Author: admin

  • The Hidden Crisis in College Planning

    The Hidden Crisis in College Planning

    Millions of students and families are caught in a middle-class crunch for affording college.

    Approximately 7-8 million families with school-age children are in the middle-income bracket ($60,000-$200,000). That’s not just a statistic—it’s a massive segment of your potential student population caught in a precarious position.

    According to recent Census data, these families make up about 40% of all U.S. households, with 39% of family households including children under 18. They’re too “wealthy” for significant financial aid but not wealthy enough to write a check without breaking a sweat. Understanding this demographic isn’t just important—it’s crucial for the future of higher education.

    Data from the 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report from RNL and CampusESP reveals critical insights about this demographic that could reshape how we approach recruitment, financial aid packaging, and communication strategies.

    The data that should change your strategy

    Let’s start with the numbers that matter. Among middle-income families:

    • 71% report loan concerns actively impacting college selection.
    • 69% eliminate institutions based on sticker price before engaging.
    • 60% find financing “difficult” or “very difficult.”
    • 87% rank financial aid among their top five decision factors.

    For enrollment managers, these statistics represent more than just data points—they signal significant leakage in our recruitment funnels before we even have a chance to present our value proposition.

    Decision drivers: Reframing our approach

    The research reveals three primary decision factors for middle-income families:

    • Final cost after aid (71%)
    • Academic program availability (66%)
    • Academic scholarships (51%)

    For those of us in enrollment management, this hierarchy suggests we must lead with net price messaging earlier in the funnel rather than waiting for admitted student communications.

    Communication channels: What’s actually working

    Here’s where we need to check our assumptions. While many institutions are investing heavily in custom apps and elaborate communication plans, the data shows:

    • 88% prefer email communication.
    • 31% would use a parent/family portal.
    • 30% are open to text messages.
    • Only 7% would use institution-specific apps.

    Translation? We might be overcomplicating our outreach strategies and underutilizing our most effective channel.

    Campus visit insights for admissions teams

    Despite our digital transformation efforts, traditional visit experiences still dominate:

    • 68% participate in guided group tours.
    • 40% opt for guided individual tours.
    • 46% conduct self-guided tours.
    • 37% engage with virtual tours.

    This suggests we must reimagine our visit programs to integrate financial conversations earlier in the campus experience, not just at admitted student events.

    2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report2024 Prospective Family Engagement ReportThe 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report dives into the experiences, expectations, and challenges of families during the college planning process. RNL, CampusESP, and Ardeo surveyed more than 11,000 families of prospective college students about:

    • College planning: How many families consider out-of-state institutions? What are their college planning experiences? Do they value and participate in campus visits?
    • Communicating with institutions: Which channels to families prefer? How often do they want to hear from you? Which college planning topics do they value the most?
    • College financing plans: How many families expect paying for college to be difficult? How many plan to borrow? Do they think college is a worthwhile investment?

    Read Now

    Five strategic imperatives for enrollment leaders

    1. Revolutionize financial transparency

    • Move EFC conversations earlier in the recruitment cycle.
    • Implement targeted financial planning workshops.

    2. Optimize communication flow

    • Leverage the strong preference for email with segmented campaigns.
    • Develop parent portals that prioritize financial planning tools.
    • Create clear timelines for aid and scholarship processes.
    • Integrate financial counseling throughout the admission funnel.

    3. Transform campus visits

    • Embed financial aid counselors in regular tour programs.
    • Design value proposition messaging for tour guides.
    • Create flexible scheduling for working parents.
    • Include aid discussions in standard visit protocols.

    4. Strengthen value messaging

    • Focus on ROI metrics that resonate with middle-income families.
    • Showcase relevant alumni success stories.
    • Highlight internship-to-career pathways.
    • Emphasize four-year graduation rates’ impact on total cost.

    5. Reimagine merit strategy

    • Expand mid-range merit band opportunities.
    • Develop clear scholarship retention criteria.
    • Create post-enrollment scholarship opportunities.
    • Consider guaranteed merit aid programs.

    The AI opportunity: Next-generation enrollment tools

    1. AI financial planning assistant

    Implement systems that:

    • Generate dynamic cost projections.
    • Automate scholarship matching.
    • Model various enrollment scenarios.
    • Provide proactive deadline management.
    • Adapt to changing family circumstances.

    2. Smart visit management

    Deploy tools that:

    • Create personalized visit experiences.
    • Coordinate key stakeholder meetings.
    • Offer virtual preview capabilities.
    • Optimize multi-college visit planning.
    • Align visits with aid events.

    3. Financial aid navigation system

    Develop platforms that:

    • Provide 24/7 form completion support.
    • Flag application enhancement opportunities.
    • Compare aid packages systematically.
    • Project career-based loan scenarios.
    • Identify special circumstances early.

