The University of Tasmania’s (UTAS) move to cut its Indonesian language program amid plummeting enrolments has been described as “shortsighted” and “strategically incoherent” by a long-running provider of study tours to the Southeast Asian country.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
It’s natural that universities would contract. It is simply a market correction
At least, that’s what a colleague recently said to me, referencing the earlier period of—some would say unfounded—growth in the UK’s higher education sector.
But what we’re seeing now is not a neutral rebalancing of the books. It feels like a dismantling of the humanities, a retreat from the very fields of knowledge that hold the keys to our collective future.
The decisions being made about where and how to cut seem to reflect a logic of short-term profitability rather than long-term sustainability. Humanities programmes—often less lucrative than their STEM counterparts—have suffered disproportionately. Of the 400 job losses initially on the cards at Cardiff University, for example, as many as 120 were expected to be in the Arts and Humanities. Massive cuts in English, anthropology, theatre and music at Goldsmiths or philosophy, art history and music at University of Kent are only the tip of the iceberg.
And yet, this is happening at the very moment we most need the humanities. As we face accelerating climate change, biodiversity loss, and a wider crisis of sustainability, it may seem natural to double down on disciplines like climatology and engineering. Few would question their centrality to the so-called green transition. But while these fields equip us with essential tools to understand and respond to environmental degradation, they deal with symptoms rather than root causes.
Across the UK, humanities scholars are already playing a critical—if underappreciated—role in responding to environmental breakdown. At Bath Spa University, Samantha Walton’s “Changing Practice” project highlighted how a place-based lens, informed by arts and humanities, can help people connect with and care for their local environments, potentially overcoming feelings of detachment when facing large-scale crises like climate change. Through public engagement events, the project connected creative practitioners and academics with communities experiencing disruption and change, nurturing new collaborative networks and contributing to policy discussions about the meaning, ecology, and distinctive cultural characteristics of place.
Researchers at the University of Leeds turned to British Romantic literature to explore how people have historically made sense of extreme weather, applying these insights to contemporary climate engagement. Their research informed collaborations with the Poetry Society and the Wordsworth Trust, including creative writing workshops and a youth poetry competition. These initiatives led to new learning programmes, shifts in classroom practice, and enhanced community well-being through creative expression. In drawing on the emotional and imaginative power of Romantic writing, the project showed how literature can deepen public understanding of climate crisis—not by simplifying it, but by inviting reflection, empathy, and a more expansive sense of connection.
These are not abstract contributions. They are shaping policy, influencing institutions, and broadening how we respond to crisis. Yet the structures that enable this work are being steadily dismantled.
Our current crises stem from narrow, technocratic thinking: a mindset that externalised environmental harm, reduced nature to property, and prioritised short-term gain over long-term survival. The humanities help us challenge that logic. Cutting them is doubling down on what brought us here.
If universities are worried about low enrolments or declining interest in humanities programmes, the solution isn’t to axe them—it’s to reimagine them. It’s to find new ways of making the humanities matter to young people, and to society at large. That means reframing these disciplines not as relics of a pre-digital age, but as vital forms of inquiry and expression that help us live more fully, think more deeply, and engage more responsibly with the world.
The role of a university cannot be reduced to supplying the labour force demanded by the current market. It must be a place that helps shape what we value in the first place. That means exposing students to ways of thinking they might not have encountered before. It means helping them see the world—and themselves—differently. And it means igniting the desire to study not only what is profitable, but what is meaningful.
Ultimately, the antidote to our overlapping crises is not just better data or smarter technologies—it is expansive imagination. And that imagination is cultivated not in labs or spreadsheets, but through the critical, creative, and interpretive work of the humanities. Literature, philosophy, history, and the arts help us make sense of ourselves and others. They teach us to interrogate the present, reckon with the past, and imagine futures that aren’t simply extensions of the status quo.
The humanities don’t just illuminate the blind spots of our civilisation—they challenge its assumptions, complicate its narratives, and expand the range of what we can think and feel. In a time of profound uncertainty, they offer not solutions, but orientation: a deeper sense of what is at stake, and why it matters.
To treat them as dispensable is to confuse utility with value. The humanities are not a luxury—they are where a society’s ethical and imaginative life takes shape. They won’t give us all the answers, but they keep us asking the right questions—and without that, no future worth having can be built.
Drive along any motorway in September and you will see car after car full of duvets, pots and pans, and clothes as students head off to pastures new. I remember my own experience, crossing the Severn Bridge with the bedding on the front seat of my Fiesta muffling Oasis’ Definitely Maybe.
This stereotypical view of a literal journey into higher education isn’t the case for everyone, however. In fact, far more students live at home during their studies than you may think.
The UCAS application asks students about whether they intend to live at home. In 2024, 30 per cent of UK 18-year-olds said they planned to live at home during their studies – up from 25 per cent in 2019 and just 21 per cent in 2015.
However, when we look beyond the headline numbers, over half of the most disadvantaged students (IMD Q1) live at home during their studies, compared to fewer than one in five of the least disadvantaged (IMD Q5). Regional distribution will have an impact here, particularly London.
Scottish students are more likely to live at home during their studies. On a recent visit to Edinburgh, all the students I met spoke with excitement about their plans to study at their chosen university within the city. By contrast, Welsh domiciled students are the least likely to live at home during their studies.
In London, 52 per cent of 18-year-olds progress to HE – with around half of those students staying in London, making it unsurprising that the capital sees the highest proportion of live at home students in England.
Cost of living is undoubtedly influencing student choice. At the January equal consideration deadline, UCAS saw a 2.1 per cent increase in the number of UK 18-year-old applicants – a record high. However, regular readers of Wonkhe will know this also represents a decline in the application rate – the proportion of the 18-year-old population applying to HE, and UCAS insight increasingly points to the cost of living playing a role.
Our latest survey insight suggests that 43 per cent of pre-applicants feel they are less likely to progress to HE due to cost-of-living pressures, up from 24 per cent in 2023 – although their commitment to going to university remains high.
Financial support is also of growing importance to students when it comes to deciding where to study. While finding the perfect course content was the most important factor when shortlisting universities (49 per cent), the financial support available while studying (such as a scholarship or bursary) was a close second (46 per cent). Specific cost-of-living support offered by universities was third (34 per cent).
The availability of support with the cost of living has risen in relative importance as a factor when shortlisting universities from 12th in 2022 to 3rd in 2024 – a significant shift, which suggests a change in student mindset. There have also been large changes in rank importance of “universities that are close to home” from 9th to 4th, “universities with low-cost accommodation” from 13th to 7th and “universities I can attend but still live with my parents” from 16th to 11th.
Source: Potential applicants for 2025 entry, 1,023 UK respondents, Dec 2024–Jan 2025
It isn’t just at the point of application where we see the cost of living impacting choice. In 2024, UCAS saw 43,000 students decline the place they were holding in favour of an alternative institution or subject – making this the largest group of students using Clearing.
This is not a spur of the moment decision, with 52 per cent having already decided to do this prior to receiving their results and a further one in five considering it based on their results.
When asked what drove their decision, 23 per cent told us they had a change in personal circumstances and 17 per cent wanted to live somewhere cheaper. We also know this impacts on all cohorts of students – 19 per cent of international students that don’t accept a university offer through UCAS tell us they have found a more attractive financial offer elsewhere.
