Category: Blog

  • The Timpson university – HEPI

    The Timpson university – HEPI

    • By Richard Brabner, Executive chair of the UPP Foundation and Director of ESG at UPP.
    • Richard is a guest on today’s My Imaginary University podcast with Paul Greatrix, in which he cites James Timpson as one of the inspirations behind his imaginary university. To coincide with the podcast, Richard has penned a review of James Timpson’s book, The Happy Index: Lessons in Upside-Down Management.

    You’re not supposed to have heroes at 40, or at least not admit to as much in the august pages of the HEPI blog. But here’s my confession. I have two and they are both called James.

    The first – James (Jimmy) Anderson, England’s greatest living sportsperson – isn’t relevant for the blog (although surely he deserves recognition from our great universities in the North West?). Instead this blog is about the other James – James Timpson – until recently CEO of Timpson Group and now Lord Timpson, Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending.

    James Timpson is best known for the recruitment of former prisoners, with ex-offenders comprising around 10% of his company’s workforce at any one time. As his journey of employing ex-offenders developed, it led him to become a national figure – championing not just jobs for ex-offenders but prison reform. In 2016, he became the chairman of the Prison Reform Trust, founded the Employment Advisory Board network across the prison estate and, after the general election, became one of the Government’s most eye-catching appointments as the Minister of State responsible for all of this.

    It is his approach as a CEO, though, which offers an interesting perspective for higher education leaders. Not only is the business known for its recruitment policies but for many other progressive measures. He wouldn’t describe it as such, but James Timpson is a business leader known for putting social purpose into action.

    He would steer clear from using the term social value, or the increasingly common ‘purpose-led business’, because he finds corporate jargon maddening. This is one of the many lessons he shares in his book, which offers advice to leaders and would-be leaders on how to create a thriving organisation ‘that puts people first.’ The book – published before he became a Minister – is structured in eight chapters (or, as he calls them, lessons) with various interesting observations included in each. For this blog, however, I have pulled out three key themes which permeate through the book and are highly relevant to our sector.

    1. Happy colleagues = happy students

    University-employee relations are often fraught with tensions and have been riddled with industrial action in recent years – so could a key-cutting business offer a better way forward?  

    We’ve seen the transformative power of treating colleagues with kindness and respect, which then extends to how teams interact with customers. It’s a virtuous circle that can make our shops, and indeed all places of customer service, better for everyone involved.

    The quote above might come across a stating the bleeding obvious or even a little saccharine without the rest of the chapter it is written in, but it is important to put cynicism aside here, because throughout the book – and I would argue its number one focus – is to foster the right colleague experience.

    The idea of focussing on the colleague experience in an era of redundancies and ‘cost transformation’ may be too culturally difficult or simply inauthentic for our sector. But I would argue that the present circumstances make it even more important. At the heart of Timpson’s approach is a very human and empathetic one which respects colleagues’ individual circumstances rather than one which relies on policies and processes.

    Timpson has a Director of Happiness (again, please hold off on your cynicism) whose job revolves around providing support to colleagues confronting crises or challenges in their professional or personal lives. This person helps organise funerals, helps colleagues find somewhere to live and can even unlock financial support when necessary. Whether it is physical fitness, financial wellbeing or mental health, Timpson also offers a comprehensive package of welfare support for employees. Shouldn’t we do this too?

    Strong workplace benefits add to the positive colleague experience. This is not unusual for universities; academics and professional services tend to have great annual leave entitlements and exceptional pensions (compared to the private sector), but again, what comes through from reading The Happy Index is the human and empathetic element to their approach. They offer extra days off for milestones – a grandchild’s birthday or a school concert. They provide chauffeur-driven cars for an employee’s wedding, and they own 19 holiday homes dotted across the UK for Timpson’s colleagues to use for free.

    Much of this approach isn’t new or revolutionary, there are clear similarities with the 19th century quaker businesses, or Percival Perry’s policy of ‘high wages, reduced hours, and extensive corporate welfare’[1] for running Ford’s first factories in the UK. Yet, in an era of private equity financialisation, it is all too rare in the modern age. When Governments talk about universities learning from the private sector it is the likes of Timpson they should be referring to.

    2. Focus and simplicity

    Timpson’s human approach to the colleague experience is aided by simplicity – a value which cuts across the eight lessons in the book. When he writes about data, he says that leaders can become overly reliant on it and lose sight of what really matters. There are only four pieces of data James Timpson really cares about. Daily sales figures, customer service scores, cash flow – and what he describes as The Happy Index. This is a survey they regularly run and track with all colleagues, which asks one simple question: ‘On a scale of 1-10, how happy are you with the support you get from your team?’.

    If Timpson is right in his view that ‘the way colleagues feel reflects the way our customers will feel’, wouldn’t it be fascinating to see if this correlates to higher education? Perhaps universities could post this question each Friday via an app (not dissimilar to innovations like Teacher Tapp) to track colleague satisfaction and then correlate it with student experience data.

    Another relevant piece of advice is to avoid ‘entrepreneuritis’. Timpson says this is an area he struggles with as it is common for entrepreneurs to think they can venture into any business and make it thrive. Yet the pitfalls are as large as the opportunities. This reminded me of much of the evidence for the UPP Foundation Civic University Commission, where we found a huge amount of positive activity, but rarely was it strategic and connected to the needs of the city or region.

    The civic arena won’t be the only part of the university where our sector has to grapple with entrepreneuritis, but fortunately, Timpson offers some common-sense advice for how to test whether diversification is worth the investment, time and effort, based on three questions:

    Will it benefit the company, will the company fit into our culture, and is it going to be more work than it’s worth?

    All of these can be adapted for higher education.

    3. Giving back to get more

    The third theme brings us back to what Timpson is best known for. A ‘Timpson University’ would really lean into progressive recruitment for both academics and professional services colleagues, as well as adopt some of the most creative and impactful social value programmes in the private and public sectors. This shouldn’t be regarded as an act of charity. This is very much enlightened self-interest – James Timpson says that ‘returning citizens are often the most dedicated, honest and hardworking colleagues we can find’. A recruitment policy for colleagues which looks at supporting the most disadvantaged – ex-offenders, people who have suffered homelessness or who are care-experienced; alongside local recruitment (as some universities already do), which targets the poorest neighbourhoods in the region, could be transformational. The additional opportunity for a university, unlike a shoe repair shop, is the symbiotic relationship this approach could have with its widening participation strategy.

    Many universities have programmes to support disadvantaged people into employment, but I’m not sure any are as sophisticated or impressive as Timpson’s. There are clearly challenges, but the book is at its best when it details the journey the business has been through and some of the ways to successfully manage ex-offenders – unsurprisingly, the human approach and a culture which embraces kindness and the support and guidance of colleagues is critical.

    James Timpson’s book is a fascinating insight into running a successful business the right way. It really does show the art of the possible in terms of doing good while making a profit. But there are three weaknesses in a largely excellent read. Pulled together from a collection of Sunday Times articles, at times it can suffer from a lack of coherence. It is quite amusing, for example, to read about the importance of returning to the office on page 160 while finding out about the long-term potential of remote work on page 166. There’s also a little too much positive spin throughout the book. In the section about entrepreneuritis and diversifying income streams all of his examples ended up being successful. It would have been an even better read if he offered examples of real failure. I would have also liked to read more about his views on how the nature of business ownership impacts social value, something which should be explored in greater depth.  

    These are minor criticisms, however. The book offers excellent advice for leaders in any sector – even our universities – on the way to run a successful organisation in the 21st Century.

    [1] Kit Kowol: Blue Jerusalem: British Conservatism, Winston Churchill, and the Second World War

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Matt Goodwin’s ‘Bad Education’ isn’t good scholarship, but does that matter?

    WEEKEND READING: Matt Goodwin’s ‘Bad Education’ isn’t good scholarship, but does that matter?