    Moving forward: Implementation priorities

    The data presents clear imperatives for enrollment management teams:

    1. Restructure communication flows: Lead with affordability messaging earlier in the funnel.
    2. Integrate technology thoughtfully: Focus on high-impact tools that address specific pain points.
    3. Realign resources: Ensure financial aid counseling is embedded throughout the recruitment process.

    Success in serving middle-income families isn’t just about having the right aid packages—it’s about creating transparent pathways to enrollment that address financial concerns proactively rather than reactively.

    For enrollment managers, this means rethinking how we allocate resources, structure our communication flows, and leverage technology to support our goals. The institutions that will thrive in this environment won’t necessarily be those with the largest aid budgets but those that best understand and address the unique needs of middle-income families throughout the enrollment journey.

    Creating clear pathways for middle-income families

    Let’s put this in perspective: with 7-8 million families with school-age children in the middle-income bracket and 77% believing college is worth the investment, we’re looking at millions of families who need our help to make higher education work for them. The old system of navigating college planning isn’t cutting it anymore.

    The good news? Colleges are starting to get it. The best institutions create clear pathways for these middle-income families, combining high-tech tools with high-touch personal support. Considering that these families represent about 40% of all U.S. households, it becomes clear that serving this demographic isn’t just an option—it’s an imperative for institutional sustainability.

    What your institution can do right now

    1. Develop targeted financial planning tools for this specific demographic.
    2. Create communication strategies that address middle-income concerns directly.
    3. Redesign campus visits to include meaningful financial conversations.
    4. Invest in AI tools that can help these families navigate the complexity.

    Remember: These families aren’t just looking for a college—they’re looking for a partner in making college affordable. The right approach isn’t necessarily about having the lowest sticker price or the biggest name. It’s about understanding and actively helping this crucial demographic bridge the gap between sticker price and reality. The college planning maze might be complex, but with these insights and tools, your institution can lead in serving this vital segment of American families. The future of higher education may well depend on how effectively we serve these 7-8 million families caught in the middle.

    Engage families throughout the college planning process

    Parents and family members can be your biggest enrollment champions. They are the number-one influencers for prospective students. That’s why RNL Student Search to Enrollment makes parent engagement a major part of search campaigns.

    Ask for a for a free walkthrough and see how you can engage students and parents at every stage of the enrollment journey.

    Request walkthrough

    Source link

  • Increasing Classroom Engagement – Faculty Focus

    Increasing Classroom Engagement – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Achieving a 100% Completion Rate for Student Assessment at the University of Charleston

    Achieving a 100% Completion Rate for Student Assessment at the University of Charleston

    Seated in beautiful Charleston, West Virginia, the University of Charleston (UC) boasts “a unique opportunity for those who want an exceptional education in a smaller, private setting.” UC provides a unique student experience focused on retention and student success even before students arrive on campus.

    Students are offered an opportunity to complete the College Student Inventory (CSI) online through a pre-orientation module. This initiative is reinforced through the student’s Success and Motivation first-year course. University instructors serve as mentors, utilizing the CSI results to capitalize on insights related to each individual student’s strengths and opportunities for success through individual review meetings and strategic support and skill building structured within this course.

    After achieving a 7% increase in retention, Director of Student Success and First-Year Programs Debbie Bannister says administering the CSI each year is non-negotiable. Additionally, the campus has refocused on retention, emphasizing, “Everyone has to realize that they are part of retention, and they’re part of keeping every single student on our campus.”

    UC has reinstated a Retention Committee that utilizes summary information from the CSI to understand the needs of its students. Of particular concern, UC notes that the transfer portal has created additional challenges with upperclassmen, so including a representative from the athletic department on the retention committee has been crucial.

    Through this focus on retention and strong implementation strategy, UC achieves a 100% completion rate for the CSI for their first-year student cohort. Building off the scaffolding support from early support meetings related to the CSI insights, first-year instructors are able to refer back to reinforce articulated support strategies and goals throughout the first-year experience. The structure and progression through this course reiterates college preparation skills and resources building motivation and a growth mindset to persist through college.

    Increase student success through early intervention

    Join institutions such as the University of Charleston by using the College Student Inventory with your incoming students. More than 1,400 institutions have used the CSI, and it’s been taken by more than 2.6 million students nationwide. Learn more about how you can use it to intervene earlier with students and increase student yield.

    Source link

  • Registrars assembling – the history of the Association of Heads of University Administration

    Registrars assembling – the history of the Association of Heads of University Administration

    Many will not have seen this rather wonderful short history of AHUA, the Association of Heads of University Administration, published in 2024 and written by John Hogan, who retired as registrar at Newcastle University in 2022.

    Having been involved in AHUA for 18 years to the end of 2024, including 11 years on the executive and a couple of years as Honorary Secretary, I thought I had seen quite a lot in terms of the association’s development. However, as this report shows, I really did not know the half of it and my contributions were genuinely minor alongside the achievements of those who went before.