However, the primary reason that students use Decline My Place is linked to the course, with 31 per cent changing their mind about the subject they wish to study.
It’s clear that cost of living and financial support is a key factor influencing student choice and so we must ensure this information is easily accessible and understood by students.
Students tell us they’d like more practical information about student discounts, financial support packages or bursaries/scholarships. UCAS will shortly be launching a scholarships and bursary tool to promote these opportunities to students.
Around half of offer holders in 2024 recalled receiving information about cost of living support. This presents a timely opportunity for any university staff working in marketing, recruitment or admissions to ensure information about financial support is easy to find on their website, along with information about timetabling to help students understand how they may be able to balance work and study commitments.
There will be certain groups of students that are even more acutely impacted by cost of living challenges. Last cycle saw a record number of students in receipt of Free School Meals – 19.9 per cent – enter HE. Whilst it is only a small part of the puzzle, UCAS has removed the application fee for these students.
Cost of living pressures are likely to persist, with students continuing to assess the value of HE in this context. The sector should continue to highlight the benefits of university study as a vehicle for social mobility, along with the graduate premium – the higher earnings they typically earn compared to non-graduate peers. But we also need to make it clearer how HE of all forms remains accessible – from funds for travel to open days, to in study commuter breakfasts, hardship funds, cost of living support, and high-quality careers guidance to support graduate employability.
This article is published in association with UCAS. It forms part of our ongoing series on commuter students – you can read the whole series here.
For years, bereaved families have fought for answers – and change – after losing their children to suicide at university.
When life is difficult, Samaritans are here – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at [email protected], or visit http://www.samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.
Arguably the most high-profile have been Bob and Margaret Abrahart, who led this charge after their daughter Natasha died in April 2018 at the University of Bristol.
Despite her severe social anxiety, Natasha was required to give oral presentations that filled her with dread, and in 2022, a judge ruled that Bristol had discriminated against Natasha under the Equality Act by not making reasonable adjustments.
But he did not find the university owed a general duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric harm – noting that:
…if a relevant duty of care did exist… there can be no doubt that the university would have been in breach.
That distinction prompted the Abraharts and other bereaved families to launch the “#ForThe100” campaign, named after the estimated annual student suicide toll. Their petition for a statutory duty of care gathered over 128,000 signatures and triggered a Westminster Hall debate in 2023, where MPs across parties voiced support.
The skills minister at the time, Robert Halfon, rejected the call for statutory change. Instead, as part of a higher education mental health implementation taskforce, he announced an independent review of student suicide deaths – a “watching brief” approach that effectively deferred the question of legal responsibility while monitoring the sector.
The review has now been published – and it reveals a catalogue of missed opportunities, systematic failures, and inadequate protections for vulnerable students.
It also evidences the patterns identified by campaigners for years – poor monitoring of disengagement, communication silos between academic and support services, inadequate training for staff, and safety concerns in university accommodation.
The big question now is whether the evidence will drive the legal and cultural shifts needed to protect students and prevent future deaths – or whether it will become yet another well-intentioned PDF on the ever-growing pile of guidance that relies on voluntary implementation.
The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) team from the University of Manchester was commissioned to conduct the review. Their approach was methodical – all higher education institutions in England were asked to submit redacted serious incident reports for suspected suicides and serious self-harm incidents occurring during the 2023-2024 academic year.
The response was robust. Of the 115 Universities UK members, 113 (98 per cent) provided a nominated contact, and 110 (96 per cent) responded with information about serious incidents during the academic year. That does at least suggest that universities recognise the importance of addressing student suicide, even if some remain hesitant about legal frameworks for doing so.
In total, universities reported 107 suspected suicide deaths and 62 incidents of non-fatal self-harm during the 2023-2024 academic year. Of these, 104 serious incident reports (79 for suspected suicides and 25 for self-harm) were submitted to NCISH for analysis. As such, it is the largest collection of detailed individual-level data on student suicide ever compiled in the UK.
The team then analyzed those reports against established standards, including both the Universities UK/PAPYRUS/Samaritans guidance for conducting serious incident reviews, and NCISH’s own 10 standards for investigating serious incidents. They examined student characteristics, identified risk factors, evaluated the quality of investigations, and assessed the recommendations and action plans arising from these reviews.
In 38 per cent of cases, students were experiencing academic problems or pressures. These ranged from exam-related stress (10 per cent) to anxiety about falling behind or meeting deadlines (19 per cent).
Nearly a third (32 per cent) of reports identified evidence of non-attendance – a critical warning sign that was often met with inadequate response, if it was noticed at all. The most common intervention was an automated email from administrators, rather than proactive personal outreach.
The report argues that that represents a significant missed opportunity for intervention – calling for students who are struggling academically to be recognised as potentially at risk, with an enhanced focus on providing a supportive response, as well as increased awareness of support at key pressure points in the academic calendar, especially during exam periods.
The review also found that while 21 per cent of students were or had been part of “support to study” procedures or equivalent, there were clear instances where a cause for concern had not been appropriately escalated.
The report identifies a need for additional or more robust processes for monitoring student engagement and non-attendance, including recommendations to review attendance triggers, the development of consistent approaches to responding to non-attendance, and the implementation of earlier interventions when disengagement is identified.
The timing of incidents reinforces the connection to academic pressure, with peaks occurring in March and May – coinciding with assessment and exam periods – and notably fewer incidents during holiday periods, suggesting that academic stressors play a significant role in student distress.
One thing I’d add here is that it really shouldn’t be a given that students in the UK all progress and complete at the same pace – that we are the country in the OECD whose students complete the fastest and drop out the least has some obvious downsides that the LLE, and a large dose of culture change, really ought to tackle.
The other thing worth considering is culture. In our work on student health last month, academic culture popped up a significant but often overlooked determinant of student health in survey responses, with students describing patterns of overwork, presenteeism, and a “meritocracy of difficulty” that rewards suffering over learning outcomes.
Students’ comments revealed how unhealthy work patterns are normalized within academic environments, with concerns about overwhelming assessment deadlines, high-stakes exams disadvantaging students with health conditions, and the glorification of struggle across disciplines. Students also highlighted the disconnect between wellbeing messaging and impossible workloads, articulating a desire for intellectually challenging environments that don’t lead to burnout – as well as both personal and systems empathy.
Their solutions included workload mapping, identifying assessment bottlenecks, flexible assessment strategies offering multiple ways to demonstrate learning, staff training on setting healthy work boundaries, health impact assessments for curriculum design, accessibility-focused policies, clear distinctions between challenging content and unnecessary stress, student workload panels with authority to flag unsustainable demands, and revised attendance policies to discourage presenteeism during illness. They are all worth considering – as are projects like the one referenced here.
Nearly half (47 per cent) of reports identified mental health difficulties as a factor prior to the incident, with 31 per cent noting diagnosed mental health conditions. Most commonly, these were depression and anxiety disorders (20 per cent).
Significantly, 30 per cent of reports described a diagnosis or suspected diagnosis of neurodiversity, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, or dyslexia. Of these neurodivergent students, only 14 described reasonable adjustments or support/inclusion plans tailored to their needs, and 12 per cent also had a mental health diagnosis. That suggests big gaps in support for students with overlapping mental health and neurodevelopmental needs.
