Category: Blog

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
February 10, 2025
The Power of Storytelling: Women Shaping Leadership and Change

By Dr Monika Nangia, Academic Registrar and Director of Student & Academic Services at Durham University.

In a world increasingly aware of the value of diversity, the role of women in leadership is more critical – and undervalued – than ever. Despite encouraging strides, women, particularly women of colour, continue to face systemic barriers to advancement. This is a story of resilience, inequity, and hope.

The conversation around diversity and inclusion is urgent, and storytelling has emerged as one of the most potent tools to address these challenges. It connects us on a human level, fosters empathy, and confronts biases. At its best, storytelling is transformational.

In my career, I have witnessed the transformative power of storytelling in ushering in meaningful change. The stories we carry as women – of resilience, determination, and overcoming barriers – are far more powerful than any statistic or corporate policy. These personal narratives, shared boldly, have the potential to inspire, to challenge, and to reshape how we think about leadership.

Why We Need Women in Leadership

The benefits of gender-diverse leadership are unequivocal. According to Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trends, organisations with inclusive cultures achieve 2.3 times higher cash flow per employee, 1.4 times more revenue, and are 120% more capable of meeting financial targets. Diverse boards, particularly those with greater gender and ethnic representation, also demonstrate better resilience and crisis management – evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But beyond numbers lies the human impact. Women leaders bring ‘cognitive diversity’, which accelerates learning and performance in complex and uncertain situations. Their leadership fosters a sense of belonging, improves employee engagement, and reduces turnover.

Yet, despite the clear advantages, women remain underrepresented at every level of leadership.

The “Broken Rung” and Barriers to Progress

The journey to leadership for women is fraught with challenges. The ‘broken rung’ effect—where women are less likely than men to be hired or promoted into entry-level managerial roles – creates a bottleneck that compounds over time. For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 81 women make the same leap, with even fewer opportunities for women of colour.

Racial inequalities exacerbate this gap. McKinsey’s 2020 report highlights that women of colour face the steepest drop-off in career advancement at the transition from middle to senior management. Cultural expectations and resistance to authority further hinder their progress.

These systemic inequities are reflected starkly in higher education. According to the HEPI Report 2020, Mind the Gap: Gender differences in HE, while women now constitute 55% of university staff in the UK, they occupy only 29% of vice-chancellor roles. Among professors, women account for 29.7%, but Black women make up less than 1%.

The Power of Storytelling

Stories have a unique ability to amplify voices, challenge biases, and inspire inclusivity. Neuroscience tells us that engaging narratives release oxytocin in the brain, promoting empathy and altruistic behaviour. More than data or policy, storytelling humanises diverse experiences and catalyses change.

I’ve seen firsthand how storytelling transforms workplaces. Women leaders who share their personal journeys of resilience and ambition inspire others to envision new possibilities. Their stories break down preconceived notions, fostering an inclusive mindset that leads to behavioural change.

One colleague who spoke candidly about her experience being the only woman of colour in a senior leadership team. She described how, despite excelling in her role, her authority was often questioned, and she had to work twice as hard to gain the same respect as her peers.

Her story resonated deeply, not just because of the challenges she faced, but because of the hope and strength she embodied. By sharing her experience, she is creating a ripple effect – encouraging others to speak up, address inequities, and push for change.

Storytelling is also about accountability. In fact, it is far more important to confront the untold stories, the contributions of women whose voices have been silenced or overlooked. This is especially true for women of colour, whose experiences often fall at the intersection of gender and race-based inequities.

Mending the ‘Broken Rung’

A combination of stories like hers, with corresponding datasets as evidence, expose the structural barriers that continue to hold women back. The ‘broken rung’ is a vivid example of this.

Another story that sticks with me is from a woman in higher education, who spoke about being overlooked for a leadership role despite being the most qualified candidate. She later discovered that her ambition had been perceived as ‘sharp-elbowed’ and intimidating – a stark contrast to how her male counterparts were described.

Hearing her story compelled me to reflect on how ambition in women is often misinterpreted, reinforcing stereotypes that undermine their credibility. At a recent workshop, a senior leader shared her journey of overcoming immense personal and professional obstacles to lead a major organisational transformation. Her authenticity and vulnerability moved the room, sparking conversations about resilience, leadership, and the need for systemic change.