    • Steven Jones is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Manchester and his latest book is Universities Under Fire (2022). This review of Bad Education by Matt Goodwin has been written in a personal capacity.
    • HEPI’s other review of the Matt Goodwin’s book can be accessed here.

    In Bad Education, Matt Goodwin makes the argument that Western universities have moved ‘sharply and radically to the left’ (p.51) over the last six decades, to the extent that diversity is now deemed more important than merit. According to Goodwin, a woke orthodoxy has gripped the sector: free speech is stifled; non-authorised viewpoints are unwanted; and social justice trumps the pursuit of truth. Some minorities flourish within this culture, but other ‘political’ minorities – like the one to which Goodwin claims membership – are structurally disadvantaged. 

    To stand this argument up, Goodwin needs the reader to accept two fundamental premises. The first is that the author’s sense of victimhood is real, while others are imaginary or exaggerated. Goodwin achieves this by attributing his every professional setback – from having journal articles and funding bids declined to being overlooked for invited talks (p.47) – to his whiteness, his maleness, or his political positions, such as his refusal to participate in ‘cult-like worship of the EU on campus’ (p.44). No other explanation is countenanced. 

    The second premise is that the real power in universities is cultural, not economic, and therefore held by diversity champions and other woke activists. The evidence Goodwin offers here is underwhelming. Where academic scholarship is cited, the sources are mostly US-based, and the author shows no curiosity about the think-tanks and lobby groups that funded the surveys in which he places his faith. Critical higher educational research is studiously avoided, though Goodwin does turn to Elon Musk for a quote about the ‘woke mind virus’ (p.104). In places, Bad Education reads as a checklist of debunked myths and personal memoirs (‘as I’ve seen first-hand’ is a familiar clause). Yet in the final chapter, Goodwin addresses the reader directly to assert: ‘I’ve bombarded you at times with statistics and research because I wanted you to read it for yourself and make up your own mind’ (p.198). 

    I tried hard to make up my own mind, but it’s difficult to be persuaded by Goodwin’s case against universities when the bulk of empirical data point in an opposite direction. If recruitment practices are so diversity conscious, why were there only 25 Black British female professors in the UK as recently as 2019? If ‘reverse racism’ is such a problem, why did the awarding gap between White and Black students achieving high degrees stand at 18.4% in 2021? In my experience, and according to my research, minority groups are far from over-represented in senior levels of university management and governance, and board cultures tend to be driven by corporate principles, not woke ideologies. As for no-platforming, fewer than 0.8 per cent of university events or speaker invitations were cancelled in 2021-22. In other words, the truths that Goodwin is so boldly willing to speak may be his truths, but they are not universal.

    Among the fellow marginalised white men willing to support Goodwin is the University of Buckingham’s Eric Kaufmann, who is quoted extensively, and whose back-cover endorsement describes Bad Education as ‘deeply personal and impeccably researched.’ It’s certainly deeply personal. Take Goodwin’s indignation towards a lecturer who unfriended some Conservative voters on Facebook after the 2015 UK general election (p.89). The reader is not told what this incident is supposed to signify, let alone why Goodwin’s cherished free speech principles appear not to extend to academics’ private social media accounts.

    That’s not to say that the sector is always operating to the highest ethical standards. Goodwin is on firmest ground when highlighting human rights violations in China (p.90), and calling out universities for turning a blind eye. But rather than take this argument to its logical conclusion – by critiquing a fee model that leaves sectors reliant on income from overseas students – Goodwin pivots back into anger and anecdote, rebuking universities for being defensive about their historic links with the slave trade (p.91) and sharing stories about junior colleagues too scared to disclose their pro-Brexit leanings (p.94).

    Despite Goodwin’s stated aim to ‘push back against authoritarianism’ (p.208), there are echoes of Donald Trump’s playbook throughout Bad Education. The author’s anti-diversity bombast recalls the President’s recent claim that a fatal air crash near Washington DC was connected to DEI programmes in federal government. It’s not entirely clear to which level of institutional bureaucracy Goodwin is referring when he imagines a ‘hyper-political and highly activist managerial blob’ (p.157), but the language is redolent of that being deployed in the US to justify a purge of federal bureaucrats. According to Goodwin, this ‘managerial blob’ is defined by an insistence on rainbow lanyards and flags on campus, among other things. This is not a characterisation of senior leaders that most university staff would recognise. Could it be that the author is so distracted by empty performative gestures that he fails to see where power is really located?

    Goodwin has now left academia, a story he tells in most chapters, steadily elevating it to the level of Shakespearean tragedy: ‘my professorship – everything I had ever wanted, everything I had worked for – was over’ (p.195). At a time when 10,000 jobs are on the line at UK universities, such self-indulgence is unfortunate. Goodwin’s contrast between the ‘luxury beliefs’ of academics and the ‘real world’ he claims to inhabit (p.78) encapsulates what makes Bad Education read like a ‘prolonged gripe,’ as another reviewer put it. Paradoxically, Goodwin now enjoys a range of high-profile platforms from which to air his grievances about being no-platformed, regularly appearing on television to blame wokeism for various social ills. Why is it that only ‘cancelled’ academics seem to have media agents?

    Bad Education builds towards what Goodwin calls a ‘manifesto’ for universities (pp.217-19) that want to have ‘good, not bad, education’ (p.217). It’s a simplistic way to wrap up any book, comprising a bullet-pointed list of the same few complaints expressed in slightly different terms. Those of us in higher education will quickly recognise Bad Education’s distortions: universities haven’t lurched radically left and there’s no woke coup. But does that matter? Are we the target readership? Or is the book speaking to external audiences? What if a review like this merely confirms what Goodwin and his fellow academic outcasts have been saying all along?

    Since accepting the terms of the market, English universities have struggled to articulate their role in society. Academic expertise has been devalued and the status of higher education as a public good compromised, with universities increasingly embroiled in unwinnable culture wars. These are perfect conditions for someone like Goodwin to ‘blow up’ his own career (p.4), break the ‘secret code of silence’ (p.3) and position himself as the fearless ‘rogue professor’ (p.16). In such ways, important debates become framed by individuals with the shallowest insights but the deepest grudges. Bad Education does a passable job of confirming suspicions about what really goes on inside a secretive and often aloof sector, guiding its readers further down an anti-university, anti-expert rabbit hole. If we continue to leave vacuums in the discourse, then diversity-blaming narratives like Goodwin’s will continue to fill them.

    Source link

  • How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    • By Professor Katy Mason, PVC Dean at the University of Salford’s Business School.

    We’re at a crucial moment in our fight to address climate change, with limited time to end the irreversible damage to our planet. However, higher education institutions (HEIs) could play a more pivotal role on the road to net zero.

    Climate-related challenges are considerable and require both technological innovation and the reorganisation of our society and economy. Universities are in a strong position to drive these transitions, but because of the required pace of change, they need to do so in collaboration with government. For example, universities are well positioned to mobilise the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) and technical expertise required to evolve the way energy is generated, stored and distributed, as well as the SHAPE and social practice expertise to support the social transitions required to transform energy production and consumption. This broad range of expertise, uniquely perhaps, sits under one organisational umbrella: the HEI.

    Reducing carbon footprint with research

    HEIs have been working, increasingly over recent years, to structure and support multi, inter and transdisciplinary research, in ways that will ultimately support the reduction of our carbon footprint to deliver net zero.

    The formation of UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) has supported many of these initiatives. In April 2018, UKRI brought together the UK’s seven research councils, Innovate UK, and Research England, into a single organisation to support the distribution of government funding for impactful, interdisciplinary research.

    Accelerating a green growth economy through collaboration

    Climate change mitigation and building the UK’s resilience to climate change impacts has been a central tenant of UKRI’s attention, with funding calls driving collaboration between academics, industry and government. But interdisciplinary research, on its own, is not enough. HEIs and government will have to find new ways of collaborating if we are to accelerate a green growth economy.

