I had more important things to do.
The assignment was dumb and seemed pointless.
I don’t care about this class.
I had too much stuff to do and it was just easier to check something off the list.
I had to work.
I didn’t understand the assignment.
Everyone else is using it and they’re doing fine.
I was pretty sure [the LLM] would do a better job than me.
As with the prior column, this week’s thesis evolves out of the Zoom keynote to the Rethink AI Conference, sponsored in part by the International Academy of Science, Technology, Engineering and Management and hosted by the ICLED Business School in Lagos, Nigeria. Thanks again to the chair of the International Professors Project, Sriprya Sarathy, and the conference committee for making my presentation possible.
Virtually all aspects and positions at universities will be touched by the transformation. The changes will come more rapidly than many of us in higher education are accustomed to or with which we are comfortable. In large part, the speed will be demanded by employers of our learners and by competition among universities. Change will also strike directly at the nature of what and how we teach.
It is not that we have seen no change in teaching over the years. Notably, delivery systems, methods and modes of assessment, and related areas have been subject to significant changes. Anthony Piña, Illinois State University’s chief online learning officer, notes that online learners surpassed 50 percent in 2022 and continue to rise. However, deeper changes in the nature of what we teach have progressed as technology has influenced what employers are seeking.
Building knowledge has been the mantra in higher education for many centuries. The role of the university has been to build knowledge in learners to make them “knowledgeable.” Oxford Languages and Google define knowledge most concisely as “facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.”
The emphasis on facts and information has taken a somewhat changed role with the advent of technologies over recent decades. Notably, the World Wide Web with the advent of the first browser, Mosaic, in 1993 provided instant access to unprecedented volumes of information. While familiarity with key facts and information remains paramount, the recall and synthesis of facts and information via the web can be performed nearly as quickly and more thoroughly than the human brain in most instances. In a sense the internet has become our extended, rapid-access, personal memory. Annual global web traffic exceeded a zetabyte for the first time in 2015. A zetabyte is 1,000 exabytes, one billion terabytes or one trillion gigabytes. This year, it’s expected to hit 175 ZB.
More recently, we have seen a surge in professional certificates offered by higher education. As Modern Campus reports,
“Every professional needs upskilling in order to maintain a competitive edge in the workforce. Keeping ahead of the latest skills and knowledge has become more crucial than ever in order to align with evolving market demands. Although traditional degree programs have long been the standard solution, certificate programs have gained popularity due to their ability to offer targeted, accelerated skill development.”
However, agentic AI is just now emerging. It is different than the prompt to answer generative AI in that agentic AI can include many workforce skills in its array of tools. In fact, working and collaborating with agentic AI will require an advanced, integrated skill set, as described by the Global Skills Development Council:
“In the fast-paced, digitally driven world, agentic AI is at the forefront of demanding new human competencies. While intelligent agents retain a place in daily life and work, individuals should transition to acquire agentic AI skills to thrive in the new age. These skills include, but are not limited to, working with technology, thinking critically, applying ethical reasoning, and adaptive collaboration with agentic AI systems. Such agentic AI skills empower one to consciously engage in guiding and shaping AI behaviors and outcomes rather than passively receiving and adapting to them. If one has agentic AI skills, they can successfully lead businesses, education, and creative industries in applying agents for innovation and impact. As such, re-dedicating ourselves to lifelong learning and responsible use of AI may prove vital in retaining humanity at the core of intelligent decision-making and progress. Without such competencies, professionals risk being bypassed by technologies they cannot control or understand. A passive attitude creates dependency on AI outcomes without the skill to query or improve them. Adopting agentic AI competencies equips individuals with the power to drive innovation and ensure responsible AI integration in the workplace.”
The higher-level skills humans will need as described by the Global Skills Development Council are different from many of the career-specific skills that universities now provide in short-form certificates and certification programs. Rather, I suggest that these broad, deep skills are ones that we might best describe as wisdom skills. They are not vocational but instead are deeper skills related to overall maturity and sophistication in leadership, vision and insight. They include thinking critically, thinking creatively, applying ethical reasoning and collaborating adaptively with both humans and agentic AI.