Especially concerning is that 70 per cent of students were known to university support services before their death, most often wellbeing services. These weren’t cases where students were suffering in silence – they had actively reached out for help within the university system. In many cases, students had multiple touchpoints with support services, but there were often gaps in follow-up, inadequate assessment of risk severity, and insufficient intensity or continuity of support.
It’s partly the silo problem again. The report identified plenty of problems with information sharing in 24 per cent of cases, where critical details about a student’s mental health were not communicated between clinical, pastoral, and academic staff. Communication breakdowns meant that while a student might disclose suicidal thoughts to a counselor, personal/academic tutors remained unaware of the severity of their situation, continuing to apply normal academic pressures.
Similarly, when academic staff noticed concerning changes in attendance or performance, this information wasn’t consistently shared with mental health professionals who could have intervened.
The review specifically recommends improving information sharing internally and externally but notes that (often unfounded) concerns about confidentiality prevent effective coordination – leaving vulnerable students to navigate fragmented support systems and tell their story repeatedly to different university staff. What I’d note is that recommendations and guidance on this have been around for years now – universities clearly need to go further, and faster.
And the realities of the funding system, the state of the sector’s finances and the resultant staff-student ratios in plenty of departments also need an honest conversation. If it’s noticing that matters, other students also need to be in the mix as well as academic staff.
Where location was known, 23 per cent of incidents occurred in university-managed accommodation – suggesting serious safety concerns in spaces directly controlled by institutions. The review specifically recommends reviewing the safety of university-managed accommodation, including physical safety, high-risk locations, the criteria for welfare checks, and signposting for support, particularly out-of-hours.
I’d suggest that that should probably reflect, via the codes of practice the firms will be required to join to escape the regulation in the Renter’s Rights Act, standards in private halls too – although that would, of course require a modicum of coordination between DfE and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of students were undergraduates, with over a quarter (27 per cent) in their first year of undergraduate studies, backing up previous research that has indicated that the first year represents a particularly vulnerable transition period – often leaving home, managing independent living, forming new relationships, and adapting to university-level academic demands.
The review suggests these changes create a perfect storm of risk factors – first-year students often lack established campus support networks while losing daily contact with home support systems, may struggle with imposter syndrome or academic uncertainty, and frequently hesitate to seek help, believing their struggles are just “normal” adjustment issues.
The problem is then compounded by institutional factors – with no prior academic record to contextualise changes in engagement and larger first-year class sizes, warning signs frequently go unnoticed by staff. The review specifically calls for enhanced induction processes and early intervention systems for first-years, recognising that proactive support during this critical transition period could significantly reduce suicide risk.
I remain convinced that near-universal systems of group social mentoring found on the continent could have a major role to play here – they’re even in the legislation in Finland – but I also wonder whether the other notable OECD comparison, that (together with Belgium) we have pretty much the youngest bachelor’s entrants in the world, could also do with some significant thought.
DfE has, of course, had a previous run at coordinating a national piece of work on transition support and standards – but the less said about that the better. We almost certainly need something more consistent, substantial and credit-bearing – I sketched out what that could look like here.
International students accounted for nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of all submitted reports – a disproportionately high percentage given their representation in the overall student population. The overrepresentation could suggest additional challenges, including potential cultural and language barriers, social isolation, and distance from established support networks.
In many ways, they face much of what home students face, with unfamiliar academic and cultural expectations, (often) studying in a second language, managing complex visa requirements, and coping with significant financial pressures due to higher fees and limited work rights piled on top. Many also experience intense pressure to succeed from family members who may have made substantial sacrifices to fund their education.
The review found that cultural differences significantly impacted how international students experienced and expressed mental health difficulties. In some cases, cultural stigma around mental illness prevented students from seeking help, while in others, language barriers made it difficult to effectively communicate distress to university staff. The report also noted particular difficulties with international students who were isolated within their own cultural groups, making it harder for wider university systems to identify warning signs.
Despite the overrepresentation of international students in suicide cases, the review found minimal evidence of culturally sensitive support services or targeted outreach. Many just applied a one-size-fits-all approach to wellbeing support that failed to account for diverse cultural understandings of mental health.
The review specifically recommends that universities develop more culturally competent services and proactive engagement strategies for international students – particularly those from countries with significant cultural differences from the UK.
There’s a reason why new Office for Students Condition E6 on harassment and sexual misconduct specifically requires approaches that are tailored to a provider’s specific student population, and that systems and processes to help prevent and respond to harassment and sexual misconduct are accessible to international students. It’s true on this issue too.
Following a death by suicide, the review found significant gaps in postvention support – the care provided to those affected. While 41 per cent of reports showed evidence of support for peers following a suicide, there was significantly less support for affected staff (18 per cent) and bereaved families (9 per cent).
The review recommends that anyone affected by a student’s death by suicide should be offered or signposted to appropriate support – acknowledging that effective postvention is itself a critical component of preventing further deaths.
The review then found wide variation in how universities investigate student deaths and respond to them. In three-quarters (76 per cent) of all reviewed cases, families were not involved in any aspect of the suicide investigation process. While 72 per cent of reports indicated that the family was contacted after the death to offer condolences, only 11 per cent of families contributed to or were offered involvement in the investigation process. And just 6 per cent of reports had been shared with the families.
As the report notes, families provided:
…moving accounts of feeling excluded from the process of finding out what happened to their loved ones, and some had a perception that the university was evasive and reluctant to answer important and painful questions.
The exclusion of those who knew the student best not only denies families closure but also prevents universities from gaining valuable insights about circumstances outside the institution.
It also raised significant questions about who conducts these investigations and their qualifications to do so. In 35 per cent of reports, information on the lead reviewer was not available. Only 13 per cent explicitly stated that the lead reviewer had no prior involvement with the student – a fundamental principle of independent investigation.
There was also little evidence that those conducting the reviews had specific training or expertise in suicide prevention or investigation. As the report notes:
…completing a serious incident review is an additional strategic-level responsibility, with no status of its own within someone’s job role.
Most reviews focused narrowly on the university’s own processes and records, rarely seeking information from external sources. Despite 60 per cent of reports indicating the student had contact with other agencies (such as healthcare providers), only 6 per cent of these included contributions from those organizations in the review process.
The gathering of information “did not generally extend to records and contributions from other agencies” such as primary care, secondary mental health care, and the criminal justice system. This was true even where the university was aware that those agencies had played a critical role in the student’s care. This inward-looking approach created significant knowledge gaps that could have been filled with input from families, health providers, and other external sources.
The report also notes that there were examples of gaps in the chronology with little or no information between the student’s last contact with the HE provider and the incident. Without a comprehensive understanding of the student’s circumstances, universities can’t effectively identify all factors contributing to suicide risk.
This won’t come as a surprise to anyone working in HE, but while 79 per cent of reports identified learning to help prevent future incidents (generating almost 300 recommendations in total), the implementation process was often weak. Over half (53 per cent) identified specific actions, but 18 per cent of these lacked clear owners and 40 per cent had no timescales for delivery.
That raises questions about whether these recommendations are ever fully implemented or simply filed away. Learning points were “inconsistently assigned or scheduled,” with a lack of institutional commitment to following through on identified improvements. Without accountability mechanisms and clear follow-up processes, there’s little assurance that these recommendations will lead to meaningful change.