Building a Legacy of Inclusive Leadership

The path to inclusive leadership requires intentionality. It means addressing both visible and invisible barriers, from hiring practices to cultural attitudes. The stories we share today will shape the leadership landscape of tomorrow. As women, we have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to use our narratives to drive change.

Organisations with diverse leadership teams outperform their peers not just financially but also in innovation and problem-solving. The evidence is clear: diversity is not just a moral imperative – it is a strategic advantage. But the true value of diversity goes beyond metrics. It’s about creating workplaces where everyone feels they belong, where their contributions are valued, and where they can thrive.

Source link

February 8, 2025
The Future of AI Is Uncertain, And It’s Up to Us
- Jack Goodman, Founder of Studiosity, reviews AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can’t, and How to Tell the Difference by Arvind Narayan and Sayash Kapoor.
Is artificial intelligence (AI) going to transform our universities? Or will it destroy the need for a tertiary education? Right now, it’s impossible to tell.

If you read the media, you’re likely to think things will end up at one extreme or the other. That’s because we are living in an age of AI hype, where exaggerated claims about the technology – both on the plus side from the biggest AI engineering firms, and on the downside from those concerned about a dystopian future – are dominating the conversation.

For those of us who aren’t computer scientists or software engineers with domain expertise, wouldn’t it be helpful to have a guide to help us unpack what’s going on and figure out how to engage with this technology that may prove to be world-altering?

If you’re a head of state or a billionaire, then you probably already have an AI advisor. For the rest of us, Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor, two computer scientists at Princeton University, have kindly written AI Snake Oil as a layman’s roadmap to the current and likely future trajectory of the technology. (Alongside the book the pair have launched a website that’s full of the most current commentary and analysis.)

Narayanan and Kapoor are concerned with the full gamut of AI, not just the ‘generative’ variety that has garnered so much attention since its ‘debut’ with the arrival of ChatGPT. They helpfully separate AI into three main streams: Predictive AI, Generative AI and Content Moderation AI. All three suffer from claims of exaggerated effectiveness, a lack of scientific evidence and fantastic claims about their future capabilities.

For the purposes of a higher education audience, it’s generative AI that’s of most interest, because that’s the technology that can simulate the intellectual output of an educated brain – whether in the form of text or visual imagery. They put genAI into its historical context: most of us don’t know that the neural network theory that underpins genAI goes back to the 1950s, and that it’s been through a series of cycles of hype and disappointment.

Sadly, the authors aren’t particularly interested in the impact of genAI on higher education, apart from noting off-handedly that the technology appears to be largely undetectable, and that financially-strapped universities that think the technology will deliver endless efficiency dividends may be sadly disappointed. At various points they mention how they encourage active engagement with AI to understand what it can and cannot do, all from the perspective of their lives at Princeton. That’s not particularly helpful given how outlandishly wealthy, privileged, and tiny that university is.

Also, the authors miss an opportunity to explore different types of genAI technologies, particularly those that may be designed to encourage learning versus others that improve human productivity by offloading cognitive effort. No doubt the latter are already transforming human work, but whether they have a place in higher education is a different question.

There is a concept in AI known as ‘alignment’, which refers to the risk that uncontrolled AI may, as it approaches more powerful levels of general intelligence, act against the interests of humans and harm (or even kill) us. It’s controversial, and the authors devote an entire chapter to how we should think about, and respond to, technology companies’ pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI).

From the perspective of higher education, our sector may be better served in the immediate term by thinking about alignment in terms of the interests of educational institutions and the (mostly American) technology companies that are at the vanguard of developing genAI. The culture of incrementalism that has traditionally served universities well may not be so effective when dealing with such a rapidly approaching paradigm shift in humans’ relationship with technology.

The conclusion of AI Snake Oil is a little surprising. The authors make clear that humanity’s relationship with AI will be determined by all of us –individuals and institutions, as well as regulators and politicians. No doubt there is an opportunity for universities and their leaders to take a leading role in shaping this conversation, using their institutional resources and cultural authority to help inform the public and guide us all toward a better relationship with ever more powerful computers.