Agentic AI can be trained for the front-line skills of many positions. However, the deeper, more advanced and more cerebral skills that integrate human contexts and leadership vision are often reflective of what we would describe as wisdom rather than mere working skills. These, I would suggest, are the nature of what we will be called upon to emphasize in our classes, certificates and degrees.
Some of these skills and practices are currently taught at universities, often through case studies at the graduate level. Integrating them into the breadth of the degree curriculum as well as certificates may be a challenge, but it is one we must accomplish in higher education. Part of the process of fully embracing and integrating AI into our society will be for we humans to upgrade our own skills to maintain our relevance and leadership in the workplace.
Has your university begun to tackle the topics related to how the institution can best provide relevant skills in a world where embodied, agentic AI is working shoulder to shoulder with your graduates and certificate holders? How might you initiate discussion of such topics to ensure that the university continues to lead in a forward-thinking way?
In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, higher ed institutions say maintaining a consistent flow of international faculty and staff members is critical.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images
A number of higher education institutions and the associations that represent them are asking to be exempted from the new $100,000 H-1B visa application fee, saying the prohibitive cost could be detrimental to the recruitment and retention of international faculty, researchers and staff members.
In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security last week, the American Council on Education argued that such individuals “contribute to groundbreaking research, provide medical services to underserved and vulnerable populations … and enable language study, all of which are vital to U.S. national interests.” Without them, ACE and 31 co-signers said, key jobs in high-demand sectors such as health care, information technology, education and finance will likely go unfilled.
The letter came just days after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services launched a new online payment website and provided an updated statement on policies surrounding the fee. UCIS clarified that the fee will apply to any new H-1B petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, and it must be paid before the petition is filed.
The update also referenced possible “exception[s] from the fee” but said those exceptions would only be granted in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance where the Secretary has determined that a particular alien worker’s presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the national interest.”
ACE said that H-1B visa recipients in higher education certainly meet those standards, citing data from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources that shows that over 70 percent of international employees at colleges and universities hold tenure-track or tenured positions. The top five disciplines they work in are business, engineering, health professions, computer science and physical
sciences.
“H-1B visa holders working for institutions of higher education are doing work that is crucial to the U.S. economy and national security,” the letter reads.
Despite the clarification provided by UCIS, ACE still had several remaining questions about the fee. These included whether the $100,000 would be refunded if a petition was denied and whether individuals seeking a “change of status” from an H-1B to an F-1 or J-1 would still be required to pay the fee.
At least two lawsuits have been filed against DHS concerning these visa fees. Neither has been issued a ruling so far.
UK universities are under mounting financial pressure. Join HEPI and King’s College London Policy Institute on 11 November 2025 at 1pm for a webinar on how universities balance relatively stable but underfunded income streams against higher-margin but volatile sources. Register now. We look forward to seeing you there.
This blog was kindly authored by Josh Patel (@joshpatel.bsky.social), Senior Researcher at the Edge Foundation.
The Prime Minister’s new target is for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning by age 25. This encompasses not only undergraduate degrees but also higher technical education and apprenticeships, all delivered under a single funding model for all Level 4-6 courses. Some have described this as England’s turn to tertiary, six years after the Augar Review called for a more ‘joined-up system’.
Since at least the 1990s, English post-secondary education has been characterised by market-based regulatory apparatus and fragmentation. Further education is associated with technical and vocational education, and training and entry to the labour market; higher education with professions, leadership, and research. Oversight of both is dispersed across multiple agencies and further disconnected from adult and lifelong learning. Critics have argued that, consequently, market logics have sustained wasteful competition and produced a homogenised system that privileges higher education over further education, to the detriment of equity and national skills needs.