The review makes 19 specific recommendations across four categories – safety concerns, suicide prevention within university systems, amendments to guidance, and wider system messages. They are comprehensive – but they largely represent guidance rather than enforceable standards.
The first recommendation, for example, calls for “mental health awareness and suicide prevention training” to be available for all student-facing staff, with consideration for making such training mandatory – acknowledging the critical role staff play in identifying and responding to students in distress.
But the report stops short of recommending that training be required – using the softer language of “consideration” for mandatory training. It’s a recommendation I’ve read hundreds of times over the years, and in the financial and redundancies state the sector is in, it would be hard to believe that it’s going to happen without a requirement that it does.
That’ll be why OfS is now requiring it in E6 for harassment and sexual misconduct, and why that includes a line on “no saying you can’t afford it – if you can’t afford it, don’t provide HE”. Something similar should surely apply here.
Meanwhile recommendations 3 and 4 address academic pressures, calling for students struggling academically to be “recognised as potentially at risk” and for increased support at key academic calendar points. They are a shift toward viewing academic processes not just as educational tools but as potential risk factors for mental health – a perspective that aligns with campaigners’ arguments for a duty of care that encompasses the whole student experience.
Although as I said above, some system-structural issues relating to age and pace ought be on the list inside DfE’s reform plans for proper consideration.
While it stops short of recommending a duty of care, it does call for “a duty of candour” to be introduced to the HE sector, setting out organisational responsibilities to be open and transparent with families after a suspected suicide. That would include a duty to provide information on what happened, at the earliest point.
As it stands, Keir Starmer promised that such a duty, to apply to public authorities including universities, would appear by 15 April – the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. But it’s a deadline that was missed – with rumours that officials have been attempting to water it down and questions over whether it would apply in internal investigations as well as statutory inquiries. A decision will need to come soon.
Mark Shanahan, on behalf of the LEARN Network, argues that universities are learning communities, but it is unclear from the research whether the learning leads to change. If nothing else, they’re supporting the idea that the exercise becomes annual:
In some ways, it’s a vindication to see the concerns of bereaved families confirmed, when many feel so excluded when they try to find out what happened to their sons and daughters. Without families’ strength and persistence this report would not have been commissioned. We need to see it repeated annually if lessons are to be learned over the longer term.
Given that so few University Mental Health Charter Awards have been achieved (just two in 2025), the network also argues that a legal duty of care by universities towards students, delivered by statute and/or regulation is the only way to accelerate the changes advocated in this report.
The review comes, of course, amid ongoing confusion about what a “duty of care” would actually mean in a university context. The current government position, articulated by DfE minister Janet Daby, is that “a duty of care in HE may arise in certain circumstances” which “would be a matter for the courts to decide.”
On BBC News, asked why a legal duty of care had not been introduced, skills minister Jacqui Smith says that “we do think that universities have a general duty of care to their students”, but that there were “some legal challenges”:
We’ll be absolutely clear with universities that this is their responsibility. We’ve made resource available and we will continue to challenge them to deliver that.
Being “absolutely clear” means establishing a legal duty and then asking your regulator to proactively monitor compliance with it – not a combo of endless finger wagging and a charter whose evaluation report found universities where mental health and wellbeing efforts were ad hoc, siloed, had limited proactive outreach, featured inconsistent and sometimes contradictory responses across departments, and lacked a strategic approach to mental health in curriculum design, community building and risk management.
And “resource” probably doesn’t mean the paltry £5 per student in the grant letter.
The position on duty of care contrasts sharply with the certainty provided in other contexts – like as the duty of care employers owe to their employees or that schools owe to their pupils – and means students enter university without clarity on what protections they can expect, while universities operate without clear standards for their responsibilities.
As Bob Abrahart argues:
…students and universities need instead to know where they stand.
The review signals pretty clearly that the ambiguity has real consequences – inconsistent practices, missed warning signs, and preventable tragedies. Valuable recommendations will mean nothing if their implementation remains voluntary without a statutory framework.
And as I’ve argued before on the site, when students have rights and know their rights, they’re better able to contribute to decent conversations about how they might be implemented practically. The rest is all “in an ideal world”, and we’re very much not in an ideal world right now.
A more comprehensive statutory duty of care would establish clear standards for prevention, requiring universities to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm. It would not, as opponents suggest, treat students as children or make universities responsible for all aspects of student wellbeing. It would provide clarity on the reasonable expectations students can have of their institutions, and ensure consistency across the sector.
The review has shown where the problems lie – now ministerial courage is needed to implement solutions that are universally applied. The 107 students whose deaths formed the basis of this review deserved better. Future students deserve the protection of clear, enforceable standards that their staff get.
Collegis empowers data-driven admissions and streamlines prospective student support.
Buffalo, NY (May 20, 2025) — Trocaire College, a private, career-oriented Catholic college, today announced a multi-year partnership with Collegis Education to advance its enrollment strategy and elevate the student experience. Through this collaboration, Trocaire will leverage Collegis’ Enrollment Support Services and its Connected Core® platform to guide prospective students from inquiry to enrollment.
The partnership comes as Trocaire begins implementing its new three-year strategic plan, with a sharpened focus on increasing enrollment and creating a seamless, student-centered admissions process.
“Trocaire College is looking forward to working with Collegis to help grow our enrollment in alignment with our mission. Collegis has a proven track record of achieving results in higher education including revenue-growth, enrollment expertise and optimization of student experiences while having an ‘edu-preneurial’ mindset,” stated Jason Konesco, executive vice president at Trocaire. “We chose Collegis for their ability to be a true partner working collaboratively with our team to create a tailored solution that will best reflect the needs of our institution.”
Collegis will serve as an extension of the Trocaire admissions team, providing personalized support and helping prospective students navigate their journey from initial inquiry to first contact to the first day of class. With just over 1,000 students across its South Buffalo location and Transit Achievement Center in Lancaster, Trocaire empowers students to achieve personal enrichment, dignity, and self-worth through education in various career-focused degree programs including healthcare, business, technology, veterinary sciences and the liberal arts.
Earlier this year, Trocaire first connected with Collegis at the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) Annual Meeting. Additional follow-up meetings, including a site visit from the Collegis team, solidified a shared vision for a collaborative, student-first approach.
At the core of this partnership is Connected Core, Collegis’ integrated technology and analytics platform that empowers institutions to make data-informed decisions while extending operational capacity. Recently named a “cool tool” by EdTech Digest, with Connected Core, Trocaire College will gain actionable insights into prospective student behavior, streamlined admissions workflows, and access to enrollment specialists trained to deliver high-quality student engagement.
“This partnership reflects what we do best: supporting institutions like Trocaire to help them grow in ways that honor their mission,” said Pat Green, vice president of enrollment solutions at Collegis Education. “We’re proud to bring data, tech, and talent to Trocaire’s team and we are passionate about supporting the next generation of students preparing for careers of purpose and lives of service.”