We all need to be educated, informed, and willing to speak up – so that we don’t end up living in a world where AI is dominated by the largest and most powerful corporations the planet has ever seen. That will be the worst of all possible outcomes.

Studiosity is a learning technology company that works with 100+ universities globally and serving 2.2 million university students across the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the Middle East. Jack founded Studiosity in Sydney in 2003 with a vision to make the highest quality academic study support accessible to every student, regardless of their geographic or socio-economic circumstances.
Source link
February 7, 2025
The case for social action

As social action charity Student Hubs closes on 31 January 2025, we have spent the past six months creating resources, toolkits and a report which advocates for growing student social action within universities: we want to share an overview of our case and legacy to the higher education sector.

Student Hubs was developed by students in 2007, growing across England and Wales to deliver volunteering, events, conferences, training programmes and in-curricular activities. We reached 20,000 students across 10 Hub locations, including engaging 1,200 community organisations and over 16,000 community members. In 2023-24 our activities represented over 8,000 hours contributed to social issues across Bristol, Birmingham, Cambridge, London and Southampton. We are keen for universities to step up to meet the vast gap we will be leaving within the sector.

A Government definition in 2016 framed social action as ‘people coming together to help improve their lives and solve the problems that are important in their communities’. Our ‘Case for Social Action’ looks through the lens of Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s call to the sector in November 2024 outlining what the Labour Government expects universities to achieve moving forward. We summarise how social action can meet these agendas in practice.

‘Expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students’

Through social action there are opportunities to meet both the needs of young people and our current students, which we saw through delivering tutoring, school clubs, Saturday activity days, library and community-based activities and in-school workshops. We have seen first-hand how social action activities meet university agendas on access, student employability and civic engagement.

Speaking about Libraries Plus, where students provided tutoring support in libraries in Southampton, our student coordinator Sahiba from the University of Southampton shared:

Libraries Plus is an extremely rewarding and enriching project. At the start of term, a volunteer who is an international student was wary about their English speaking skills: by the end of term, they let me know how much their confidence and social skills had bloomed … parents constantly let me know how pleased they were with the project and how valuable the tutoring had been for their children, who just needed that little bit of extra help to unlock their full potential.

Civic roles and economic growth

Students need to play a much bigger part in universities delivering knowledge exchange, research and civic engagement activities. In our 2022-23 impact data, 71% of partners agreed that working with the Hub had positively changed their perceptions of university students, and 86% agreed that working with the Hub had given them a sense of connection to the student community. In a landscape where ‘only 10% of respondents listed more funding for universities as a priority’ in polling conducted by Public First prior to the 2024 general election, universities need to build stronger relationships with the public and share their expertise and resources.

For students, engaging with local organisations and community members enriches the in-curricular experience. In 2020-21, Dina, an International Business student at Kingston University, took part in a module that Student Hubs delivered in partnership with academics as part of our Community Engaged Learning approach, which embedded real-life briefs with socially impactful organisations. Dina consulted for a local organisation on adapting their marketing, programmes and outreach to engage a wider community of users in the Greater London area. She said:

It has been extremely beneficial, mainly because it has given me practical experience in learning more about different cultures. The fact that in this case my team and I were able to deal with issues related to the module whilst being able to communicate with the client directly helped to make a lot of theories and topics come into practice. It has been very inspirational to work directly with a community partner as it allowed me to actually understand the reality behind how some members of society are being integrated and given me insight into details to take into consideration in a professional environment to communicate with clients with confidence and competence.

Through this module, the partner organisation received research and recommendations they could implement in their local activities: an example of free knowledge exchange and capacity which the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector vitally needs right now. Student social action, facilitating staff volunteering for trusteeships and governorships and partnership activities which fill the funding the VCSE sector is struggling to achieve from elsewhere are all ways in which universities can support their regions to make genuine change. Speaking as a charity ourselves that is closing, we urge universities to do more to support these local organisations and integrate them into the university experience.