If Augar exposed the limits of market-driven differentiation between further education and higher education, tertiary approaches in the devolved nations illustrate how greater collaboration and integrated oversight offer a potential corrective. Wales and Scotland have advanced considerably in a ‘tertiary’ direction and developed governance modes that exercise holistic stewardship over funding and quality regimes. They are justified on grounds of efficiency, concertedness, and the capacity to advance the common good. In Wales, Medr uses its statutory powers under the Well-being of Future Generations Act to guide institutions in meeting duties on equality, sustainability, and civic mission. In Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council leads the Outcome Agreement process, through which colleges and universities set out activities in return for funding. Even in England, partnerships at a regional level, such as those in the North East or through Institutes of Technology, aim to facilitate partnerships to align lifelong learning with local economic needs. In 2021, the last time a representative survey of the scale of collaboration took place, 80% of colleges and 50% of universities in the UK had formal programme links (and it is likely that collaboration has grown since then).
Despite this prevalence and enthusiasm, research on how the benefits arising from tertiary collaboration manifest at the level of institutions and students is limited. In a short exploratory study with the Edge Foundation, I examined one facet of tertiary systems in Scotland and England: the creation of formal student transition ‘pathways’ between colleges and universities. The aim was not a comprehensive survey, but to sample something of the nature of collaboration in existing systems, to gather evidence to think with and about the concept of tertiary and the place of collaboration and competition.
Existing collaborations are, perhaps surprisingly, not foremost concerned with any given common good. Instead, collaboration often emerges as an adaptive strategy within conditions of resource scarcity. Local ‘natural alliances’ in shared specialisms, mutual values, and commitments to widening participation were important in establishing trust necessary to sustain joint work. Yet, as the study found, institutional precarity is the principal driver.
One Scottish interviewee put it plainly:
‘If I’m sitting there and I’ve got 500 applications, like 10 applications for any place, I’ve got good, strong applications. I’m not going to be going, right, how am I going to look at different ways to bring in students?’
Well-resourced institutions do not collaborate out of necessity: those under pressure do. Partnerships often take the form of a ‘grow your own’ recruitment pipeline, guaranteeing transitions between partner institutions. Universities could ask ‘some tough questions’ of colleges if progression was lower than anticipated. In some cases, institutions agree to partition markets to avoid directly competing for the same students.
Collaboration could also be used as an instrument of competition. In Scotland, articulation agreements (under which universities recognise vocational qualifications such as HNDs and HNCs and admit students with advanced standing) are commonplace. Colleges in this research reported ‘some bad behaviour’ where partner universities would use these agreements to siphon off students from colleges to secure enrolment numbers. This was contrary to the wishes of colleges, which argued that many such students might benefit from the more intimate and supportive college environment for an additional year, better preparing them to enter the more independent learning environment of university.
Where collaboration was stable, tangible benefits followed for learners. Partnerships combine colleges’ attentive pedagogies and flexible resources with university accreditation and facilities. This enables smaller class sizes, greater pastoral attention, and sometimes improved retention and progression, particularly in educational cold spots. Colleges bring local specialisms and staff expertise, often linked to industry, which enrich university courses through co-design and joint delivery.
This lends cautious support to the claims of tertiary advocates: that collaboration can widen access and enhance provision. Yet formal, longitudinal evidence of graduate outcomes remains rare. The value of such partnerships, their distinctiveness, public benefit, and contribution to regional prosperity need to be more readily championed.
As an instrument, collaboration is worth understanding. The capacity to facilitate collaboration as a strategic good is an important policy lever where market mechanisms are unable to respond immediately or efficiently to the imperatives of national need and public finance. The study suggests four priorities for policymakers:
Collaboration has greater utility than an institutional survival tool. With the bringing together of funding for further education and higher education, there is an opportunity to create stability. Together with the clear articulation of long-term educational goals, strategic cooperation in pursuit of these ends could be sustained.
Where regional stewardship exists, through articulation hubs or in Scotland’s Outcome Agreements, collaboration is more systematic. England’s existing fragmented oversight and policy churn undermine this. Regional coherence enables institutions to collectively make strategic planning decisions.
Colleges’ localism, technical capacity, and pedagogical expertise are distinctive assets. Policy should promote these specialisms and encourage co-design and co-delivery rather than hierarchical franchising. Partnerships should foreground each institution’s unique contribution, not replicate the same provision in different guises.
The absence of mechanisms to track students’ journeys and long-term outcomes, including ‘distance travelled’ evaluations, makes claims about distinctiveness and public benefit harder to substantiate.