    In development

    The origins of what is now AHUA date back, in formal records at least, to a “Registrars’ Conference” in 1939, just before the outbreak of war. It was attended by ten people representing seven different universities (with apologies from two more) and chaired by the registrar of Durham University, William Angus (later secretary at the University of Aberdeen from 1952 to 1967 and referred to by his previous colleagues as “Aberdeen Angus,” apparently).

    Extract from the minutes of the 1939 Registrars’ Conference

    While some of the issues discussed were very much of the time, such as air raid precautions, others have contemporary resonance such as ensuring inclusion of students on the electoral register. Admittedly this was a slightly different situation given that there were university constituencies at that time and there were real concerns about institutions’ ability adequately to count potential electors. Other issues though seem very familiar including student health, international students, admissions qualifications and student fees.

    As the organisation developed as the Conference of Registrars and Secretaries (CRS), after the war it became UK-wide and spent considerable time in the 1960s discussing and dealing with an expanded HE sector such that it had 23 UK universities in membership by then.

    As noted in John Hogan’s report – and as is evident from the photographs from conferences in the 60s through to the early 90s – it was a hugely white male-dominated organisation for many years, reflective of university administrations at that time.

    Fortunately, much has changed in composition since then. Structures in universities were rather different in those days too although for the whole membership, regardless of title, a core duty was acting as a confidential source of advice and support for the vice chancellor. Further elements identified in the 1960s which continue to be a part of many AHUA members’ roles include leading a significant portfolio of university services and advising the university’s statutory bodies and other senior officers. Relative to today numbers were tiny – only around 400 administrative staff in 1953 rising to a still modest figure of around 1,900 by 1973, although both of these numbers exclude what were deemed “clerical” posts.

    It is also interesting to note that, under the auspices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), a number of registrars were heavily involved in the establishment of the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA) in 1961. This body, reformed as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service – UCAS – in 1993, was for many years notable as an example of a genuinely efficient and effective shared service in supporting university admissions (although its governance structure and mission has changed somewhat since then).

    Topical matters

    In determining conference topics members were consulted via paper questionnaires on the issues of the day (although, entertainingly, this process generated a big bureaucracy which had to be scaled back). In 1964, responses were sought on the following:

    What information was held in student records, the ratio of secretarial to academic staff, the operation of telephone systems, the appointment of supervisors for higher degrees, amongst many other matters.

    Moreover, the records uncovered by the author show some problems are perennial:

    The fraudulent publication of degree certificates was a concern at the 1948 Conference. Student behaviour, and car parking both featured in 1962. Pressure to change the academic year from October–September to January–December was first acknowledged in 1965. Nearly all universities had considered the possibility and rejected it.

    Excitingly, IT became a white-hot topic in the 1960s and there were discussions over the national coordination of student records – this led to a working party involving the UGC and the Royal Statistical Society. As I recently noted here, the issue has not gone away…

    As Hogan notes, the records of proceedings appear generally cordial, although:

    The occasional acerbic comment was captured in the minutes. Ernest Bettenson, (Registrar of the University of Durham 1952 then of University of Newcastle upon Tyne 1963–1976) expressed the view that the 1972 “…White Paper was like Mrs Thatcher (its author as Education Minister) – well set out and attractive, but somehow unlovable.

    Beyond these formal matters, conferences also included cultural and social events including a formal dinner which, I am astonished to learn, was black tie until 2006 (thankfully that stopped before I joined in the following year). Other features which have, mercifully, not survived include the spouses’ programme, golf sessions and alcohol sponsorship (no fewer than three distilleries were sponsors for the 1995 conference in Aberdeen).

    Grappling with the issues

    CRS operations became a bit more business-like towards the end of the 1970s with the establishment of a standing steering committee and the appointment of a business secretary. Following the significant cuts in funding from 1981–82 the focus of discussions was very much on the consequent organisational challenges and, as Hogan notes:

    More horizon-scanning can be identified in CRS’s discussions during the 1980s than previously. William Waldegrave, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department of Education and Science, predicted mergers across the so-called binary line, between universities and polytechnics, within the following ten years, when he spoke to the Conference in 1983.

    Plenty of contemporary echoes there. The Jarratt Report (1985) on management efficiency divided opinion in the CRS, with some supportive and others more sceptical or indeed scathing. Apparently, Jim Walsh, registrar at the University of Leeds, was particularly vocal:

    …warning members that he would oppose any attempt to turn the Conference into a kind of “Jarratt Enforcement” agency and distributing a criticism of the proposals under the title “A Load of Old Cobblers?”

    It is reassuring that CRS members struggled with its name back in the late 1980s in the same way as successors have ever since. It was accepted that “the name ‘conference’ was unhelpful, and ‘association’ was more attractive except for the resulting acronym – ARS.”

    However, before that issue could be resolved the CRS had to grapple with the more serious issue of the impact of the ending of the binary line. While almost every established university in 1992 had a registrar or secretary, the structures in the newer universities was much more varied meaning that it took some time to come to a full settlement on who would be eligible to join an expanded organisation.