University reform

Embedding civic activities and social action, alongside the necessity for universities to reform, presents the opportunity to streamline and prioritise what the university experience means. This includes how the community is integrated into teaching, learning and extracurriculars and how graduate skills are embedded into all facets of university life. Social action should be fun, social and engaging, designed to inspire and develop students into individuals with the skills to make change. Our student and graduate cohorts are facing deep systemic social issues which they are desperate to face, but are struggling to know how to do so amidst balancing their commitments for study, work and making connections with their peers and place.

Social action can provide the space to do this and more for students and communities: what is needed is the long-term investment in our cause by universities themselves, now that Student Hubs are no longer there to champion student social action.

You can read Student Hubs’ ‘The Case for Social Action’ report here and access Student Hubs’ collected toolkits and resources for universities here and at the Civic University Network website from February 2025 onwards.

Source link

February 6, 2025
‘Betraying an entire generation of students’? What do Trump University and Matt Goodwin’s excoriating new book tell us about universities today?
Browsing in a good bookshop sure beats scouring the internet for things to read. And when I was recently in my local independent bookshop (the Book House in Thame since you ask), I stumbled across a new biography of Donald Trump focusing on his pre-politics business career. Seeing that the book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump squandered his father’s fortune and created the illusion of success by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, included a section on Trump University, I snapped it up.

Every leader’s weaknesses are clear before they rise to power if you look in the right places. We knew Gordon Brown’s seriousness could merge into tantrums long before the revelations about throwing phones at staff came to light, and we knew Boris Johnson’s joie de vivre hampered an eye for detail long before he caught the ball ‘from the back of the scrum’ and entered Number 10. If Nigel Farage ever makes it to the top job, as ever more people seem to be predicting, no one will be able to claim his destructive approach to politics was previously hidden.

Similarly, this new biography of Trump written by two New York Times journalists proves the US President’s weaknesses were evident beneath the bluster throughout his long business career in hotels, casinos and golf courses. If the authors are right, Trump has long been prone to taking big risks on a hunch, to acting litigiously and to seeking credit for things that aren’t his doing. The title suggests he was a Lucky Loser, though perhaps that is just an uncharitable way of saying he was a big winner against the odds.

As a businessman, the book shows how Trump began lucky, with ‘the equivalent of half a billion dollars from his father’, and ended lucky, with ‘another half billion as a reality television star’. These allowed him to take on huge debts, aided by paying as little tax as possible and reclaiming what tax he had paid whenever he could (as during Obama’s Great Recession recovery programme).

Trump’s dollars from the TV show ‘The Apprentice’ came not so much from appearance fees as from his right to half the profits from any sponsorship deals and from lending his name to all sorts of businesses attracted by his TV success, from health supplements to early video phones. These enabled him to keep afloat. But there were many lows to Trump’s business career and a number of his big projects declared bankruptcy in the 1990s and 2000s, leading the two authors to conclude, ‘He would have been better off betting on the stock market than on himself.’

If there’s one person responsible for Trump’s rise to the top, it is Mark Burnett, a British Falklands veteran who is now the United States Special Envoy to the UK. Burnett invented the TV programme ‘Survivor’ before creating an urban equivalent in The Apprentice (and later also creating ‘The Voice’). And if there’s one thing responsible for Trump’s rise it seems to be vanilla-and-mint Crest toothpaste as Proctor & Gamble were the first mass consumer company to do serious sponsorship of The Apprentice. They paid $1.1 million to get the contestants to come up with a new toothpaste, thereby drawing attention to the actual new vanilla-and-mint product sitting on shop shelves.

Ostensibly, this all has little to do with higher education. But Trump University (also known as Trump U) is one of the most notable of all the current US President’s past projects and one of the ventures undertaken just before he stood for the Presidency for the first time. Trump not only lent his name to the project, he also invested millions of dollars in return for 93% of the business –like Victor Kiam, he liked it so much he bought the company. But the authors of this book conclude the whole thing was a disaster from start to finish.

Beginning as a way to sell recorded lectures to small and medium-sized businesses, Trump University quickly moved into get-rich-quick in-person seminars. The Trump Elite Gold programme had a fee of $34,995 (about the same as the entire cost of a three-year degree in England or Wales). Prospective learners were told, ‘There are three groups of people … People who make things happen; people who wait for things to happen; and people who wonder, “What happened?”’ If you wanted to be in the first group, you were encouraged to open your wallet or else borrow the necessary fee.