Founded in 1958 in Buffalo, NY by the Sisters of Mercy, Trocaire College is a private, career-oriented Catholic college that empowers students with the resources and supportive environment needed to achieve their academic goals. The core mission is to allow each person to be a valuable contributor to the workforce needs of the community. Trocaire offers bachelor’s degrees, associate degrees, certificates and workforce development programs in healthcare, veterinary sciences, business, and technology. Trocaire ranks in the top one-quarter of colleges and universities for return on investment by Georgetown University and is designated as an Opportunity College and University by the Carnegie Classifications with a Higher Access, Higher Earnings classification. Visit trocaire.edu for more information and follow Trocaire on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.
As a mission-oriented, tech-enabled services provider, Collegis Education partners with higher education institutions to help align operations to drive transformative impact across the entire student lifecycle. With over 25 years as an industry pioneer, Collegis has proven how to leverage data, technology, and talent to optimize institutions’ business processes that enhance the student experience. With the strategic expertise that rivals the leading consultancies, a full suite of proven service lines, including marketing, enrollment, retention, IT, and its world-class Connected Core® data platform, Collegis helps its partners enable impact and drive revenue, growth, and innovation. Learn more at CollegisEducation.com or via LinkedIn.
Collegis Education
Alyssa Miller
973-615-1292
Trocaire College
Laura Jacobs
716-807-5922
24 hours after it promised to, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has launched a consultation on updates to its statutory Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the meaning of “woman” in the Equality Act.
As a reminder, the kernel of the ruling was that the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) should be interpreted as “biological” sex only. This means that, for the purposes of that Act, a person’s legal sex is the one that was recorded at their birth.
That’s different to the previous interpretation adopted by the courts, which was that the definition of sex also includes people who have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). According to the new ruling, obtaining a GRC does not change your legal sex for Equality Act purposes.
In this limbo period, the pressure from one side of the debate has been calling for X or Y to change now, and from another side arguing that it’s the Codes of Practice that matter.
Designed to help individuals, employers, and service providers understand and comply with equality laws, they cover areas like employment, services, education, and public functions – and while they are not legally binding, courts and tribunals often take them into account in discrimination cases.
Given the pressure, consultation was going to be rapid – open for two weeks – but EHRC has now announced that it will run until 30 June 2025. Once the consultation is done, it will review responses, make amendments to the Code of Practice, and it will then be submitted to the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval and laying in Parliament.
The consultation specifically focuses on sections of the Code of Practice that need to be updated following the judgment – the rest was consulted on between October 2024 and January 2025.
The idea is to gather views on whether its proposed updates clearly articulate the practical implications of the judgment and enable those who will use the Code to understand, and comply with, the Equality Act 2010. The EHRC is at pains to point out that the Supreme Court made the legal position on the definition of sex clear, so the EHRC is not seeking views on those legal aspects.
Thus far, my conversations around the sector indicate a “we’re waiting for the guidance” approach before anyone does anything – though there has been at least one case where a university has had to backtrack and apologise having taken a decision that anticipated the interpretation of the new ruling.
And that does create both some “race against time” pressure for universities (and SUs) intending to wait for the final guidance given the proximity to Welcome Weeks, and on the expectations people will have for what happens next, which I’ve explained below.
One of the major controversies has been about what we might call “enforcement” in a single-sex space, facility or service.
In other words, if a toilet is marked up as “women”, will those operating said toilet be able to, or even expected to find some way of checking on someone’s biological birth sex?
In the EHRC draft, asking someone about their birth sex publicly, or in a tone that is rude or combative, could amount to unlawful discrimination or harassment. Policies that apply different questioning standards to different people – for example, asking only those who “don’t look like they belong” in a particular space – also risk breaching indirect discrimination provisions, unless there is clear and justifiable reasoning behind them.
The draft guidance also stresses that verifying someone’s birth sex – or requesting documents like a birth certificate – is a step that should be taken only in rare cases, and even then with great care. As such, the ability to enforce a single-sex policy by removing someone is more limited than it may initially appear, particularly for those on one side of the debate.
If a trans person declines to answer a question about birth sex, or answers in a way that is later contested, a provider cannot simply demand proof unless they have a clear, lawful basis for doing so. And even then, their request must be framed within a structured policy that minimises legal risk and respects privacy. The idea that someone can simply be turned away on the basis of an appearance-based suspicion is not really viable under this framework.
Another complication is that direct discrimination by perception applies to sex, even if the person doesn’t legally hold that characteristic under the Equality Act. The draft confirms that a trans woman, though not considered a woman in law, could still claim sex discrimination if they were treated less favourably because they are perceived to be a woman.
This widens protection in practice – it confirms that discriminatory treatment based on how someone is seen, not just what they are, can still breach the Act – even where legal definitions of sex or gender reassignment wouldn’t otherwise apply.
On maternity, protection from pregnancy and maternity discrimination now clearly rests on biological sex – the previous reliance on case law to justify protection for trans men with a GRC has been removed, because under the clarified interpretation, their legal sex remains female for Equality Act purposes.
This simplifies the legal basis – trans men who are pregnant are now protected as women in law, not by exception or interpretation. It reinforces the Act’s grounding in biological sex across all protected characteristics, aligning pregnancy and maternity provisions with the rest of the guidance.
Changes to section 5 of the code mean that in EHRC’s view, the Equality Act’s provisions on indirect discrimination now more clearly include people who don’t share a particular protected characteristic but experience the same disadvantage as those who do. This reflects the “same disadvantage” principle that is more commonly understood re race or disability, and applies it explicitly to sex and gender reassignment.
A case study shows how a trans woman can claim indirect sex discrimination if they are disadvantaged in the same way as women – because of a shared experience with women of feeling unsafe. The protection doesn’t depend on whether they are legally female under the Act, nor on any formal association with women – it just depends on whether they face substantively the same disadvantage from the same policy.
This extends legal protection in practice – it allows a broader group of individuals to challenge policies that disproportionately harm one group, even if their own legal status differs. It also reinforces the role of objective justification – so organisations must be able to show that their decisions are fair, necessary, and proportionate, or risk breaching the Act.
Section 8 explains the general test for harassment under the Equality Act, and the change here is that harassment based on perception is now explicitly covered in the context of sex and gender reassignment. A new example involves a trans woman – showing that even if someone is wrongly perceived to have a protected characteristic, such as being biologically female, they are still protected under the Equality Act if they face unwanted conduct related to that perception.
That broadens the scope of protection for trans people and others facing abuse based on assumptions, and it further clarifies that intent is irrelevant – what matters is the effect of the conduct and its link to a perceived protected characteristic.
Section 12 explains how the Equality Act applies to associations, and makes clear that women-only associations can lawfully refuse membership to trans women, based on the clarified interpretation that sex under the Equality Act means biological sex at birth.
The example given shows that a trans woman does not share the protected characteristic of “sex as a woman” under the Act and therefore can be excluded from an association that lawfully restricts membership to women.
But it doesn’t say that a trans woman must be excluded.
The complicator that isn’t covered in the draft runs something like this. If a women-only association excludes cis men, that is lawful – and always has been – because the Equality Act 2010 explicitly allows associations to restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic, such as sex.
But if that the association then permits trans women (whose legal sex is male under the Act, even if they have a GRC) but excludes cis men (also legally male), EHRC says that would be applying inconsistent treatment within the same legal sex category – undermining the justification for using the sex-based restriction in the first place.