Policy discourse has tended to over-dichotomise competition and collaboration. The question is: to what extent each strategy is most helpful for achieving agreed social ends. Where partnership is an appropriate mechanism, it requires a policy architecture with clarity of purpose and stability. To what ends collaboration is put to must be settled through democratic means – a more complicated question altogether.
I’ve been doing some work with the University of London on the past, present, and future of university federations.
I’ve looked at well over 60 kinds of different kinds of university partnerships, alliances, and coalitions, and the idea of a university federation avoids an easy definition. Crudely, it is a group of universities working together to achieve a shared goal but lots of kinds of partnerships would fall in and out of that definition. The University of London is the obvious example – it has seventeen independent members and it defines its mission as expanding access to higher education. Globally, the vast majority of other kinds of federated models do not work like this.
The University of Oxford describes its 36 colleges as operating within a “federal system” which are “independent and self-governing.” It seems odd to suggest a federation within an institution can exist (albeit the legal forms here complicate things) but federations are about the distribution of resources as much as regulatory structures.
On this basis the University of the Arts London would also qualify as a kind of federation. The colleges maintain their own identity with their own expertise and reputation. Their work is framed about the idea of six colleges with one university. Similarly, the University of California has a single legal identity but with nine campuses. They are one institution with a single leadership but diverse enough to operate across different geographies, programmes, and sub-identities.
There is perhaps then a difference between working in a federal way and being federated. This definition would encompass coalitions of universities working toward a single goal with some shared resources like The N8 research partnership. It would also include the University of the Arctic which is an almost entirely federal institution where its direction, governance, and activities, are directed by the shared agreement of its members.
Governance forms and organisational function are often but not always linked. The University of London’s membership has a formal governance responsibility to direct its activity while the University of London maintains its own strong central purpose and activities. The University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) is potentially both more centralised and devolved than the University of London. Its degree awarding powers are centrally held by the university but delivery of programmes, in both FE and HE occurs over 70 learning centres. Additionally, the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013 identifies UHI as a regional strategic body with responsibilities for planning, delivery, monitoring, and efficiency savings in further education across its operating area.
At the slightly less federated end there is somewhere like the University Arts Singapore (UAS) which emerged as an alliance between LASALLE College of the Arts (LASALLE) and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA). UAS has a vice chancellor, each member has its own president (who are the deputy vice chancellors of UAS), and they lean into both their shared capacity and individual identity. As they state:
As an alliance, UAS has the unique advantage of leveraging the strengths of both our founding members, LASALLE and NAFA, while allowing each to remain distinct colleges. UAS will work in close collaboration with the two arts institutions to lead and provide strategic direction, and will validate, confer and award UAS degrees offered by both arts institutions.
There are lots of other examples including Paris Sciences et Lettres University which is a single institution with eleven constituent schools (some of which are several hundred years old.) To the Canadian model where the likes of the University of Toronto hold three religious independent institutions within their group where they share resources and maintain their own identities.
The strictest definition of federation involves a legal form – but there is much in-between. A federation may be a shared brand, an informal network, a federated project with individual or shared ownership, a national or regional mission with shared funds, shared infrastructure with formal governance relationships, a group of universities with a single degree awarder, a coalition of providers with a shared and funded purpose, or an entirely devolved body that only exists through dint of the activities of its members.
If a federation has lots of different forms it by extension has a lot of different purposes. Ideally, the form of the federation should follow the agreed purpose if it is to be successful. The strategic vision has to be big enough to make the difficult compromises that come with working together make sense. Cost-saving is unlikely to be big enough to motivate all the pieces within a federated ecosystem but improving international standing, delivering better teaching, and funding research more effectively, supported by the efficient allocation of resources, might be.
Across federations there is often legislation and regulation that enables the constituent organisations to work together. This was the case with UAS, UHI has a long history of partnerships, funding, and regulation, while there is underpinning legislation in France to encourage the geographic coordination of research assets. It is noticeable that while the OfS has welcomed the idea of closing working together by institutions there isn’t actually a legislative or regulatory underpinning to make that easier.