    There are examples of successful collaboration. The Government’s Open Innovation Team is a platform that supports academic-policy collaboration, curating academic expertise to support and inform policy initiatives. Similarly, the United Nations PRME (Principles of Responsible Management Education) platform supports and accelerates the sustainability of current and future business leaders in Business and Management education. However, at present, its take-up is piecemeal and patchy.  Much more collaboration is needed if we are to make a difference to climate change. 

    Recognition of the advantages afforded by collaboration is long-standing. As far back as 2000, Vangen and Huxman were developing a theory of collaborative advantage, arguing that goals, trust, culture and leadership had to be aligned enough – despite differences and tensions – if advantages were to be gained.[i] In this regard, collaboration is often inconsistent, with inherent contradictions and mutually exclusive elements caused by inevitable differences between partners. While it is these differences that often generate advantage, they require time and investment in understanding. This is perhaps why we have not invested sufficiently in making such partnerships work.

    Breaking down barriers to collaboration

    The contrasting cultures of academics and policymakers may certainty make collaboration difficult: the epistemologies-in-use (how knowledge, evidence and rigour are framed) are different; the production and use of knowledge objectives is different; and the rules of identity and belonging to the home-culture are different.

    However, as Beech et al. argue, we can take advantage of these significant cultural differences if HEIs develop a new kind of platform that acts as a learning zone in which key cultural rules of academics and policymakers are suspended (not ‘solved’).[ii] This will enable different groups to contribute and extract learning insights as if they were collaborating with shared understanding, when this may only partially be the case.

    In pursuit of creating a new kind of learning platform, HEIs, particularly those leading knowledge exchange and engagement initiatives, might usefully adopt this set of design principles:

    • Valuing difference and not seeking to resolve it;
    • Having the purpose of supporting others’ endeavors in their home-culture by providing knowledge resources;
    • Be willing to aggregate and disaggregate ideas and evidence in novel ways; and
    • Be willing to suspend judgement of the other and the self to encourage people to step outside their normal modes of interaction

    These design principles will likely help knowledge exchange leads catalyse innovation and accelerate the adoption of cutting-edge practice by bringing local, regional and national policymakers together with academics to advance solutions to overcome climate change obstacles.

    ‘Making Britain a clean energy superpower’

    Academics and policymakers are explicit in their ambition to tackle climate change. The UK Government states one of its key missions as ‘making Britain a clean energy superpower’ by ‘creating jobs, cutting bills and boosting energy security with zero-carbon electricity by 2030.’

    Driven by government monies directed towards UKRI for this purpose and by researchers’ concerns, passions, and expertise, some universities have built up significant industrial and third-sector networks to support the development and transformation of our greening economy.

    For example, researchers at Lancaster, Swansea, Imperial, and Salford have been studying the farming sector and its potential transformation through agrivoltaics. Agrivoltaics co-locate high-quality food and green energy production on the same land while simultaneously aiming to secure biodiversity net gain. This is a complex and ambitious agenda that will contribute to more than the ‘clean energy’ challenge.

    Agrivoltaics requires expertise in physics to understand solar panel efficiency, reliability and maintenance, while plant science knowledge is essential to understand food nutrition and biodiversity complexities. In addition, social science expertise is required to understand the design and transformation of the farming sector, the development of a circular economy for solar panels, and how the proliferation of markets might reconnect across the entire food and energy production and consumption systems to ensure sustainability.

    To uncover ‘what works’ will ultimately require us to collaborate with those seeking to use agrivoltaics and all those involved in solar panel production and management upstream and downstream of the supply network.

    My involvement in this project has been exciting, frustrating and demanding. I suspect that we could have significantly accelerated our impact if we had not lacked access to a platform that systematically supported policy-academic engagement. In line with our research that shows the desire and difficulty for policymakers to engage with researchers, it seems there is much more we can do, as HEIs to support this.

    [i] Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.

    [ii] Beech, N., Mason, K. J., MacIntosh, R., & Beech, D. (2022). Learning from each other: Why and how business schools need to create a “paradox box” for academic–policy impact. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3), 487-502

    Source link

  • Realising the collaborative advantage of the Healthcare Education Consortium

    Realising the collaborative advantage of the Healthcare Education Consortium

    • By Darryll Bravenboer, Director of Apprenticeships and Professor of Higher Education and Skills, Middlesex University.

    We have all seen the media coverage with packed A&E departments, patients waiting for hours and being treated in corridors. Last week was the busiest for the NHS in England so far this year, with more patients in hospitals than at any other point this winter, and yet without action the situation will get worse.

    The NHS currently employs around 1.5 million people, making it the biggest employer in Europe. However, the NHS clinical workforce is not enough to keep pace with demand. The population of England is projected to grow to 61.7 million by mid-2043, and we are living longer which often means more complex illnesses.

    There are currently over 112,000 NHS vacancies, the population of England is projected to be 61.7 million by mid-2043, and when combined with demographic changes, a shortfall of between 260,000 and 360,000 health service staff by 2036/37 is predicted by 2036/37.

    The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan (2023) has set ambitious clinical workforce commitments with the aim to significantly increase the number of health staff, including doctors, nurses and midwives by 2032.

    To achieve this, employers and universities delivering degree apprenticeships need to work together and develop innovative programmes that benefit students, the public sector and ultimately the public.

    The University Alliance (UA) represents leading professional and technical universities, educating around 30% of all nursing apprentices in England, plus a substantial number of allied health professionals and healthcare degree apprentices.

    Several UA members* have formed the Health Education Consortium to coordinate and expand healthcare degree apprenticeships to meet the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan goals.

    By collaborating, we aim to increase the number of apprentice starts, reduce duplication and pool resources, creating a joined-up programme for local, regional and national apprenticeship provision. The Health Education Consortium will work with NHS England to scale operations in partnership with NHS Trusts and Integrated Care Boards, co-designing programmes to meet their needs.

    The key benefit for healthcare employers of a higher education collaborative approach is that by working together, we can increase training places while minimising costs.

    • A comprehensive degree apprenticeship offer – working on their own individual universities are unlikely to have the resources to meet national employer needs. By joining forces, we can pool our funds and expertise and offer a broader range of healthcare degree apprenticeships to meet NHS requirements.
    • Driving innovation: a commitment to share innovative practice is at the heart of the Health Education Consortium and ensures that we work as an innovation engine creating solutions to the growth barriers employers identify.
    • Scalability and growth: working together means it is possible to scale up provision to meet the increasing demand outlined in the NHS Long-Term Workforce Plan.
    • Towards a one-stop-shop for healthcare education: providing a ‘one-stop-shop’ for NHS, employers save time and money as they do not need to communicate and work with a range of universities.

    The benefits outlined above make the case for a more collaborative approach to delivering higher education, which, at the same time, better meets the needs of NHS employers. This aligns with the government’s ambition for greater collaboration to drive efficiency and contribute towards economic growth.

    At a time of financial challenge for the higher education sector, the significant growth of degree apprenticeships within the NHS, made possible through effective university collaboration, could address government expectations while contributing to the financial sustainability of providers in the sector.

    *Middlesex University, Birmingham City University, Oxford Brookes University, University of Hertfordshire, Kingston University and University of Greenwich.

    Source link

  • From Potholes to Progress: How Higher Education is Driving Solutions to the UK’s Pressing Challenges

    From Potholes to Progress: How Higher Education is Driving Solutions to the UK’s Pressing Challenges

    It’s National Apprenticeship Week. Today on the HEPI blog, you can read about how University Alliance members are using healthcare degree apprenticeships to address workforce shortages: click here to read.

    Or carry on reading to hear from Viggo Stacey at QS about how the researchers at Swansea University are solving contemporary problems like potholes with cutting-edge research.

    • By Viggo Stacey, International Education & Policy Writer at QS Quacquarelli Symonds.

    Drivers in England and Wales encounter an average of six potholes per mile, and damage sustained from them cost drivers an average of £460 in 2024. One estimate put the cost of potholes to the UK economy at £14bn last year.