    And then, of course, a new name was required. ARS was off the table so the “Association of University Heads of Administration” or the “Association of Heads of University Administration” were the preferred options. CVCP was consulted and it seems some vice chancellors were unhappy with the title on the basis that they saw themselves as the head of the administration. Anyway, a decision was made and the name and abbreviation everyone struggles to pronounce to this day was agreed upon.

    You’ve come a long way

    Hogan goes on to note the broader engagement of AHUA and its member with regulators and other sector agencies from the late 1990s onwards as well as the importance of its regional groupings and the key role played by full-time professional staff support from 2001 (Catherine Webb served as Executive Secretary from 2006 to 2024, providing vital continuity and vast expertise). Policy concerns at executive meetings and conferences throughout the last two decades have included governance, statute changes, pensions, the need for better regulation and a reduction in the regulatory burden.

    Other significant developments in the recent period have included development programmes, for new and aspiring registrars, growing the association’s communications and influencing activities, developing the national Ambitious Futures graduate training programme (which sadly ended as a consequence of the pandemic) and a reciprocal mentoring programme between staff of colour and AHUA launched. All were driven forward by a (much missed) former chair, Jonathan Nicholls, who also sought to establish AHUA as the “go-to” professional organisation in the sector.

    AHUA, as Hogan’s history shows, has come a long way but remains a key UK-wide sector organisation with a slightly more diverse membership than in the past, but there is still some way to go there. It’s an organisation of which I hugely valued being a part and it is great to read this short but comprehensive report on AHUA’s origins and development.

    AHUA Spring Conference 2024 at the University of Leeds

    Source link

  • Podcast: Wales cuts, mental health, regulation

    Podcast: Wales cuts, mental health, regulation

    This week on the podcast the Welsh government has announced £18.5m in additional capital funding for universities – but questions remain over reserves, job cuts, competition law and student protection.

    Meanwhile, new research reveals student mental health difficulties have tripled in the past seven years, and Universities UK warns that OfS’ new strategy risks expanding regulatory burden rather than focusing on priorities.

    With Andy Westwood, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Manchester, Emma Maslin, Senior Policy and Research Officer at AMOSSHE, Livia Scott, Partnerships Coordinator at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    The government’s in a pickle over fees and funding

    As the cuts rain down in Wales, whatever happened to learner protection?

    Partnership and promises are not incompatible

    Student mental health difficulties are on the rise, and so are inequalities

    Source link

  • Five keys to success in Evaluation Capacity Building for widening participation

    Five keys to success in Evaluation Capacity Building for widening participation

    Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate is a mantra that those engaged in widening participation in recent years will be all too familiar with.

    Over the past decade and particularly in the latest round of Access and Participation Plans (APP), the importance of evaluation and evidencing best practice have risen up the agenda, becoming integral parts of the intervention strategies that institutions are committing to in order to address inequality.

    This new focus on evaluation raises fundamental questions about the sector’s capacity to sustainably deliver high-quality, rigorous and appropriate evaluations, particularly given its other regulatory and assessment demands (e.g. REF, TEF, KEF etc.).

    For many, the more exacting standards of evidence have triggered a scramble to deliver evaluation projects, often facilitated by external organisations, consultancies and experts, often at considerable expense, to deliver what the Office for Students’ (OfS) guidance has defined as Type 2 or 3 evidence (capable of correlative or causal inference).

    The need to demonstrate impact is one we can all agree is worthy, given the importance of addressing the deep rooted and pervasive inequalities baked into the UK HE sector. It is therefore crucial that the resources available are deployed wisely and equitably.

    In the rush for higher standards, it is easy to be lured in by “success” and forget the steps necessary to embed evaluation in institutions, ensuring a plurality of voices can contribute to the conversation, leading to a wider shift in culture and practice.

    We risk, in only listening to those well placed to deliver large-scale evaluation projects and communicate the findings loudest, of overlooking a huge amount of impactful and important work.

    Feeling a part of it

    There is no quick fix. The answer lies in the sustained work of embedding evaluative practice and culture within institutions, and across teams and individuals – a culture that imbues values of learning, growth and reflection over and above accountability and league tables.

    Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) offers a model or approach to help address these ongoing challenges. It has a rich associated literature, which for brevity’s sake we will not delve into here.

    In essence, it describes the process of improving the ability of organisations to do and use evaluation, through supporting individuals, teams and decision makers to prioritise evaluation in planning and strategy and invest time and resources into improving knowledge and competency in this area.

    The following “keys to success” are the product of what we learned while applying this approach across widening participation and student success initiatives at Lancaster University.

    Identify why

    We could not have garnered the interest of those we worked with without having a clear idea of the reasons we were taking the approach we did. Critically, this has to work both ways: “why should you bother evaluating?” and “why are we trying to build evaluation capacity?”

    Unhelpfully, evaluation has a bad reputation.