If a federation has a clear purpose and an accommodating regulatory environment it may have a reasonable chance of success. This still isn’t enough to wish one into being because of the operational complexity that can underpin such arrangements. Strategically, this includes whether it is more efficient, effective, or clear, to have a single governance, quality, and approval regime, whether resources are best shared or kept local, and whether staff should be separate or together. Again, much of this depends on federal form but sharing infrastructure between institutions even within federations is not that common. The sharing of resources should be the second order concern after the purpose of doing so but the practicalities can be complex, expensive, and absorb much organisational attention.
It is therefore difficult to define success but it is possible to improve the chances of federations being successful. Federations should begin with a clear purpose, then look at how the strategic sharing of assets can achieve that purpose, and then work to the practicalities of sharing those assets. A federation is about purpose, governance, finance, and brand, but it is also about creating an ecosystem where partners believe the shared negotiation of purpose, strategy, and execution, is more powerful than a single organisation doing this alone. A federation is about giving something up, whether that is some identities or some resources, in the shared belief the collective gain will outweigh any individual loss.
If federations are to become more of a feature of the higher education landscape the largest challenges may not be structural but cultural. Recent reforms of higher education in England were largely about greater competition between providers. A federation is to acknowledge that agglomeration benefits may be achieved through cooperation, consolidation, and the strategic deprioritisation of some work where others may have greater expertise.
The central plank of the government’s recent white paper is that the homogeneity of the sector is an impediment to the efficient allocation of resources. If it is serious about specialisation, particularly within specific geographies, it should open up more routes to federal structures and the strategic benefits they may bring.
James Coe is chairing a panel on federations at The Festival of Higher Education with the University of London. Tickets can be purchased here.
This post is one of many, related to my participation in Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop.
Sensemaking is an essential part of one’s personal knowledge mastery, so vital that it ought to be a regular practice for any human, particularly those who desire to be taken seriously and be able to add value in workplaces, communities, and societies. Sensemaking centers on a desire to solve problems and gets fueled by curiosity.
Jarche shares that there’s a whole spectrum of potential sensemaking approaches, everything from filtering information (making a list), or contributing to new information (writing a thesis). Sensemaking requires practice and vulnerability. We aren’t always going to get things right the first time we come to a conclusion.
In introducing the idea of “half-baked ideas,” Jarche writes:
If you don’t make sense of the world for yourself, then you’re stuck with someone else’s world view.
As I reflect on my own ability to come up with half-baked ideas, it all depends on how controversial whatever idea I might be having at the time is as to whether I’m inclined to share it in a social space. I find myself thinking about what hashtags or even words might attract people looking for an internet fight, or wanting to troll a stranger.
If a half-baked idea I might share is related to teaching and learning, I am less concerned about who may desire to publicly disagree with something, but it it is about politics, I just don’t see the value in “thinking aloud,” in relation to what internet riff raff may decide to come at me, metaphorically speaking. Part of that is that I’m not an expert, while another aspect of this resistance is that I would rather do this kind of sensemaking offline. This is at least in terms of me trying out ideas about various policies, political candidates, and issues of the day.
I just launched a sensemaking practice involving books about teaching and learning. Usually, I read upwards of 95% of the authors’ books that I interview for the Teaching in Higher Ed podcast. However, I would like to both find other ways to surface my own learning from all that reading, along with cultivating a set of skills to get better at video.
The series is called Between the Lines: Books that Shape Teaching and Learning and I anticipate eventually getting up to producing an average of one video per week. I won’t hold myself to quite as high of expectations as I do for the podcast, since for that, I’ve been going strong, airing a podcast every single week since June 2014 and I don’t want to have that kind of self-imposed pressure for this experimentation, skill-building, and sensemaking practice.
The first video is about how small shifts in our teaching make college more equitable and explores three key ideas from David Gooblar’s book, One Classroom at a Time: How Better Teaching Can Make College More Equitable. I hope you’ll consider watching it and giving me some encouragement to keep going or suggestions for how to make them more effective.
If we cast our minds back to 2005, the four UK higher education funding bodies ran the first ever compulsory survey of students’ views on the education they receive – the National Student Survey (NSS).