So if that association wants to use the lawful sex-based exception, it in theory has to apply that restriction consistently based on biological sex – exclude all who are legally male under the Act, including both cis men and trans women.
If it instead admits some individuals with the legal sex of “male” (e.g. trans women), while excluding others (cis men), then the restriction is no longer based solely on sex, but on gender identity or appearance – and that is not a lawful basis for exclusion, and so could lead to claims of direct sex discrimination by cis men, since they are being treated less favourably than other legally male individuals (trans women).
So if there’s a staff women’s group or an SU has a women’s officer, converting the group or position into one that’s about a topic rather than a membership characteristic looks OK. Even if it was about a membership characteristic, as long as it isn’t actively excluding cis men while including trans women, that would seem to be fine – notwithstanding there may be arguments about feelings of exclusion, or expectations raised in an inappropriate way and so on.
This has been a key issue in the commentary – EHRC’s draft clearly permits organisers of gender-affected competitive sports (i.e. sports where strength, stamina, or physique create a meaningful performance gap) to exclude or treat trans people differently if it is necessary for reasons of fair competition or safety.
Crucially, the guidance affirms that exclusion must be justified, proportionate, and based on evidence. A blanket ban on trans participation would likely be unlawful unless organisers can show that it is essential to protect fairness or safety. For example, excluding a trans man from a men’s boxing event due to safety concerns is likely lawful – if justified with reference to physical risk.
The guidance also clarifies that if an event is mixed-sex and so does not invoke the single-sex exception, sex discrimination claims may arise – for example, from cis women disadvantaged by trans women competitors.
Basically it emphasises the need for clear, evidence-based policies, especially in sports where fairness and safety are contested. Organisers are encouraged to draw on medical guidance and national governing body rules, balancing inclusion with legal duties to all participants. For universities and SUs, there’s clearly a line to be drawn between what we might call “BUCS sport” and “a kickabout organised by reslife”, although that line is not especially clear here.
If you are operating a single-sex service, another revised section encourages service providers to develop clear, written policies on when and how they will deliver separate or single-sex services, while also allowing for limited, carefully considered exceptions in individual cases – such as admitting a male child to a women’s changing room – as long as it does not undermine the core purpose of the service (e.g. safeguarding women’s access, privacy, or safety).
Another section draws a clearer line around how and when trans people may lawfully be excluded from single- or separate-sex services, while reinforcing that such exclusions must always be proportionate, justified, and considered on a case-by-case basis.
And it reminds that admitting someone of the opposite biological sex – such as a trans person – to a single-sex service may legally change the nature of that service, making it no longer covered by the single-sex exceptions under the Equality Act, itself creating a legal risk of sex discrimination against those excluded from the redefined service.
Providers are therefore advised to consider less intrusive alternatives, like offering additional mixed or separate services, or adapting facilities (private, unisex toilets), where feasible. But if alternative arrangements would be impractical or undermine the service itself, exclusion may still be proportionate and lawful – but that decision must also consider how the trans person presents, what alternatives exist, and whether the exclusion leaves them without access to essential services like toilets or changing rooms.
This is less common in these days of cluster flats and ensuite, but again there’s competing rights to weigh up. It’s lawful to restrict access to communal sleeping or sanitary facilities based on biological sex, particularly where shared use would compromise privacy. But excluding someone because of gender reassignment – such as a trans woman from women’s dorms – can also be lawful, but only if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as protecting privacy or avoiding distress.
So what now? The wait and see approach does mean that where universities (and their SUs) are making changes to facilities, groups, services, positions and so on, or not making changes, those decisions will now likely need to be made over the summer – which means a storing up of trouble for the new academic year.
What’s clear from the guidance is that whether we’re talking about a women’s officer role in an SU, a changing room, a block of toilets or a women’s self defence group, there are going to be options.
The draft seems to indicate that a sign on a toilet that’s painted pink saying “trans inclusive, use the toilet you are most comfortable with” would be legally fine – but it could also trigger indirect sex discrimination claims, particularly if women argue that the policy has created a space where they no longer feel safe or comfortable, especially in settings where privacy, safeguarding, or trauma concerns are significant.
And that risk is heightened if an organisation fails to provide alternative single-sex spaces for those who need or expect them.
In other words, the single sex provisions in the Equality Act are mainly about the ability to enforce and exclude the “other” sex from something, any expectations that are set (and then not met), and the availability of alternatives.
If you can’t rely on the Equality Act to carry out your exclusion, you can’t exclude. As such if we imagine a block of toilets, there will be choices:
Option 1 is effectively to say “these toilets are open to all”, or “these are aimed at those who identify as women”. As long as it’s clear that the intention is not to actively exclude men from those toilets, and that people can use which ever toilet they feel most comfortable in, that appears to be legal.
Option 2 is to take a toilet block currently marked as “women” and to make clear that these are a single sex facility as per the Equality Act 2010 – in other words, these are toilets specifically for biological women.
The same goes for pretty much everything that’s currently gendered.
The complicator in the case of toilets is that under UK law, employers are required to provide separate toilet facilities for men and women unless each facility is a fully enclosed, lockable room intended for single occupancy – and the tricky part is that a lot of toilets on a university campus may well act both as staff toilets, and (service provider) student toilets.
But nevertheless, this still opens up considerable flexibility. Neither the ruling, nor the draft guidance, nor the finalised guidance, is going to tell universities (and their SUs) what to do about a given facility, service, group, scheme or position – and nor will it supply information on the expectations of staff and students on a given campus.
And that sets up a problem for September.
The decisions across the portfolio of facilities, services, groups, schemes or positions almost by definition can’t be consistent – and so the way those decisions are made, and why, will be crucial – as will careful communication of them.
In other words, here in the dying days of May, the time to roll sleeves up and get consulting with staff and students is now – not during Welcome Week.
by CUPA-HR | May 20, 2025
How has the higher education faculty workforce changed over the past 20 years? What disciplines have emerged as frontrunners in hiring? What disciplines pay the most? What disciplines pay the least?
In the new research report, Two Decades of Change: Faculty Discipline Trends in Higher Education, CUPA-HR presents findings from an analysis of data from its Faculty in Higher Education Survey from 2003-04 to 2023-24.
Some key findings highlighted in the report:
Read the full report and explore the data with interactive graphics.
Ok everyone, all the provincial budgets are in and so it’s time for our annual look at what another round of irresponsible pan-partisan political leadership has wrought for our sector for the next twelve months.
Figure 1 shows the province-by-province breakdown of this year’s budgets, showing the change in transfers to institutions in real dollars over 1 year and 5 years for each of the ten provinces. In most provinces, collecting this data is pretty easy—you just look at the Main Estimates. In Ontario it is more difficult because due to the Ministry of Finance’s crapulous incompetence, it is the one province in the country where Estimates do not appear on the day of the budget (it takes them several months to put out the detailed data; and while prior to 2018 the Ministry of Colleges and Universities was able to give out actual expenditure data on the day of the Budget, the Government no longer chooses to provide such information because shovel, manure, mushrooms, etc.). So in Ontario what you have to do is collect the previous year’s data, add the announced changes in expenditure, and then make some assumptions about the way funds are phased in (because the communications jackals who have taken over public budgeting in this province insist on phrasing spending as “$750 million over five years” to make numbers as big as possible, rather than explaining how the $750 million will be phased in on an annual basis). Which is all to say, these numbers are all pretty accurate except for Ontario, where there is a bit of a margin of error.