    It is very often seen by those tasked to undertake it as an imposition, driven by external agendas and accountability mandates – not helped by the jargon laden and technical nature of the discipline.

    If you don’t take the time to identify and communicate your motivations for taking this approach, you risk falling at the first hurdle. People will be hesitant to invest their time in attending your training, understanding the challenging concepts and investing their limited resources into evaluation, unless they have a good reason to do so.

    “Because I told you so” does not amount to a very convincing reason either. When identifying “why”, it is best you do so collaboratively and consider the specific needs, values and aspirations of those you are working with. To those ends, you might want to consider developing a Theory of Change for your own ECB initiative.

    Consider the context

    When developing resources or a series of interventions to support ECB at your institution, you should at all times consider the specific context in which you find yourself. There are many models, methods and resources available in the evaluation space, including those provided by organisations such as TASO, the UK Evaluation Society (UKES) or the Global Evaluation Initiative (BetterEvaluation.org), not to mention the vast literature on evaluation methods and methodologies. The possibilities are both endless and potentially overwhelming.

    To help navigate this abundance, you should use the institutional context in which you are intending to deliver ECB as your guide. For whom are you developing the resources? What are their needs? What is appropriate? What is feasible? How much time, money and expertise does this require? Who is the audience for the evaluation? Why are they choosing to evaluate their work at this time and in this way?

    In answering these and other similar questions, the “why” you identified above, will be particularly helpful. Ensuring the resources and training you provide are suitable and accessible is not easy, so don’t be perturbed if you get it wrong. The key is to be reflective and seek feedback from those you are working with.

    Surround yourself with researchers, educationalists and practitioners

    Doing and using evaluation are highly prized skills that require specific knowledge and expertise. The same applies to developing training and educational resources to support effective learning and development outcomes.

    Evaluation is difficult enough for specialists to get their heads around. Imagine how it must feel for those for whom this is not an area of expertise, nor even a primary area of responsibility. Too often the training and support available assumes high levels of knowledge and does not take the time to explain its terms.

    How do we expect someone to understand the difference between correlative and causal evidence of impact, if we haven’t explained what we mean by evaluation, evidence or impact, not to mention correlation or causation? How do we expect people to implement an experimental evaluation design, if we haven’t explained what an evaluation design is, how you might implement it or how “experimental” differs from other kinds of design and when it is or isn’t appropriate?

    So, surround yourself with researchers, educators and practitioners who have a deep understanding of their respective domains and can help you to develop accessible and appropriate resources.

    Create outlets for evaluation insight

    Publishing findings can be daunting, time-consuming and risky. For this reason, it’s a good idea to create more localised outlets for the evaluation insights being generated by the ECB work you’ve been doing. This will allow the opportunity to hone presentations, interrogate findings and refine language in a more forgiving and collaborative space.

    At Lancaster University, we launched our Social Mobility Symposium in September 2023 with this purpose in mind. It provided a space for colleagues from across the University engaged in widening participation initiatives and with interests in wider issues of social mobility and inequality to come together and share the findings they generated through evaluation and research.

    As the title suggests, the event was not purely about evaluation, which helped to engage diverse audiences with the insights arising from our capacity building work. “Evaluation by stealth,” or couching evaluative insights in discussions of subjects that have wider appeal, can be an effective way of communicating your findings. It also encourages those who have conducted the evaluations to present their results in an accessible and applied manner.

    Establish leadership buy in

    Finally, if you are planning to explore ECB as an approach to embedding and nurturing evaluation at an institutional level (i.e. beyond the level of individual interventions), then it is critical to have the buy in of senior managers, leaders and decision makers.

    Part of the why for the teams you are working with will no doubt include some approximation of the following: that your efforts will be recognised, the insights generated will inform decision making, the analyses you do will make a difference, and will be shared widely to support learning and sharing of best practice.

    As someone who is supporting capacity building endeavours you might not be able to guarantee these objectives. It is important therefore to focus equal attention on building the evaluation capacity and literacy of those who can.

    This can be challenging and difficult to control for. It depends on, among other things: the established culture and personnel in leadership positions, their receptiveness to new ideas, the flexibility and courage they have to explore new ways of doing things, and the capacity of the institution to utilise the insights generated through more diverse evaluative practices. The rewards are potentially significant, both in supporting the institution to continuously improve and meet its ongoing regulatory requirements.

    There is great potential in the field of evaluation to empower and elevate voices that are sometimes overlooked, but there is an equal and opposite risk of disempowerment and exclusion. Reductive models of evaluation, preferencing certain methods over others, risk impoverishing our understanding of the world around us and the impact we are having. It is crucial to have at our disposal a repertoire of approaches that are appropriate to the situation at hand and that fosters learning as well as value assessment.

    Done well, ECB provides a means of enriching the narrative in widening participation, as well as many other areas, though it requires a coherent institutional and sectoral approach to be truly successful.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Al-Azhar University

    Higher education postcard: Al-Azhar University

    Greetings from Cairo!