    Research published last week by Swansea University provides a real solution to this critical problem. Adding plant spores to bitumen will create a self-healing road surface that can extend its lifespan by 30%.

    This speaks directly to the Secretary of State for Education’s five key priorities for reform of the higher education system – that universities should play a great civic role in their communities.

    Local communities and businesses need to benefit fully from the work of higher education institutions, Bridget Phillipson wrote to the sector in November last year and as Debbie McVitty recently covered over at Wonkhe. This research will help individual drivers, councils across the country and UK industry.

    But another thing that is so exciting about this discovery is where it came from. Swansea University, on the south coast of Wales and an institution whose Vice Chancellor in the last week has said higher education in Wales is facing ‘the toughest [financial] position that we’ve been in’, is showing what its academics are capable of, given the right resources.

    And that leads to the second place where this research originated.

    One of those involved is Dr Jose Norambuena-Contreras, a Senior Lecturer in Swansea’s Department of Civil Engineering, originally from Chile, while Dr Francisco Martin-Martinez is a Lecturer at King’s College London’s Chemistry Department who hails from Spain.

    It is also notable that this news came out on the day that Keir Starmer became the first UK prime minister to join a gathering with EU leaders since Brexit.

    While rejoining the EU’s single market is firmly off the cards, a deal on youth mobility is an obvious open goal. Some 57% of voters recently backed a scheme for the under 30s, in addition to polling last year finding 58% thinking a scheme is a good idea.

    The UK Science and Tech Secretary, Peter Kyle, rightly met with EU counterparts in January to push to turbo-charge UK-EU science and technology links in a bid to tackle shared global challenges.

    Potholes in the UK might just be a small part of the UK’s challenge. But as Norambuena-Contreras puts it, it’s a ‘very sexy topic’ that British people like to talk about. If researchers can continue to identify problem areas that resonate with local communities and industry, they’ll be on to a winner.

    International talent is, and will continue to be, key to solving crises across the UK. If only researchers at the country’s top business schools were empowered to find solutions to filling higher education’s financial gaps in the same way as others can for potholes.

    Jessica Turner, CEO at QS Quacquarelli Symonds, commented:

    The UK’s universities are not just centres of learning—they are engines of economic transformation and real-world problem-solving.

    Research from the University of Bristol released this week – showing that it contributed £1.13 billion to the West of England economy in 2022/23 – is just one example of that.

    Swansea University’s ground-fixing research is a perfect example of how higher education drives innovation with tangible benefits for communities, industries, and the economy,” Turner added.

    As the QS World Future Skills Index highlights, the UK is a global leader in academic readiness and future workforce skills. To sustain this momentum, continued investment in universities is essential—not just to address today’s challenges but to shape the solutions of tomorrow.

    Source link

  • The Power of Student Portals

    The Power of Student Portals

    Reading Time: 10 minutes

    Think about the last time you ordered something online or streamed your favourite show. Remember how pretty seamless it was? That’s exactly what today’s students expect from their college application experience. Gen Z and Gen Alpha students have grown up in a digital world, with all its associated benefits. You have to acknowledge that they’re looking for the same smooth, user-friendly experience when they apply to schools, and this is no easy task.

    For colleges and universities, meeting these expectations isn’t just about staying current–it’s about staying relevant. This is why having a well-designed student portal is more important than ever. It is the key to a seamless admissions process–the map that charts a direct, straightforward course from the students’ first click to their first day on campus.

    Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?

    Try the HEM Student Portal!

    Why a Student Portal is Essential

    Remember the days of printing out application forms, filling them in by hand, and mailing them back? Those days are long gone, replaced by a more efficient and convenient solution. Today’s students want everything at their fingertips, and they want it to work as smoothly as their favourite apps. A recent study found that 70% of students expect their university’s online experience to match platforms like Amazon, Netflix, and Facebook. 

    That’s a high bar to meet, but it is the type of bar that a well-designed portal can scale. So what is the purpose of a student portal? A student portal is an online resource that guides students and helps them access helpful resources throughout the journey from exploring to application, enrollment, and beyond.

    As education becomes increasingly global, schools are seeing applications from all corners of the world. International students need a system that works across time zones and cultures, making the application process clear and accessible no matter where they’re from. A good student portal can meet these students at the point of their needs and help them achieve all their short and long-term goals. 

    Example: The University of London’s student portal offers a comprehensive and user-friendly interface, providing students with easy access to academic resources, course materials, and administrative services.

    HEM Image 2HEM Image 2

    Source: University of London

    Let’s talk about some challenges schools face without a proper portal:

    Picture an admissions office drowning in paperwork, trying to match documents to applications, and manually entering data into multiple systems. Now imagine students waiting anxiously for updates, wondering if their materials were received, or trying to figure out what steps come next. The challenges are well outlined below to put things in perspective:

    • Complex Workflows: Traditional admissions often involve multiple steps that frustrate students and staff.
    • Manual Processes: Outdated methods are time-consuming and error-prone.
    • Global Competition: Institutions must attract students from diverse locations and meet high digital expectations.

    These are the kinds of headaches a good student portal eliminates. A well-designed portal tackles these issues head-on by:

    • Streamlining Workflows: Students can complete applications online, upload documents, and track their progress in real-time.
    • Enabling Mobile Optimization: A mobile-friendly design ensures accessibility anytime, anywhere.
    • Offering Personalization: Tailored communications and automated updates keep students informed and engaged.
    • Improving Efficiency: Administrators can centralize data, track applications, and reduce manual tasks.

    These solutions will help make student applications as easy as online shopping. Students can track their progress in real time and receive automatic updates and reminders. You’re giving admissions staff the tools they need to work efficiently and students, more control over how things pan out. All you need is an efficient student login system and you’ll have everything within a click.

    This brings us to the question–what is the student login system? A student login system allows students to access everything from application progress to status, academic records, courses, schedules, and campus services through their institution’s online portal, using a username and password.

    Example: The Higher Education Marketing (HEM) Student Portal is a comprehensive digital platform designed to streamline student engagement, lead nurturing, and admissions processes for educational institutions. It offers a user-friendly interface where prospective and enrolled students can access personalized information, track application statuses, and access financial aid.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: HEM

    Features That Transform the Admissions Process

    1. Simplified Application Workflow

    Gone are the days of juggling multiple systems and endless email chains. Modern student portals make applying to academic institutions as straightforward as creating a social media profile. Students can choose their program, pick their campus, and select their start date all in one place. Need to upload transcripts or recommendation letters? Just drag and drop them into the system.

    For admissions staff, this means no more shuffling between databases or wondering where a particular document ended up. Everything lives in one place, making it easy to review applications and make decisions quickly. The system even connects with other school software, thanks to the portal integrating with a CRM or SIS, so information flows smoothly and in real-time from one department to another.

    2. Automation for Efficiency

    Here’s where things get interesting. Imagine having a virtual assistant that never sleeps, sending out reminders, updating application statuses, and answering common questions automatically. That’s what automation brings to the table.

    For example, when a student submits their application, the system can automatically:

    • Send a confirmation email
    • Check for missing documents
    • Schedule follow-up reminders
    • Update the student’s status in real-time
    • Notify relevant staff members

    This is not just about saving time—though it certainly does. It is about ensuring a consistent and reliable experience for every applicant while allowing staff the resources to focus on more meaningful interactions with students.

    3. Personalized Student Journeys

    Modern portals offer innovative tools that make the application process feel more like a personal journey than a bureaucratic maze.

    The Virtual Admissions Assistant (VAA), for example, can serve as a knowledgeable and accessible resource for prospective students. It enables them to independently explore campus options, browse programs, and receive immediate responses to their inquiries at any time. The VAA functions as a personal guide throughout the admissions process.