Figure 1: 1-year and 5-year Changes to Budgeted Provincial Transfers to Institutions, Canada, 2025-26 Budget Year
The one province that shows big change for 2025-26 is Prince Edward Island, which dropped a lot of money on UPEI this year in order to start a new medical school. Five other provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador saw real increases (that is, increases greater than the rate of inflation) this year of between 1 and 4%. Four other provinces (Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) saw real declines of between 1% and 3%. Altogether, that combined nationally for real growth in provincial spending of about 0.9%.
Over a five-year horizon, things are a bit different. The oil provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador—have all shown double digit declines in real expenditures (19%, 11%, and 18%, respectively), the “big two” (Quebec and Ontario) are down seven and six per cent respectively, while Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are down eight and two percent respectively. The only provinces that are up are Manitoba, where just before leaving office the Tories reversed a huge portion of their cuts of the previous eight years or so, British Columbia, which build a new med school at Simon Fraser and decided to give hefty wage increases to university and college staff (which did not, in the end, leave universities and college much better off—see Vancouver Island University for evidence), and the afore-mentioned PEI. Nationally, the drop in spending after inflation was 4%, and obviously would have been much higher without that anomalous BC result.
So what does the overall picture look like nationally? Well, take a look at Figure 2. Basically, the picture is one of long-term stagnation.
Figure 2: Total Budgeted Provincial Expenditures on Post-Secondary Education, 2006-07 to 2025-2025, in Billions of Constant 2025 dollars
I suppose I should also update some charts I first made available earlier this year, looking at expenditures on post-secondary education as a percentage of total government expenditures, which I do below in Figure 3. Across the country, these percentages are down a long way over the past fifteen years, particularly in Alberta, which has gone from being by far the biggest spender in 2008 to being below the national average now.
Figure 3: Budgeted Provincial Expenditures on Post-Secondary Education as a Percentage of Total Budgeted Provincial Expenditures, Canada and selected provinces, 2006-07 to 2025-26.
Now, your brain might be whirring a bit trying to would out how Figures 2 and 3 can both be true. Overall spending is down only gently, but PSE expenditures as a percentage are crashing? It’s easy to explain, but not intuitive if you believe all the left-wing CBC nonsense about how governments are in austerity mode. This is nonsense: Canadian provincial governments are absolutely NOT in austerity mode. In most provinces, overall spending is wayyy up. It’s just that they are not choosing to spend any of that on postsecondary education. Since COVID, overall government expenditure is up 20% after inflation; since 2008-09, when post-secondary education peaked as a percentage of total expenditures, it’s up 59% after inflation.
Figure 4: Real Change in Total Provincial Expenditures vs. Provincial Expenditures on Post-Secondary Education 2006-07 to 2025-26 (2006-07 = 100)
Got it? Provinces are still spending. They just aren’t spending on postsecondary education.
Anyways, just to finish things off, figure 5 shows changes in overall provincial spending on student assistance programs. It’s up a bit this year mainly because of Ontario. Unclear why there has been a rise, though I suspect it has something to do with the ongoing crappiness in the youth job market (something I will get back to in a blog next week) and the need for student aid to backfill.
Figure 5: Total Budgeted Provincial Expenditures on Student Financial Assistance, Canada 2006-07 to 2025-26, in Billions of Constant 2025 Dollars
So that’s your 2025-26 budget round up. Not as bad as some previous years but man, our sector is in a bit of a whole and just can’t get out of it. The message, as always, is: no one is coming to save us.
by Inger Mewburn
Recently, some colleagues and I released a paper about the experiences of neurodivergent PhD students. It’s a systematic review of the literature to date, which is currently under review, but available via pre-print here.
Doing this paper was an exercise in mixed feelings. It was an absolute joy to work with my colleagues, who knew far more about this topic than me and taught me (finally!) how to do a proper systematic review using Covidence. Thanks Dr Diana Tan, Dr Chris Edwards, Associate Professor Kate Simpson, Associate Professor Amanda A Webster and Professor Charlotte Brownlow (who got the band together in the first place).
But reading each and every paper published about neurodivergent PhD students provoked strong feelings of rage and frustration. (These feelings only increased, with a tinge of fear added in, when I read of plans for the US health department to make a ‘list’ of autistic people?! Reading what is going on there is frankly terrifying – solidarity to all.) We all know what needs to be done to make research degrees more accessible. Make expectations explicit. Create flexible policies. Value diverse thinking styles. Implement Universal Design Principles… These suggestions appear in report after report, I’ve ranted on the blog here and here, yet real change remains frustratingly elusive. So why don’t these great ideas become reality? Here’s some thoughts on barriers that keep neurodivergent-friendly changes from taking hold.
The myth of meritocracy
Academia clings to the fiction that the current system rewards pure intellectual merit. Acknowledging the need for accessibility requires admitting that the playing field isn’t level. Many senior academics succeeded in the current system and genuinely believe “if I could do it, anyone can… if they work hard enough”. They are either 1) failing to recognise their neurotypical privilege, or 2) not acknowledging the cost of masking their own neurodivergence (I’ll get to this in a moment).
I’ve talked to many academics about things we could do – like getting rid of the dissertation – but too many of us are secretly proud of our own trauma. The harshness of the PhD has been compared to a badge of honour that we wear proudly – and expect others to earn.
Resource scarcity (real and perceived)
Universities often respond to suggestions about increased accessibility measures with budget concerns. The vibe is often: “We’d love to offer more support, but who will pay for it?”. However, many accommodations (like flexible deadlines or allowing students to work remotely) cost little, or even nothing. Frequently, the real issue isn’t resources but priorities of the powerful. There’s no denying universities (in Australia, and elsewhere) are often cash strapped. The academic hunger games are real. However, in the fight for resources, power dynamics dictate who gets fed and who goes without.
I wish we would just be honest about our choices – some people in universities still have huge travel budgets. The catering at some events is still pretty good. Some people seem to avoid every hiring freeze. There are consistent patterns in how resources are distributed. It’s the gaslighting that makes me angry. If we really want to, we can do most things. We have to want to do something about this.
Administrative inertia
Changing established processes in a university is like turning a battleship with a canoe paddle. Approval pathways are long and winding. For example, altering a single line in the research award rules at ANU requires approval from parliament (yes – the politicians actually have to get together and vote. Luckily we are not as dysfunctional in Australia as other places… yet). By the time a solution is implemented, the student who needed it has likely graduated – or dropped out. This creates a vicious cycle where the support staff, who see multiple generations of students suffer the same way, can get burned out and stop pushing for change.
The individualisation of disability
Universities tend to treat neurodivergence as an individual problem requiring individual accommodations rather than recognising systemic barriers. This puts the burden on students to disclose, request support, and advocate for themselves – precisely the executive function and communication challenges many neurodivergent students struggle with.
It’s akin to building a university with only stairs, then offering individual students a piggyback ride instead of installing ramps. I’ve met plenty of people who simply get so exhausted they don’t bother applying for the accommodations they desperately need, and then end up dropping out anyway.