    In 970 work started on the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, which had been founded on the orders of al-Mu’izz li-Din Allah, the fourth Fatimid Caliph. Work on the buildings was completed two years later. In 988 Ya’qub ibn Killis, the first vizier of the Fatimids, designated the mosque as a centre of learning, and the following year 35 scholars were hired. This marked the beginnings of the mosque as a place of learning. The curriculum included law and jurisprudence, grammar, astronomy, philosophy and logic; ibn Killis himself taught; and both men and women could study there.

    It was also, it seems, a place of learning with an agenda. The Fatimids, argue Roy Lowe and Yoshihito Yasuhara in their 2016 work “The Origins of Higher Learning”, funded Al-Azhar in order to create a framework to underpin Shia Islam.

    In 1171, the Ayyubid caliph Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, who you might know better as Saladin, overthrew the last of the Fatimids, after many years of strife. One of the actions he took was to assert Sunni Islam, rather than Shia; and with this the fortunes of Al-Azhar took a downward turn. There was, it seems, the destruction of books on a vast scale. Some say 120,000 books from the library, some say 2,000,000. Now, by the 1050s the library was said to hold 200,000 books, which is a lot, but it does feel like the upper estimate for destruction one hundred years later has some poetic license about it. In any event, a lot of books were destroyed. Al-Azhar lost its breadth, becoming a centre for the study of Sunni Islam.

    And so it remained, for several centuries. It gained in prestige, becoming one of the four main centres for Sunni jurisprudence in the Islamic world. It regrew its library, which now holds over seven million items; it expended its premises. It continued to accept students for study; and continued too award qualifications. On which rests its claim to be the longest continually operating degree awarding body in Egypt.

    In 1961 – nearly 1000 years after its foundation – Al-Azhar was re-founded as a modern university. Its curriculum was secularised, to cover business, science, engineering, and medicine. And it has a broader remit, as a body responsible for schools across Egypt, with over 4,000 affiliated institutions, with 2,000,000 learners at those schools and institutes.

    Since 2011 the University’s Council of Senior Scholars – senior Islamic scholars, that is – has been re-established and plays a role in national affairs. This includes electing Egypt’s Grand Mufti, which role had previously been appointed by the country’s president. Roughly speaking, a mufti is an Islamic scholar who can issue a fatwa; the Grand Mufti in a country is head of that country’s muftis.

    One of the reasons I like finding out about universities in other countries is the exposure to different ideas of what a university is or does. Al-Azhar has antiquity, it teaches to a high level, it’s a university. And it has a broader remit too.

    And here, as is now becoming customary, is a jigsaw of the postcard. Hope you enjoy it!

    Source link

  • McMahon confirmation as education secretary advances to full Senate

    McMahon confirmation as education secretary advances to full Senate

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Linda McMahon’s nomination for U.S. secretary of education advanced Thursday with the approval of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which voted 12-11 along party lines.

    “We need a strong leader at the department who will get our education system back on track, and Ms. McMahon is the right person for the job,” said HELP Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., before the vote.

    McMahon appeared before the committee Feb. 13 for a 2 ½ hour confirmation hearing where she spoke of her priorities for expanding school choice and skills-based learning, providing more decision-making power to local schools and parents, and protecting students from discrimination and harassment. 

    She also talked about her openness to making sweeping changes at the U.S. Department of Education, including moving programs like special education oversight and civil rights investigations to other federal agencies.

    We are failing our students, our Department of Education, and what we are doing today is not working, and we need to change it,” McMahon said at the time. McMahon formerly served as administrator of the Small Business Administration for two years in President Donald Trump’s first administration. She was previously president and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment.

    Trump and the temporary Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have already made major alterations to Education Department activities, including by attempting to freeze funding to states, canceling research contracts, halting diversity, equity and inclusion funds and programming, and calling for the end of “radical indoctrination” in K-12 schools.

    Trump has also said his goal is to close the Education Department — a move that would need congressional approval. 

    At Thursday’s HELP executive session, which lasted about 15 minutes, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said he was opposing McMahon’s nomination. “I find areas of agreement [with McMahon], but I can’t vote for somebody who will willfully engage in the destruction of the very agency she wants to lead. That is disqualifying,” Kaine said.

    Ranking member Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., also voted against McMahon’s nomination and criticized what he said was a move toward an authoritarian society where “all power is resting in the hands of a few in the White House.”

    “It doesn’t really matter who the Secretary will be, because he or she will not have the power,” Sanders said.

    Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., before voting in favor of the nomination, said U.S. education has fallen in global rankings. “If we really say we’re for the kids, then let’s try something drastic,” Mullin said. “Let’s actually make a change, because we’re doing nothing but going backwards, and our test scores haven’t improved since 1979. They’ve just continued to fall.”

    A full Senate vote on McMahon’s confirmation is forthcoming.