    Then there’s the Quote Builder – a game-changer for students trying to plan their education budget. Instead of struggling with complicated fee structures, students can simply input their choices (program, campus, housing preferences) and get a clear picture of their costs. For international students especially, this transparency is invaluable. No more surprises or hidden fees – just clear, upfront information they can use to plan their future.

    Example: The Automotive Training Center, Surrey, offers prospects the opportunity to request information about their admission from a virtual admission assistant, or an admission representative.

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: ATC Surrey

    4. Centralized Data Management

    One thing that students and staff love is finding everything in one place. Remember that feeling of searching through endless email threads looking for that one important document? A good portal eliminates that headache.

    For students, it means:

    • One login to access everything
    • A clear overview of their application status
    • Easy access to all their submitted documents
    • A record of all communications with the school

    For staff, it’s like having a super-organized digital filing cabinet where everything is just a click away. Whatever you need to do, from sending students a reminder to checking their application status or when they last logged in, you only need to Click.

    Example: The MyUCLA App by the University of California, Los Angeles, is a one-stop-shop student-run portal that offers everything from academic to administrative, student engagement, and financial support.

    HEM Image 5HEM Image 5

    Source: MyUCLA

    5. Proactive Engagement and Lead Nurturing

    Online application management is an area where modern portals shine. A well-designed portal system will keep students engaged throughout the process instead of waiting for them to reach out with questions or concerns. 

    For example, The system can pick up that a student began an application but hasn’t completed it. Rather than letting that potential student slip away, it automatically sends a friendly reminder, offering help with any questions they might have. This kind of thoughtful follow-up can make the difference between a completed application and one that gets abandoned.

    Enhancing the Student Journey: A Real-World Example

    Now, let’s talk about something you’ve probably heard before. What is the student journey? The student journey begins with exploration and moves to application, admission, and enrollment. Beyond that, it involves academic learning, campus involvement, career preparation, and other experiences that shape their overall education and personal growth.

    Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s follow Sarah, a prospective student, through her application journey:

    Day 1: Sarah discovers your school’s portal and completes a quick inquiry form. Within minutes, she receives a personalized email with virtual tour links and program information tailored to her interests.

    Week 1: Using the Virtual Admission Assistant (AAA), she explores different programs and campuses. The system notices she’s particularly interested in paralegal training and automatically sends her information.

    Week 2: Sarah uses the Quote Builder to calculate her costs, including housing and tuition plans. The transparency helps her and her parents make informed decisions about financing her education.

    Week 3: Ready to apply, Sarah finds much of her application pre-filled with the information she’s already provided. She uploads her documents and can track every step of the process until acceptance and admission.

    Throughout: The system sends friendly reminders about deadlines and missing documents, keeping her on track without feeling pressured. By the time she arrives on campus, she will have experienced a streamlined, personalized admissions process that sets a positive tone for her educational journey. 

    This is what a good student portal aims to achieve. With tools like a Student Information System (SIS), a Virtual Admission Assistant (VAA), and a Quote Builder integrated into your school’s student portal, you can expect excellent results that’ll leave everyone satisfied. It will make a difference in the student’s journey, helping them make a seamless transition from inquiry to enrollment. 

    For the school involved, it’ll help reduce your workload and create enhanced tracking reporting results for better decision-making. This will ultimately increase student enrollment. 

    Example: A good SIS incorporates elements and records all aspects of a student’s journey, from recruitment to graduation. It is usually integrated into your student portal, as this example shows.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: HEM

    Tracking Success and Making Improvements

    A good portal doesn’t just make life easier for the schools that use it–it facilitates streamlined workflows for these schools, which is useful for helping them finetune and improve their admissions process. As a school looking to increase its prospects, it’ll help you know what’s working and what’s not so you can adjust as appropriate. With the right analytics tool, schools can easily track:

    • Which programs are getting the most interest
    • Where students might be getting stuck in the application process
    • How quickly staff are responding to applications
    • Which recruitment efforts are most effective
    • How international student applications compare to domestic ones

    This data provides valuable insights that schools can process to produce better outcomes. It’s a wealth of actionable information that helps schools make better decisions about where to allocate resources and refine their processes. The ultimate goal is to serve prospective students better and help them achieve their enrollment goals first.

    The Long-Term Impact of a Student Application Portal

    The benefits of a well-designed student portal extend far beyond the admissions process. Some of these benefits include:

    • Increased student satisfaction and connection with the institution upon arrival on campus
    • Increased staff efficiency, allowing them to spend less time on paperwork and more time assisting students
    • Improved institutional reputation
    • Significant cost savings due to reduced paperwork and manual processing
    • Higher enrollment rates

    Key Takeaways

    A modern student portal can make a big difference in the student journey from inquiry to enrollment. It helps schools to: 

    • Streamline Workflows: Simplify the application process for students and administrators.
    • Automate for Efficiency: Save time and reduce errors with automated tasks that produce consistent and more efficient results. 
    • Personalize the Journey: Engage students with tailored tools like VAA and Quote Builder to consistently engage and help them make well-informed decisions. 
    • Centralize Data Management: Keep all application-related information in one system to aid easy access and retrieval.
    • Proactively Engage Prospects: Use timely communication to meet students at their points of need and to increase application completion rates.
    • Optimize for Success: Leverage data insights to improve processes and track ROI for better planning now and in the future. 

    Conclusion 

    As technology continues to evolve, student portals will only become more important. A robust student portal is no longer a luxury—it’s a necessity for institutions aiming to meet the demands of today’s tech-savvy learners. The schools that succeed will be those that embrace these changes while keeping the student experience at the heart of everything they do. 

    By adopting a student portal, these schools can enhance the student experience, improve administrative efficiency, and ultimately boost enrollment rates. From the first click to the first day on campus, the journey becomes seamless, personalized, and rewarding for both students and staff.

    Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?

    Try the HEM Student Portal!

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What is the purpose of a student portal? 

    Answer: A student portal is an online resource that guides students and helps them access helpful resources throughout the journey from exploring to application, enrollment and beyond.

    Question: What is the student login system? 

    Answer: A student login system allows students to access everything from application progress to status, academic records, courses, schedules, and campus services through their institution’s online portal, using a username and password.

    Question: What is the student journey? 

    Answer: The student journey begins with exploration and moves to application, admission, and enrollment. Beyond that, it involves academic learning, campus involvement, career preparation, and other experiences that shape their overall education and personal growth.

    Source link

  • Hiding in plain sight? A simple statistical effect may largely explain the ethnicity degree awarding gap

    Hiding in plain sight? A simple statistical effect may largely explain the ethnicity degree awarding gap

    • By Sean Brophy (@seanbrofee), Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Decent Work and Productivity, Manchester Metropolitan University.

    A persistent challenge in UK higher education is the ethnicity degree awarding gap – the difference between White and ethnic minority students receiving top degrees (firsts or 2:1s). The Office for Students (OfS) aims to entirely eliminate this gap by 2030/31, but what if most of this gap reflects success in widening participation rather than systemic barriers?

    Between 2005/6 and 2021/22, university participation grew 21% faster for Asian students and 17% faster for Black students compared to White students. This remarkable success in widening access might paradoxically explain one of the UK’s most persistent higher education challenges.

    Figure 1 presents ethnicity gaps over time compared to a White baseline (the grey line constant at zero). The data for 2021/22 shows significant gaps: 21 percentage points for Black students, 9 for Asian students, and 4 for Mixed ethnicity students compared to their White peers. Traditional explanations focus on structural barriers, cultural differences, and potential discrimination, and much of the awarding gap remains unexplained after adjusting for prior attainment and background characteristics. However, a simpler explanation might be hiding in plain sight: the gap may also reflect a statistical effect created by varying participation rates across ethnic groups.

    Ethnicity Degree Awarding Gap (2014/15 – 2021/22)

    Figure 1. Source: HESA

    Here is the key insight: ethnic minority groups now participate in higher education at remarkably higher rates than White students, which likely then drives some of the observed ethnicity awarding gaps. Figure 2 presents the over-representation of ethnic groups in UK higher education relative to the White reference group (again, the constant grey line). The participation gap has grown substantially – Asian students were 22 percentage points more likely to attend university than White students in 2021/22, with Black students 18 points higher.

