is perfectly valid if it still serves your purpose, your values and your professional goals.

    Ask yourself this question: “Am I building a future here or am I just getting by?”

    Either way, you get to choose your next steps.

    Laura Kuizin is director of the master of applied professional studies in the Graduate School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Laura is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium, an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders. Laura dedicates this article to Sadie-dog, who was by her side as she navigated her professional path over the last 16 years.

    Source link

  • The proposed international student levy could be the tipping point for a fragile sector

    The proposed international student levy could be the tipping point for a fragile sector

    • Professor Duncan Ivison is President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester.

    Almost one year into the Labour government’s term, its vision for higher education is emerging. One exciting aspect of it is the role they see universities playing in helping to drive their agenda for inclusive growth. The recently announced R&D funding commitments, including regional ‘innovation clusters’, and the Industrial Strategy, all point to the role that higher education will play in driving innovation through world-class research and producing the highly skilled graduates our life sciences, technology, defence, and creative industry sectors – among others – will require. This is good news for the sector.

    Baroness Smith, Minister for Skills, and Lord Vallance, Minister for Science, have made clear that they see the core principles that will shape the UK’s higher education sector over the next five years. This includes contributing to economic growth, conducting the highest quality curiosity-driven research, helping build national capabilities in key sectors, contributing to the economic and social well-being of the regions in which we’re based, and being a global force for UK soft power through international collaborations.   

    This is a compelling vision and one that –  at least for the University of Manchester – we are keen to support,  including through our forthcoming Manchester 2035 strategy.   

    But in politics, vision quickly runs up against political reality, and we can also see now some of the challenges the sector will face, not least in relation to immigration and the difficult fiscal situation the government faces. The recent Immigration White Paper makes that clear.

    One of the more contentious aspects of the White Paper – in addition to reducing the graduate visa route from 24 months to 18 – is the proposal for a 6% levy on international student fees.

     Of course, for those of us familiar with Australian higher education policy, it is, as Yogi Bera once said, déjà vu all over again.  The Australian government proposed a 2% levy on international fee income in 2023, but it was never implemented. The main purpose of that levy was to redistribute fee income from the larger, research-intensive metropolitan universities to those (mainly in the regions) who struggled to attract international students. It stalled in the Australian parliament after fierce criticism from some parts of the sector, as well as the government deciding to pursue its aims through other means.

    In the UK, on the other hand, the levy seems designed to do two things. First, to generate additional revenue for the Department of Education in a very difficult fiscal environment. And second, to make manifest the contribution that international students make to the UK.

    There are several things wrong with this approach if indeed these are the main justifications for it. But I recognise it’s something currently being explored, rather than already decided, and so I offer my thoughts here as part of the consultations now underway.

    First, it’s striking that for a government seeking to position itself as a champion of global free trade and economic growth, they are proposing what is essentially a tax on one of the UK’s most successful export industries (worth ~£22 billion a year from higher education alone).

    Second, the fact that the government doesn’t feel the public understands the contribution that international students make to the UK is deeply concerning. The short answer is that they make a massive contribution: in fact, their financial contribution and talent has been crucial not only in helping the UK maintain its global standing as a higher education powerhouse, but also to the regional and local economies in which universities are based.  

    There are other more specific problems with the levy too, at least for a university like mine.

    For one thing, a levy assumes universities can simply pass on the additional cost to our students. But this neglects the fact that we are operating in a highly competitive international market, and a significant price increase will make us less attractive to some of the fastest-growing parts of it. Moreover, many international students might not appreciate that they are now being asked to cross-subsidise other parts of the UK’s education system, in addition to the significant contribution they are already making. One perverse consequence of a 6% increase in fees might be that we end up abandoning our efforts to diversify the countries from which we recruit and focus only on those who can afford higher fees.  This will only deepen the risk that successive governments have been keen for us to mitigate.