    Source link

  • Shaping Future Healthcare Leaders: The Journey of Mielad Ziaee

    Shaping Future Healthcare Leaders: The Journey of Mielad Ziaee

    Mielad Ziaee

    Healthcare is constantly evolving, and the future of the industry depends on the next generation of skilled professionals who are prepared to lead with knowledge, innovation, and compassion. Organizations like HOSA-Future Health Professionals play a critical role in shaping these future healthcare leaders by providing students with the resources, experiences, and mentorship needed to thrive in various medical and health-related careers.

    HOSA is an international student organization dedicated to empowering young people who are passionate about healthcare. Through leadership development, competitive events, networking opportunities, and hands-on learning experiences, HOSA helps students build the essential skills they need to succeed in the medical field. Members engage in real-world healthcare scenarios, gain exposure to public health initiatives, and develop professional competencies that set them apart in their future careers.

    Mielad Ziaee

    Alumni and Former International Executive Council Member, HOSA-Future Health Professionals

    One such success story is Mielad Ziaee, a Marshall Scholar, Truman Scholar, public health advocate, and innovator. Ziaee’s parents immigrated from Iran to the United States to manifest a new life. Their resilience and perspective deeply influenced his understanding of community, determination, and health from an early age. Before hitting the labs of prestigious institutions, Ziaee joined HOSA as a high school freshman thanks to their support. He saw it as a promising steppingstone to engage in his healthcare aspirations.

    “I really wanted to hit the ground running with HOSA. It was so empowering to have [an organization] created for students interested in healthcare, where we could all sort of geek out together,” Ziaee recalled.

    Climbing the ranks

    His two advisors, Angela Vong and Zenia Ridley, provided mentorship and guidance to immerse Ziaee in all HOSA could offer. His leadership journey quickly unfolded — from member to area officer, to Texas state officer, and eventually, to serving on HOSA’s International Executive Council. His tenure coincided with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Finding creative ways to engage members across middle school, high school, and college in virtual settings connected the dots between leadership and innovation.

    “Being part of the ‘COVID generation’ was both challenging and inspiring,” Ziaee shared. “It taught me how to build community and how that community can enact change.”

    Ziaee’s experiences ignited a passion for research, where he found the intersection of policy, public health, technology, and community engagement. In particular, food insecurity has become a focal point of his academic work.

    “I’m a proud Houstonian. I go to the University of Houston, so one of the biggest challenges that my community faces is food insecurity,” Ziaee said. “I work with our Data Science Institute to try to understand both technological and community-based cultural approaches to food insecurity. A lot of the skills I learned in HOSA, like Zoom calls or identifying key problems and addressing them, are the same things I do in my research — just different vocabulary.”

    Gaining global experience

    Ziaee will continue his study of public health as a Marshall Scholar at the University of Edinburgh this fall. He beamed with excitement as he described studying at an institution that nurtured scientific legends such as Charles Darwin and Alexander Graham Bell and exploring Scotland’s unique healthcare system.

    “Edinburgh, specifically, is where they did the Dolly the Sheep experiment, which is super cool,” Ziaee said. “It’s very interesting as an American to see how they’re doing things [in Scotland], and to hopefully bring that back and promote policy innovation here in public health.”

    Reflecting on his journey, Ziaee underscores the importance of seizing opportunities and embracing HOSA as more than just an organization. As Ziaee embarks on this next chapter, his story exemplifies how HOSA-Future Health Professionals and strong family values can shape a life of innovation and impact. Following in his footsteps, his younger sister has now joined HOSA, continuing the family’s commitment to making a difference in healthcare.

    “The connections and experiences you gain will inspire and guide you for years to come. It’s one of the main constants in my life,” he said.

    Ziaee’s journey highlights that HOSA is more than just a steppingstone — it’s a foundation for lifelong growth, leadership, and meaningful connections. For students aspiring to make a difference in healthcare, organizations like HOSA offer an unparalleled opportunity to gain real-world experience, develop leadership skills, and join a network of like-minded individuals committed to improving health outcomes worldwide.

    To join this inspiring legacy, become part of the HOSA alumni network today at www.hosa.org/alumni.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed IT Outsourcing | Collegis Education

    Higher Ed IT Outsourcing | Collegis Education

    College administrators know that technology can be a powerful tool for improving operations and boosting student success. However, given the rapid pace of technological change and the shrinking pool of qualified IT professionals, getting a real return on IT investments can be a major challenge.

    One way to deal with these challenges is to outsource IT management and operations, and explore managed IT services for higher education.

    While change can seem daunting, IT outsourcing can significantly improve overall IT management and strategic focus while mitigating risk and reducing cost. It’s about more than just maintaining IT infrastructure and operations –– it’s about using technology strategically to create better student experiences and drive institutional success.

    Complexity: Streamlining the Transition

    One of the primary concerns I hear from administrators is the perceived complexity of moving to an outsourced IT model. Such a move impacts people, processes, and technology – so if not managed thoughtfully, unintended consequences could occur.