    Over-representation of ethnic groups in HE compared to White baseline (2005/6-2021/22)

    Figure 2. Source: UCAS End Of Cycle Report 2022

    This difference in participation rates creates an important statistical effect, what economists call ‘compositional effects’. When a much larger proportion of any group enters university, that group may naturally include a broader range of academic ability. Think of it like this: if mainly the top third of White students attend university, but nearly half of ethnic minority students do, we would expect to see differences in degree outcomes – even with completely fair teaching and assessment.

    This principle can be illustrated using stylized ability-participation curves for representative ethnic groups in Figure 3. These curves show the theoretical distribution of academic ability for Asian, Black, and White groups, with the red shaded area representing the proportion of students from each group accepted into higher education in 2021/22. It would be surprising if there was no degree awarding gap under these conditions!

    Stylized ability-participation curves by ethnic group

    This hypothesis suggests the degree awarding gap might largely reflect the success of widening participation policies. Compositional effects like these are difficult to control for in studies, and it is noteworthy that, to date, no studies on the ethnicity awarding gap have adequately controlled for these effects (including one of my recent studies).

    While this theory may offer a compelling statistical explanation, future research pursuing this line of inquiry needs to go beyond simply controlling for prior achievement. We need to examine both how individual attainment evolves from early education to university, using richer measures than previous studies, and how the expansion of university participation has changed the composition of student ability over time. This analysis must also account for differences within broad ethnic categories (British Indian students, for example, show different patterns from other Asian groups) and consider how university and subject choices vary across groups.

    My argument is not that compositional effects explain everything — rather, understanding their magnitude is crucial for correctly attributing how much of the gap is driven by traditional explanations, such as prior attainment, background characteristics, structural barriers, or discrimination. Only with this fuller picture can we properly target resources and interventions where they’re most needed.

    If this hypothesis is proven correct, however, it underscores why the current policy focus on entirely eliminating gaps through teaching quality or support services, while well-intentioned, may be misguided. If gaps are the statistically inevitable result of differing participation patterns among ethnic groups, then institutional interventions cannot entirely eliminate them. This doesn’t mean universities shouldn’t strive to support all students effectively – but it does require us to fundamentally rethink how we measure and address educational disparities.

    Rather than treating all gaps as problems to be eliminated, we should:

    1. Fund research which better accounts for these compositional effects.
    2. Develop benchmarks that account for participation rates when measuring degree outcomes.
    3. Contextualize the success of widening participation with acknowledging awarding gaps as an inevitable statistical consequence.
    4. Focus resources on early academic support for students from all backgrounds who might need additional help, particularly in early childhood.
    5. Explore barriers in other post-16 or post-18 pathways that may be contributing to the over-representation of some groups in higher education.

    Source link

  • Re-framing the Arts and Humanities   

    Re-framing the Arts and Humanities   

    • This blog was kindly authored by Annamaria Carusi, Director at Interchange Research. Annamaria recently joined a HEPI/Taylor & Francis roundtable to discuss advancing translational research.

    HEPI, together with Taylor & Francis, recently highlighted translational research’s importance in bridging scientific discovery and real-world applications. This is a much-needed part of higher education strategy, especially given Labour’s framing of its policies in terms of missions. If the government is inspired by Mariana Mazzucato’s conception of missions, it needs policies that will ensure the country fully benefits from the substantial investment made by the State into research and development.  Finding better connections between knowledge production and application is a key way of doing this.

    Often, the focus of attention in translational efforts is bounded within STEM subjects, with the idea of translation originating in the biomedical sciences, with the ‘bench to bedside’ approach. But the creative industries are just as central to the economic well-being of the country – and its people. This is recognised in the establishment of the government’s Creative Industries Taskforce, which had its first meeting in December 2024.

    The Arts and Humanities make a substantial a contribution to the UK’s economy: a House of Lords report gives the figure of £126bn as the creative industries contribution to GVA in 2022, which compares favourably to the contribution of STEM subjects. The UK is recognised as a global leader in art and culture. This is despite disciplines feeding into the creative industries being consistently de-prioritised in government policy since 2009, with decreasing levels of funding. Universities are struggling with their own budgetary constraints, and Arts, Humanities, and creative courses have borne the brunt of redundancies and closures.

    Addressing the tension between the potential of the arts and humanities and the financial pressures they are under is a priority for any policy to build bridges between higher education and real-world impacts.  Pre-conceptions about different disciplines’ relation to real-world impacts feed these tensions. Here, I suggest three areas where shifting pre-conceptions would be helpful for better positioning of arts and humanities with respect to real-world impacts.

    Firstly, we need to have multiple different ways of thinking about translational research, and not fall back on science and technology as the paradigmatic example of this. We need to recognise that there are different patterns of interactions among research and other outputs, skills, practices, processes, communities and society. They cannot all be shoe-horned into one model (in fact, the translation model does not work very well even for the biomedical sciences where it originated). Co-creation is a term often adopted in creative contexts; a better understanding of how it works will unlock more potential social benefit, especially for the arts and humanities, and possibly for other disciplines too.

    Secondly, pitting  Arts and Humanities and STEM against each other is not only counterproductive, but also creates an obstacle to further benefits of the arts and humanities, beyond those we already see through the creative industries. The need for models of research where different disciplines complement each other is even greater in the mission framework that the Labour government has adopted for its policy.

    Missions are not just an ambitious sounding word; they require breaking apart the silos into which research is currently organised and integrating thinking and doing across many different skills and forms of knowledge and expertise.  Policy interventions targeted at facilitating and encouraging cross-disciplinary collaborations across STEM and Arts and Humanities will allow researchers to develop flexibility, agility, creativity, and that most invaluable of research skills, the ability to look at problems from different perspectives, and in so doing, will also allow different models for constructing these bridges to emerge.

    Crucial for getting the best out of these collaborations – not just for the first goal of research, the peer-reviewed publication, but for those all-important social impacts –  is that all disciplines involved should be viewed as equal partners. An anecdote from one of my (many) personal experiences of collaborating as a humanities scholar with scientists shows why: I was invited to be an Arts and Humanities representative in a synthetic biology network, a cross-disciplinary collaboration that, at the time, was required by funders. When I asked what that might entail, I was told: ‘Anything, so long as you don’t put obstacles in the way of our research.’  But maybe disruption sometimes is a useful part of research and innovation? Further, there was nothing in the funding structure of the network that equalised the collaboration or tried to work towards a genuine integration; ultimately all the partners were in a loose network and mostly everyone researched and published in their own pre-set disciplinary journals.

    When collaborating across these domains, we must understand that the arts are not secondary vehicles for science and technology. They are not merely communicators of scientific ideas already worked out by the scientists; the humanities are not there only to bring their particular brand of empathy or analytical and critical thinking skills, but also for the substantive content and ideas they bring. As equal partners addressing complex societal challenges together, the outputs and innovations that make their way into society are more likely to be implementable, with fewer unthought-through consequences for society. Additionally, the recognised and incentivised outputs of a collaboration should be broad enough to accommodate research publications, data sets, and products (such as a drug, a device, a policy, or a piece of software) but also the very wide array of direct and indirect outputs of the creative sector. 

    Thirdly, we need to tackle perceptions about employability, beginning with those of students as they make their course and degree choices. The lower numbers of students choosing arts and humanities courses at university goes hand in hand with the lower numbers choosing these subjects for AS and A-levels.  In the case of English A-levels, one of the contributing factors is that there is a clearer career pathway for STEM subjects. This is despite the fact that Arts and Humanities are no slouches regarding employment. In 2022, 620 000 workers were employed in the arts sector and a further 350 000 were self-employed.  It is often proposed that couching the Arts and Humanities in terms of their employment or economic impacts diminishes their intrinsic value. The intrinsic/extrinsic binary is not helpful, especially when it serves to fuel the perceived differences between arts and humanities, and science and technology. All of these disciplines have intrinsic values: as a researcher who has followed scientists around their labs, I have seen first-hand that often what holds them there is their passion for their subject for its own sake.