Fear of lowering ‘standards’
Perhaps the most insidious barrier is the mistaken belief that accommodations somehow “lower standards.” I’ve heard academics worrying that flexible deadlines will “give some students an unfair advantage” or that making expectations explicit somehow “spoon-feeds” students.
The fear of “lowering standards” becomes even more puzzling when you look at how PhD requirements have inflated over time. Anyone who’s spent time in university archives knows that doctoral standards aren’t fixed – they’re constantly evolving. Pull a dissertation from the 1950s or 60s off the shelf and you’ll likely find something remarkably slim compared to today’s tomes. Many were essentially extended literature reviews with modest empirical components. Today, we expect multiple studies, theoretical innovations, methodological sophistication, and immediate publishability – all while completing within strict time limits on ever-shrinking funding.
The standards haven’t just increased; they’ve multiplied. So when universities resist accommodations that might “compromise standards,” we should ask: which era’s standards are we protecting? Certainly not the ones under which most people supervising today had to meet. The irony is that by making the PhD more accessible to neurodivergent thinkers, we might actually be raising standards – allowing truly innovative minds to contribute rather than filtering them out through irrelevant barriers like arbitrary deadlines or neurotypical communication expectations. The real threat to academic standards isn’t accommodation – it’s the loss of brilliant, unconventional thinkers who could push knowledge boundaries in ways we haven’t yet imagined.
Unexamined neurodiversity among supervisors
Perhaps one of the most overlooked barriers is that many supervisors are themselves neurodivergent but don’t recognise it or acknowledge what’s going on with them! In fact, since starting this research, I’ve formed a private view that you almost can’t succeed in this profession without at least a little neurospicey.
Academia tends to attract deep thinkers with intense focus on specific topics – traits often associated with autism (‘special interests’ anyone?). The contemporary university is constantly in crisis, which some people with ADHD can find provides the stimulation they need to get things done! Yet many supervisors have succeeded through decades of masking and compensating, often at great personal cost.
The problem is not the neurodivergence or the supervisor – it’s how the unexamined neurodivergence becomes embedded in practice, underpinned by an expectation that their students should function exactly as they do, complete with the same struggles they’ve internalised as “normal.”
I want to hold on to this idea for a moment, because maybe you recognise some of these supervisors:
Now that I know what I am looking for, I see these supervisory dynamics ALL THE TIME. Add in whatever dash of neuro-spiciness is going on with you and all kinds of misunderstandings and hurt feelings result … Again – the problem is not the neurodivergence of any one person – it’s the lack of self reflection, coupled with the power dynamics that can make things toxic.
These barriers aren’t insurmountable, but honestly, after decades in this profession, I’m not holding my breath for institutional enlightenment. Universities move at the pace of bureaucracy after all.
So what do we do? If you’re neurodivergent, find your people – that informal network who “get it” will save your sanity more than any official university policy. If you’re a supervisor, maybe take a good hard look at your own quirky work habits before deciding your student is “difficult.” And if you’re in university management, please, for the love of research, let’s work on not making neurodivergent students jump through flaming bureaucratic hoops to get basic support.
The PhD doesn’t need to be a traumatic hazing ritual we inflict because “that’s how it was in my day.” It’s 2025. Time to admit that diverse brains make for better research. And for goodness sake, don’t put anyone on a damn list, ok?
AI disclaimer: This post was developed with Claude from Anthropic because I’m so busy with the burning trash fire that is 2025 it would not have happened otherwise. I provided the concept, core ideas, detailed content, and personal viewpoint while Claude helped organise and refine the text. We iteratively revised the content together to ensure it maintained my voice and perspective. The final post represents my authentic thoughts and experiences, with Claude serving as an editorial assistant and sounding board.
This blog was first published on Inger Mewburn’s legendary website The Thesis Whisperer on 1 May 2025. It is reproduced with permission here.
Professor Inger Mewburn is the Director of Researcher Development at The Australian National University where she oversees professional development workshops and programs for all ANU researchers. Aside from creating new posts on the Thesis Whisperer blog (www.thesiswhisperer.com), she writes scholarly papers and books about research education, with a special interest in post PhD employability, research communications and neurodivergence.
One of the challenges for students entering the workforce is identifying how their experiences in and outside the classroom have prepared them for careers. A 2023 survey by Cengage found that one-third of recent graduates felt underqualified for entry-level roles, and only 41 percent believed their program taught them the skills needed for their first job.
Focused career development opportunities that address unique learner populations, such as working or neurodiverse students, can help bridge the gap between lived experiences and their application to the world of jobs.
Inside Higher Ed compiled various initiatives that increase career readiness for specific student populations.
Beacon College in Leesburg, Fla., primarily serves students with learning disabilities, including ADHD and dyslexia. Last year the college established a career fair designed for these learners, which introduces them to employers looking to develop a neurodiverse talent workforce.
Just under half of college students believe their college or university should focus more on helping students find internships and job possibilities, according to a May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab.
This spring’s event, Internship Careers and Neurodiversity (ICAN), featured two dozen national and local employers. Success coaches were on site to support students and employers as they engaged with one another, and students could visit the Zen Den if they needed a quiet and private space to process.
ICAN “is designed to remove barriers and reduce anxiety often associated with large-scale ‘convention center’ type events, so Beacon College can empower neurodivergent college students and help increase their participation in networking events elsewhere,” according to an April press release.
Student athletes have packed schedules while they’re in season, making it difficult to balance athletics, coursework and extracurricular activities, which can sometimes push career development opportunities to the background.
To help student athletes build their confidence in professional settings, Kennesaw State University created a “networking scrimmage” with employers so learners could practice introducing themselves, relay their academic and athletic accomplishments, and discuss career interests in a low-stakes environment, according to a university press release.
Students also heard from three former student athletes who shared their stories of transitioning from sports into the workforce, as well as advice on how to navigate postcollege life.
In 2023, the University of Phoenix created a digital tool that allows working adult learners to identify skills and goals that will guide them on their career journey.
Students can access Career Navigator through the student portal. The tool allows them to build out demonstrated and self-attested skills and explore job features, including daily tasks and salary range, as well as identify skill gaps they may have when pursuing their desired career.
After leaving military service, many veterans enroll in college to build career skills and gain further education, but connecting their military experience to civilian life can be a challenge.
The University of Colorado, Denver, provides a one-year cohort program for student veterans, Boots to Suits, to aid their journey, providing personalized academic and career-development resources. Program participants receive job search strategies and career coaching, as well as advice on networking and building their LinkedIn profile and résumé.
While general career fairs and networking opportunities can give students visibility into employers or roles they may not otherwise have considered, tailored events can connect students of a particular discipline to employers looking for their expertise.
Staff at Villanova University identified a problem at their career fairs: The number of employers looking for early-career civil engineers far overshadowed the number of students interested in such jobs. In response, staff created a new event specifically for civil engineering students, allowing employers to connect with potential interns earlier in their college career while also ensuring that students who were interested in other fields were able to engage with organizations that better fit their career goals.
The University of Maryland hosts a Visual Arts Reverse Career and Internship Fair, a flipped model of the career fair in which employers visit a student’s table or booth to engage with their portfolio of work. This allows students to display graphic design, video production and immersive media skills in an engaging way that better reflects their learning and accomplishments.
Do you have a career-focused intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