    Moreover, at Manchester at least, we have already factored in increases to our international fees to account for rising costs over the next five years. Adding 6% on top of that would be unworkable.  So, we would either have to absorb most, if not all, of the levy (plus inflation), or increase our fees substantially and lose market share. Assuming that we would see very little of the levy come back to us – the history of hypothecated funding is not encouraging in this regard – this would be a major financial blow.  It would also, as a result, likely generate much less income than the Department hopes.  For a sector already teetering on the edge of fiscal implosion, this could be the tipping point. To put it into context: for the University of Manchester, a 6% levy would mean a potential loss of ~£43M of revenue p.a by 2029/30, wiping out the slim margin we have for reinvesting in our teaching and research. The levy does nothing to address the structural challenges facing the higher education sector. In fact, it is likely to make things worse.

    But it would also undermine our ability to do the very things the government wants us to do more of. Already, international student fees help us bridge the financial gap between what we receive to teach all our students and what it actually costs, as well as the gap between the full costs of research and what funding councils and charities provide. This is under threat if we get our higher education policy settings wrong. And let’s be clear: it would hurt local students and local economies most. Almost half our students remain in Manchester after they graduate, contributing hugely to our city and region.

    We are keen to contribute to the government’s vision for higher education.  For example, we are spending ~£21M p.a. on helping disadvantaged students with their cost of living and studies. And from this year, we will be investing more than ever before in accelerating the commercialisation of our research and generating more student and staff start-ups, scale-ups and job creation for Greater Manchester and the country.

    I understand the challenges the government faces on immigration and funding higher education. There should be no tolerance of shonky providers serving as a front for migration workarounds. And universities need to prove they are operating as efficiently as possible and collaborating in new and transformative ways – as I’ve argued elsewhere and as we’re doing with Liverpool and Cambridge.

    An alternative approach to a levy would be to develop specific compacts with clusters of universities based on delivering against the government’s core priorities for HE in concrete ways – building on the new ‘innovation clusters’ in the recent R&D announcement. We’re already doing this in Greater Manchester, given the excellent collaborative culture that exists between the universities, further education colleges, and the Combined Authority. It’s a model we could scale nationally.  I look forward to the discussions to come in the weeks ahead.

    Source link

  • It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

    It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

    The industrial strategy is not only an economic document it is also a roadmap for how the country will be governed.

    At its heart is a simple premise. Places know what is best for people locally and power should be devolved to them. Not all powers, because some things like defence have to be coordinated at a national level, and certainly not lots of fiscal policy like taxation, but powers over things like spatial planning (where the government allows it), investment, and some parts of the R&D ecosystem.

    The ideal body for distributing these powers is the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA). These are the collection of councils in one area, usually a city, that work together to achieve more than they could alone. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority are just two examples

    Process not an event

    In 1997 then Secretary of State for Wales Rob Davies called devolution “a process not an event”, and he was right. Powers are not spread evenly through the UK, London has quite a lot and a local town council has very few. And the propensity for government to operate through pots of money that local government bid for to do stuff is unusual by international comparisons. This level of financial control limits many places to being the delivery arm of government more so than independent decision makers in their own right.

    This patchwork approach also means higher education providers have a mixed relationship with the devolution story.

    Solely through an academic lens research intensive universities have done well out of (even if they do not like it) how centralised the UK is. The REF just isn’t interested in geography. It follows quality, impact, and environments wherever they may be. Previous research pots like the Regional Innovation Fund which apply a funding multiplier to places underserved by research funding are the exception not the norm.

    The industrial strategy is different in that it at least attempts some kinds of rebalancing in acknowledging that if the government funds the same things in the same places the same kinds of research outputs will be produced. The fact there is some money behind it is even better. As DK noted in his review of research in the industrial strategy:

    The £500m Local Innovation Partnerships Fund is intended to generate a further £1bn of additional investment and £700m of value to local economies, and there are wider plans to get academia and industry working together: a massive expansion in supercomputer resources (the AI research resource, inevitably) and a new Missions Accelerator programme supported by £500m of funding. And there’s the Sovereign AI Unit within government (that’s another £500m of industry investments) in “frontier AI”. On direct university allocation we get the welcome news that the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is here to stay.

    The places that are located outside of major cities without large research portfolios have more reason to be sceptical about devolution. Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has called for local leaders to “fill in the map” of devolution but this is easier said than done. Places have distinct histories, geographies, and can’t as easily be accommodated into MCAs as places like Greater Manchester.