    The more Arts and Humanities are seen as only one side of a binary between ‘intrinsic’ versus ‘extrinsic’ values, the more they become the precinct of an elite class, who go on to shape the arts sector in their image. Instead, what is needed is a concerted effort to change these perceptions and to show students that they can have both intrinsic and extrinsic values. Whichever model is used for bridging across higher education and real-world impact for the arts and humanities, be it translation or co-creation, should capture the complex relations between these two forms of value. The right forms of career support need to be co-designed with the whole sector and highlighted for prospective students.  As we form strategies to realise more fully the direct and indirect benefits of arts and humanities, the economic survival of those practising them cannot be placed on a lower rung than those practising other disciplines.

    Source link

  • The Danger of Homogenisation: Why specialist HEIs are crucial to the success of UK Higher Education and the Government’s priorities

    The Danger of Homogenisation: Why specialist HEIs are crucial to the success of UK Higher Education and the Government’s priorities

    Today on the HEPI website, Annamaria Carusi challenges the common assumption that translational research is only relevant to STEM fields, making the case for a broader, more integrated approach that fully values the contributions of the arts and humanities. If we want to maximize the real-world impact of research, she argues, it is time to rethink outdated silos and recognize the creative industries as essential players in innovation and economic growth. You can read that piece here.

    Below, as the government considers higher education reform, Dr Brooke Storer-Church and Dr Kate Wicklow make the case for specialist higher education institutions and warn against the dangers of homogenisation.

    GuildHE represents the most diverse range of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that are crucial to the prosperity of the sector, the economy, and our global reputation. We therefore argue that in an increasingly complex world, the role of specialist higher education institutions has never been more vital. These institutions, with their deep-rooted expertise and tailored approach, offer a unique and invaluable contribution to the landscape of higher education by providing diverse approaches and pathways to a wide range of students. 

    Diversity is a necessary ingredient for a successful and sustainable higher education sector, and this is becoming clearer from an analysis of the United States landscape, along with Australia and other large higher education systems.  Expert commentators grappling with some of the current challenges for American universities and colleges offer a hypothesis, positing that losing the diversity of mission and distinctiveness, objectives and audiences has been key to its diminishing public support. This homogenisation includes institutional, mission, operational, and aspirational similarities, which see every institution strive to ‘be all things to all people’ and thereby offer ‘the same thing for only some of the people.’ 

    In November, the Secretary of State wrote to the higher education sector outlining five areas for reform. GuildHE has scrutinised these areas and suggested to the Department for Education (DfE) ways to use the strengths of our sector to meet these challenges. However, some of the debate surrounding reform includes calls for consolidation and institutional mergers to offer the best ‘efficiencies’ in the sector. 

    While GuildHE members drive innovation, enrich communities and ensure access to high-quality education, their impact is often overlooked because they are not traditional, large-scale, multi-faculty universities. Funding and regulatory systems and government policies often fail to recognise institutions that do not fit this conventional university image. We, therefore, argue consolidation in the sector puts institutional diversity and student choice at risk, jeopardises our world-leading status, and undermines the Government’s missions of supporting local communities, equality of opportunity and our national economy.

    Overall, we want to see Government reform which champions our diversity, avoids policies that undermine the unique contributions of our diverse institutions, and actively invests to protect them.

    A focus on depth and industrial relevance

    Unlike their more generalist counterparts, specialist HEIs prioritise depth over breadth. They delve into specific disciplines, professions or industries, providing students with a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their chosen field.  This focused approach fosters a level of knowledge and skills that is often unmatched elsewhere and is increasingly in demand to tackle 21st-century challenges.

    Whilst GuildHE is known for representing specialist creative arts institutions, which together train about 40% of all creative HE students in England, we represent a wider range of specialists, including healthcare specialists like Health Sciences University, specialists in the built environment like University College of Estate Management (which is also a specialist in online delivery) and all the land-based specialist universities in the sector. The agri-food sector employs almost 4 million people and is larger than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. Technological innovations and sustainability and productivity improvements are driven by our specialist land-based institutions, which work closely with industrial partners. This specialist expertise is transforming the future of food production, bringing together disciplines such as robotics and artificial intelligence and contributing to the broader push towards net-zero food and farming. Several agriculture-focused higher education providers have their own farms and industrial research centres for testing and development.

    Nationally, our institutions work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, right across government and with industry sector bodies; for example, Harper Adams University has advised the government on matters related to food security.  Their impact is also international, as agri-food HEIs work with the Department for International Trade to boost the profile of UK agricultural innovation overseas and educational and research and development programmes are forged with international partners from the US and China to Kenya, Australia and the Netherlands.

    A culture of innovation

    As natural innovators, many specialist institutions know their regions well and will be a critical part of generating economic growth there. They are locally significant as employers and community anchors and active partners in Local Enterprise Partnerships and other local bodies, such as Chambers of Commerce. Below is just a small sample of the innovations delivered by our specialist institutions.

    Norwich University of the Arts collaborated with regional businesses to innovate film technology that mid-size regional film production companies use. The project created new jobs in Norfolk, boosted film production for regional, small-scale productions and start-ups, and the insights gained from the project were incorporated into the university curriculum. By equipping students with cutting-edge knowledge and skills, NUA is empowering them to contribute to the region’s growing knowledge-based economy by equipping them with cutting-edge knowledge and skills.

    Dyson Institute for Engineering and Technology is training the future workforce of engineers with a particular focus on pioneering new technologies that make intrinsically relevant real-world impacts. Innovation areas include delivering safe, cleaner, energy-efficient batteries, prototyping products in aerodynamics, mechatronics and microbiology and robotics for clinical imaging, navigation technology and machine learning.

    Hartpury University is a leading institution for agriculture, agri-tech, animal and veterinary sciences. Its Agri-Tech Centre is a state-of-the-art complex, connecting research, knowledge, data, and people in a real-world and applied setting. Through the Centre, it provides industry-led services for the advancement of agricultural technologies and delivers proven solutions and services to farms and suppliers across the UK. This hub offers a path for innovative agri-tech businesses to trial new products and services to modernise and sustain British farming.

    A sense of community

    One of the defining characteristics of specialist HEIs is their strong sense of community.  Students, staff and alumni often share a common passion for their field, creating a supportive and inspiring environment.  This sense of community fosters a deep sense of belonging and can lead to lifelong friendships and professional networks.

    Arts University Plymouth’s Young Arts programme was established in 1988.  It features the university’s renowned Saturday Arts Clubs and for over 30 years, has worked to bridge the gap in arts provision for young people created by increasingly limited access to creative activity in schools.  Young Arts uses art as a catalyst for learning, shaping the artists, makers and creative thinkers of the future, supporting learning and social development, often working with specific widening participation groups.

    Starting in September 2025, Harper Adams University (HAU) will open a suite of undergraduate courses at The Quad, Telford; its first additional site in 124 years and a new base from which the university can extend its collaboration with and connection to its local community.  In The Quad, HAU is co-located with Telford College, Invest Telford, and the local MP to broaden access for local learners to future-focused courses like data science, robotics mechatronics and automation, and digital business. HAU is also providing short courses and upskilling for local businesses to support local growth.

    Our asks of government

    As we argue extensively in our submission to DfE, specialist HEIs offer a diverse range of programmes and courses that meet the needs of a wide range of students and community partners and meet each of the five areas of higher education reform.  They are, therefore, the essential threads in the fabric of our diverse, rich and successful higher education landscape; threads that have been regrettably lost in other systems around the world. Their focus on depth, industry partnerships, innovation and community makes them uniquely positioned to prepare students for success in a rapidly changing world. As we look to the future, it is clear that specialist HEIs must continue to play a vital role in shaping the next generation of leaders and innovators.