Back then the very idea of a survey was controversial, we were worried about the impact on the sector reputation, the potential for response bias, and that students would be fearful of responding negatively in case their university downgraded their degree.
These fears led us to make three important decisions all of which are now well past their sell-by date. These were:
At the time all of these were very sensible decisions designed to build confidence in what was a controversial survey. Twenty years on, it’s time to look at these with fresh eyes to assure ourselves they remain appropriate – and to these eyes they need to change.
One of these rules has already changed: responses are now published where 10 or more students respond. Personally, I think this represents a very low bar, determined as it is by privacy more than statistical reasoning, but I can live with it especially as research has shown that “no data” can be viewed negatively.
Of the other two, first let me turn to the response rate. Fifty per cent is a very high response rate for any survey, and the fact the NSS achieves a 70 per cent response rate is astonishing. While I don’t think we should be aiming to get fewer responses, drawing a hard line at 50 per cent creates a cliff edge in data that we don’t need.
There is nothing magical about 50 per cent – it’s simply a number that sounds convincing because it means that at least half your students contributed. A 50 per cent response rate does not ensure that the results are not subject to bias for example, if propensity to respond was in some way correlated with a positive experience the results would still be flawed.
I would note that the limited evidence that there is suggests that propensity to respond is not correlated with a positive experience, but it’s an under-researched area and one the Office for Students (OfS) should publish some work on.
This cliff edge is even more problematic when the data is used in regulation, as the OfS proposes to do a part of the new TEF. Under OfS proposals providers that don’t have NSS data either due to small cohorts or a “low” response rate would have NSS evidence replaced with focus groups or other types of student interaction. This makes sense when the reason is an absolute low number of responses but not when it’s due to not hitting an exceptionally high response rate as Oxford and Cambridge failed to do for many years.
While focus groups can offer valuable insights, and usefully sit alongside large-scale survey work, it is utterly absurd to ignore evidence from a survey because an arbitrary and very high threshold is not met. Most universities will have several thousand final year students, so even if only 30 per cent of them respond you will have responses from hundreds if not thousands of individuals – which must provide a much stronger evidence base than some focus groups. Furthermore, that evidence base will be consistent with every other university creating one less headache for assessors in comparing diverse evidence.
The 50 per cent response rate threshold also looks irrational when set against a 30 per cent threshold for the Graduate Outcomes survey. While any response rate threshold is arbitrary to apply, applying two different thresholds needs rather more justification than the fact that the surveys are able to achieve different response rates. Indeed, I might argue that the risk of response bias might be higher with GO for a variety of reasons.
In the absence of evidence in support of any different threshold I would align the NSS and GO publication thresholds at 30 per cent and make the response rates more prominent. I would also share NSS and GO data with TEF panels irrespective of the response rate, and allow them to rely on their expert judgement supported by the excellent analytical team at the OfS. And the TEF panel may then choose to seek additional evidence if they consider it necessary.
In terms of sharing data with providers, 2025 is really very different to 2005. Social media has arguably exploded and is now contracting, but in any case attitudes to sharing have changed and it is unlikely the concerns that existed in 2005 will be the same as the concerns of the current crop of students.
For those who don’t follow the detail, NSS data is provided back to Universities via a bespoke portal that provides a number of pre-defined cuts of the data and comments, together with an ability to create your own cross-tabs. This data, while very rich, do not have the analytical power of individualised data and suffer from still being subject to suppression for small numbers.
What this means is that if we want to understand the areas we want to improve we’re forced to deduce it from a partial picture rather than being laser focussed on exactly where the issues are, and this applies to both the Likert scale questions and the free text.
It also means that providers cannot form a longitudinal view of the student experience by linking to other data and survey responses they hold at an individual level – something that could generate a much richer understanding of how to improve the student experience.
Submissions to the NSW government’s inquiry into university governance have flagged issues with a lack of transparency throughout restructures at the state’s institutions.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Universities need workers with comprehensive analytical and strategic skills, but funding cuts and progression barriers have caused retention issues, leading to early-career researchers leaving universities in droves.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