    While there has been interest in towns from time to time, the Towns Fund provided some funding to some places on some research projects, they risk being left behind within a devolution system that prioritises larger conurbations.

    The universities problem

    Let’s take the government’s proposals at face value and assume it is going to implement the full version of the devolution agenda it is proposing. This would mean local government has more funding to buy land, freeports and investment zones will be streamlined to provide even more business incentives, the British Business Bank (among other funders) will release and coordinate capital aligned to regions and the eight industrial strategy priorities, a further £200m will be spent on further education in England, and a series of growth funds will run directly through mayors.There are more announcements to come on skills, local economic regulation and infrastructure.

    Universities are not losers in any of these measures but nor are they inevitably complementary to everything the governments wants to do. Former universities minister David Willetts, who had some reservations about the draft strategy, has softened his tone writing:

    Most of the key industries set out in that visual [the one explaining the industrial strategy priorities] are heavy users of higher education. Universities will play a crucial role in the strategy. One of the biggest risks to delivering it is the financial fragility of these core institutions. It is good to see them getting a vivid illustration as well – on page 73. But the Government has not yet taken the decisions needed to ensure they can thrive and continue to be such a national asset.

    This is the core problem. It is possible to imagine how industries may rely on universities but it is more difficult work out how universities, specifically, can deploy their capacity in the most effective ways. Universities cannot expect government money for everything they do but it is also true that if they fall over the industrial strategy will fall with them.

    Philosophically, the industrial strategy neither supports enormous state intervention nor is it a hands off document of supply-side reform. It sees the state as an enabling force which can reduce risks to business, catalyse investment, and reconfigure the public sector. The industrial strategy does not tell universities what to do, or even what they might do in great detail, because that is not what it is designed to do. It gives an approach and it is for universities to choose whether and how they follow it.

    Adapt or perish

    This suggests a significant period of adaptation for universities. If more investment and political attention is flowing through their places then being involved in their places becomes significantly more important. Fundamentally, the industrial strategy is not an instruction manual but it is a guide to the things that the government will and will not fund.

    There are lots of devolved things that universities would generally find unpalatable like top-slicing QR funds to MCAs. There are lots of things that universities could do and are doing to set an example which might one day be backed up by legislation. Organising regional bodies to coordinate the provision of education to meet local labour market needs. Forming joint research programmes and investment vehicles to form one front door for research in their area. Using their own research capacity to interrogate the best forms of devolution and devolved structures. And, perhaps most importantly, being embedded in the important but unglamorous business of transport and spatial planning.

    The bigger mental shift is that the industrial strategy has two core centres of control. Its eight priority industries and regions and clusters within them. The challenge for universities, if they want to see sustained government support for their work, is to answer how what they do supports those two agendas. This is not a PR exercise but a careful interrogation of the limits and approaches of universities in their places and within those core industries.

    In some places this might mean tweaking existing work, in others it might mean new partners or new projects, and in some it might mean a more fundamental reimagining of the shape of the education sector in a region. Given the perilous state of university finances it is the institutions that look like they have solutions that will do well in the era of uncertainty.

    The industrial strategy does not leave universities behind, but it might. The opportunity is for universities to shape the settlement they want through being proactive in shaping their regions. This is not about another civic strategy but about creating the governance apparatus to support economic growth. Anything short of this risks an economic agenda which is done to universities rather than with them.

    Source link

  • University of Canberra posts $41m deficit – Campus Review

    University of Canberra posts $41m deficit – Campus Review

    The University of Canberra (UC) posted a $41 million operating deficit for 2024 on Friday after cutting 170 full-time equivalent positions last year.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Costello ‘baby bonus’ kids boost enrolments – Campus Review

    Costello ‘baby bonus’ kids boost enrolments – Campus Review

    University commencement numbers have hit a record high, excluding the Covid-19 pandemic years, Department of Education data released on Wednesday shows.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Could ATEC boost social license? – Campus Review

    Could ATEC boost social license? – Campus Review

    Verity Firth, chair of Engagement Australia and vice-president of societal impact at the University of NSW, joins with guest host Alphia Possamai-Inesedy, the pro-vice-chancellor of student success at Western Sydney University.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link