    However, a well-structured transition plan significantly simplifies the process and minimizes risk to business operations during the transition. At Collegis, we employ a phased approach, starting with a thorough assessment of an institution’s current IT ecosystem, including resources, processes, financials, systems, infrastructure, projects, operations, etc. This assessment forms the foundation of a customized transition plan designed around the institution’s unique needs, outlining each step – from stabilization and standardization to technology optimization and, finally, transformation.

    A key element of our approach is the stabilization phase, where we address immediate pain points and ensure that systems are secure and able to support day-to-day operations with no disruptions. This initial phase creates the foundation from which to build on and, ultimately, a level of confidence that sets the stage for longer-term improvements.

    By breaking the transition into manageable phases and providing clear communication throughout the process, we alleviate much of the anxiety associated with change. Instead of a big “lift and shift,” the multi-year transition plan means current systems and processes continue to be supported. Administrators often express relief once they understand our structured approach and how it addresses their specific needs.

    For example, our managed IT services solution for Saint Francis University involved stabilizing the core technology and infrastructure, standardizing expectations through strong IT governance (including installing a virtual CIO), and optimizing business processes and infrastructure for increased efficiency. This identified $200,000 in budgetary waste that was able to be reallocated toward technology upgrades.

    Cost: ROI Beyond the Bottom Line

    Cost is, of course, a major factor in any IT outsourcing decision. Administrators are understandably concerned about the financial implications of outsourcing.

    Studies show that many higher education institutions spend more than 75% of their IT budgets on basic support and technology maintenance. This is partially due to the technology debt that accrues after years of neglect and a lack of the precise skill sets needed to address deficiencies and create more efficient and effective operations. Just think of the impact technology could make if schools could reduce this amount by 25%+ and reallocate these dollars to improving student experiences or driving institutional cost savings.

    Outsourcing can free up these valuable financial resources, enabling institutions to focus on projects that drive growth and enhance the student experience. Collegis partners typically experience:

    • Predictable budgeting: We offer all standard IT management services through a clear and transparent fixed fee mutually determined for the life of the partnership so institutions know exactly what they spend for IT management every year. There are no surprises.
    • Access to top IT talent: While Collegis goes out of its way to assess existing staff and rebadge those who have the needed skill sets and cultural fit, we also bring a team of more than 185 IT professionals to our partnerships, ensuring schools have access to the right skillsets at the right time.
    • Better contract negotiations: Schools benefit from Collegis’s expertise in IT contract negotiations and cross-institutional expertise during all technology contract negotiations. We have long-term relationships with third-party vendors and can negotiate from a position of strength because we support dozens of similar institutions.
    • Lower cybersecurity costs: We handle network, application, and data security, reducing a school’s need for additional resources or security solutions. Our partnerships have also helped many schools successfully stabilize or even reduce their cybersecurity insurance premiums.
    • Elimination of consulting fees: Our model also eliminates the need for expensive consultants to fill staffing gaps or deliver strategic projects.

    Most schools find that an IT managed services partnership with Collegis either saves them money or is cost-neutral. Our economies of scale enable us to provide expert services at a lower cost than most institutions could achieve in-house. Plus, we provide clear service level agreements (SLAs) to ensure accountability.

    Beyond cost savings, outsourcing can also improve ROI by ensuring technology investments deliver their intended value. By leveraging the expertise of a dedicated IT partner, institutions can optimize their systems and ensure they are getting the most out of their technology investments.

    Control: Maintaining Oversight and Ensuring Security

    Some administrators worry about losing control when they outsource IT. They’re concerned about relinquishing oversight of critical systems and data. However, a well-designed outsourcing agreement includes clear governance structures and communication channels, ensuring they retain control.

    One way we’ve addressed this concern is by establishing a steering committee for IT governance that includes representatives from the institution’s leadership and fosters collaboration and shared decision-making.

    Data security is paramount, and we understand the sensitivity of institutional data. We are a SOC 2-compliant organization that undergoes regular external audits to ensure the security and integrity of the data we manage.

    Our dedicated information security officers (CISOs) work closely with each institution to implement best practices and address any security concerns. We also proactively monitor systems for potential threats, leveraging our experience working with multiple institutions to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate.

    Getting More Out of IT investments

    Outsourcing IT management in higher education can be a game-changer for institutions looking to navigate the complexities of the evolving IT landscape. Working with a partner that focuses on open communication, a phased approach to transitioning, a stronger cybersecurity posture, and leveraging your technology’s true potential can eliminate concerns about complexity, cost, and control while enabling schools to achieve strategic goals.

    Finally, when considering IT outsourcing, institutions cannot underestimate the importance and value of cultural fit. Finding a partner who shares your values and can be trusted to run a critical function for your institution is just as important as any of the other considerations I’ve highlighted above.

    — Kim Fahey, CEO Collegis Education

    Source link