    Observations about the increasing homogeneity of higher education have been available publicly for at least 2 decades, with some suggesting that a combination of government policies, regulation and academic communities are all playing their part. Regardless of the reasons behind it, there is widespread agreement that such homogeneity restricts access for students with different educational backgrounds or achievements. 

    Global trend analysis has shown that government policies, regulation and academic communities have all contributed to the homogeneity of higher education in other countries. This reduces social mobility by reducing modes of entry and delivery. It also weakens applied research and innovation and the pipeline of experts into the labour market, as it loses its ability to create the growing variety of specialisations needed for economic and social development. 

    At a time when we, as a sector, are grappling with the twin pressures of making our contributions to wider society clearer and delivering the promise with fewer resources, we must all protect the very diversity within it that ensures we can rise to the 21st-century challenges on our doorstep and retain a world-leading and (possibly) increasingly unique higher education sector.

    We have published a summary of our submission to DfE with our various policy asks to protect the diversity of our system here.

    Source link

  • A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    Authored by Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.

    The loss of a student to suicide is a profound and heartbreaking tragedy, leaving families and loved ones devastated, while exposing critical gaps in the support systems within higher education. Each death is not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic failure, underscoring the urgent need for higher education institutions to strengthen their safeguarding frameworks.

    Recent government data revealed that 5.7% of home students disclosed a mental health condition to their university in 2021/22, a significant rise from under 1% in 2010/11. Despite this growing awareness of mental health challenges, the higher education sector is grappling with the alarming persistence of student suicides.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a rate of 3.0 deaths per 100,000 students in England and Wales in the academic year ending 2020, equating to 64 lives lost. Behind each statistic lies a grieving family, unanswered questions and the haunting possibility that more could have been done. These statistics force universities to confront uncomfortable truths about their ability to support vulnerable students.

    The time for piecemeal solutions has passed. To confront this crisis, bold and systemic reforms are required. One such reform – the introduction of an opt-out consent system for welfare contact – has the potential to transform how universities respond to students in crisis.

    An opt-out consent model

    At present, universities typically rely on opt-in systems, where students are asked to nominate a contact to be informed in emergencies. This has come to be known as the Bristol consent model. Where this system exists, they are not always invoked when students face severe mental health challenges. The reluctance often stems from concerns about breaching confidentiality laws and the fear of legal repercussions. This hesitancy can result in critical delays in involving a student’s support network at the time when their wellbeing may be most at risk, leaving universities unable to provide timely, life-saving interventions. Moreover, evidence suggests that many students, particularly those experiencing mental health challenges, fail to engage with these systems, leaving institutions unable to notify loved ones when serious concerns arise.

    Not all universities have such a system in place. And some universities, while they may have a ‘nominated person’ process, lack the infrastructure to appropriately engage the mechanism of connecting with the emergency contact when most needed.

    An opt-out consent model would reverse this default, automatically enrolling students into a system where a trusted individual – such as a parent, guardian or chosen contact – can be notified if their wellbeing raises grave concerns. Inspired by England and Wales’ opt-out system for organ donation, this approach would prioritise safeguarding without undermining student autonomy.

    Confidentiality must be balanced with the need to protect life. An opt-out model offers precisely this balance, creating a proactive safety net that supports students while respecting their independence.

    Legislative provision

    For such a system to succeed, it must be underpinned by robust legislation and practical safeguards. Key measures would include:

    1. Comprehensive communication: universities must clearly explain the purpose and operation of the opt-out system during student onboarding, ensuring that individuals are fully informed of their rights and options.
    2. Defined triggers: criteria for invoking welfare contact must be transparent and consistently applied. This might include extended absences, concerning behavioural patterns or explicit threats of harm.
    3. Regular reviews: students should have opportunities to update or withdraw their consent throughout their studies, ensuring the system remains flexible and respectful of changing personal circumstances.
    4. Privacy protections: institutions must share only essential information with the nominated contact, ensuring the student’s broader confidentiality is preserved.
    5. Staff training: university staff, including academic and professional services personnel, must receive regular training on recognising signs of mental health crises, navigating confidentiality boundaries and ensuring compliance with the opt-out system’s requirements. This training would help ensure interventions are timely, appropriate and aligned with legal and institutional standards.
    6. Reporting and auditing: universities should implement robust reporting and auditing mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the opt-out system. This should include maintaining records of instances where welfare contact was invoked, monitoring outcomes and conducting periodic audits to identify gaps or areas for improvement. Transparent reporting would not only enhance accountability but also foster trust among stakeholders.

    Lessons from the organ donation model

    The opt-out system for organ donation introduced in both Wales and England demonstrates the effectiveness of reframing consent to drive societal benefit. Following its implementation, public trust was maintained and the number of registered organ donors increased. A similar approach in higher education could establish a proactive baseline for safeguarding without coercing students into participation.

    Addressing legal and cultural barriers

    A common barrier to implementing such reforms is the fear of overstepping legal boundaries. Currently, universities are hesitant to breach confidentiality, even in critical situations, for fear of breaching trust and privacy and prompting litigation. Enshrining the opt-out system in law to include the key measures listed above would provide institutions with the clarity and confidence to act decisively, ensuring consistency across the sector. Culturally, universities must address potential scepticism by engaging students, staff and families in dialogue about the system’s goals and safeguards.

    The need for legislative action

    To ensure the successful implementation of an opt-out consent system, decisive actions are required from both the government and higher education institutions. The government must take the lead by legislating the introduction of this system, creating a consistent, sector-wide approach to safeguarding student wellbeing. Without legislative action, universities will remain hesitant, lacking the legal clarity and confidence needed to adopt such a bold model.

    Legislation is the only way to ensure every student, regardless of where they study, receives the same high standard of protection, ending the current postcode lottery in safeguarding practices across the sector.

    A call for collective action

    Universities, however, must not wait idly for legislation to take shape. They have a moral obligation to begin addressing the gaps in their welfare notification systems now. By expanding or introducing opt-in systems as an interim measure, institutions can begin closing these gaps, gathering critical data and refining their practices in readiness for a sector-wide transition.

    Universities should unite under sector bodies to lobby the government for legislative reform, demonstrating their collective commitment to safeguarding students. Furthermore, institutions must engage their communities – students, staff and families – in a transparent dialogue about the benefits and safeguards of the opt-out model, ensuring a broad base of understanding and support for its eventual implementation.

    This dual approach of immediate institutional action paired with long-term legislative reform represents a pragmatic and proactive path forward. Universities can begin saving lives today while laying the groundwork for a robust, consistent and legally supported safeguarding framework for the future.

    Setting a New Standard for Student Safeguarding

    The rising mental health crisis among students demands more than institutional goodwill – it requires systemic change. While the suicide rate among higher education students is lower than in the general population, this should not be a cause for complacency. Each loss is a profound tragedy and a clear signal that systemic improvements are urgently needed to save lives. Higher education institutions have a duty to prioritise student wellbeing and must ensure that their environments offer the highest standards of safety and support. An opt-out consent system for welfare contact is not a panacea, but it represents a critical step towards creating safer and more supportive university environments.

    The higher education sector has long recognised the importance of student wellbeing, yet its current frameworks remain fragmented and reactive. This proposal is both bold and achievable. It aligns with societal trends towards proactive safeguarding, reflects a compassionate approach to student welfare and offers a legally sound mechanism to prevent future tragedies.

    The loss of 64 students to suicide in a single academic year is a stark reminder that the status quo is failing. By adopting an opt-out consent system, universities can create a culture of care that saves lives, supports grieving families and fulfils their duty to protect students.

    The time to act is now. With legislative backing and sector-wide commitment, this reform could become a cornerstone of a more compassionate and effective national response to student suicide prevention.

    Source link