One failed applicant for The Apprentice, Stephen Gilpin, found himself tapped up to work for Trump U but later wrote an exposé that claimed, ‘the focus for Trump University was purely on separating suckers from their money.’ At the time, Trump said he hand-picked the instructors, but he did no such thing. The whole venture ended up in three major lawsuits, which were settled just as Trump became President for the first time.

In the end, the story of Trump University confirms a truism: it is vital to protect the use of the term ‘University’ and to police it actively and in real time. The book serves as a reminder that – as Jo Johnson has argued persuasively on the HEPI blog – pausing new awards for University Title means the Office for Students is giving less attention to this area than it should.

It is ironic that the global leader of right-wing populism should not only have sought to establish his own ‘University’ but that, having done so, it should embody in such exaggerated form all the negatives that populists tend to ascribe to traditional universities: poor value for money; an unoriginal curriculum taught by ill-trained staff; and insufficient personal attention to students. However, if a new book being published today attacking UK and US universities, Bad Education: Why our universities are broken and how we can fix them by Matt Goodwin, is any guide to populism more generally, then the failure of Trump U has not deterred the attacks on places that actually do have the legal right to call themselves a ‘University’.

Goodwin starts with a chapter called ‘Why I decided to speak out’ though it could just have easily been called ‘The grass is always greener’ or ‘Looking back with rose-tinted spectacles’. The book’s core argument is that:

the rapid expansion of the university bureaucracy, the sharp shift to the left among university academics and the politicization of the wider system of higher education have left universities in a perilous state.

As a result, Goodwin argues, ‘our universities are not just letting down but betraying an entire generation of students.’

He notes that, as the number of EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) champions has gone up, some types of diversity, such as diversity in academic thought, have gone down. But Goodwin is a political scientist rather than a historian and the problems he identifies are not as new as he makes out. Far-left students used to disrupt Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph and Leon Brittan when they spoke on campus; now they try and block Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix. The issue of whether such individuals should be allowed to speak even if some people on campus will be ‘offended’ are the same. The recourse to legislation in response is the same too: the rows of the 1980s led to the Education (No. 2) Act (1986) and the rows of today led to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (2023).

Notably, Goodwin’s views seem to have changed even more over time than the institutions he criticises. Two decades ago, Goodwin was a progressive studying for a PhD under Professor Roger Eatwell, an expert in fascism and populism at the University of Bath, after which he moved to Manchester and Nottingham, where he worked with political scientists like Rob Ford and Philip Cowley, and thereafter to Kent. These days, Goodwin has not only given up his professorship but is found speaking at Reform UK meetings while accepting a job as a GB News presenter.

And while Goodwin says his book has been 20 years in the making, it reads like it was 20 weeks in the writing. That is not meant to be rude for the piece is pacey, personal and polemical – and all the more readable for that. But while it is based in part on others’ research – including pieces of HEPI output – it generally draws from just one well: the place inhabited by Eric Kaufman, Jonathan Haidt and Niall Ferguson. The dust jacket includes endorsements from Douglas Murray, Claire Fox and Nigel Biggar among others.

Goodwin’s pamphleteer-style of writing ensures his text has little in common with the meticulous research on recent university history by Mike Shattock or Roger Brown and Helen Carasso or Steve Jones (who will be writing his own review of the book for HEPI in due course). Nonetheless, whisper it quietly but – whether you like his general approach or not, whether you like his new acquaintances or not and whether you like his writing style or not – Matt Goodwin may have something of a point.

Universities do not always welcome or reflect the full diversity of viewpoints in the way that perhaps they should, given their business is generating and imparting knowledge. It has been said many times before by others, so it is far from original, yet that doesn’t make it false. Goodwin quotes the US economist Thomas Sowell: ‘when you hear university academics talk about diversity, ask them how many conservatives are in their sociology department.’ It seems a fair question.

But grappling with that is not easy. The best answer, Goodwin argues, is a muscular response. Rather than leaving it to the sector to resolve its own issues, he wants to see hard-nosed interventions from policymakers and regulators:

only government action and new legislation, or pressure from outside universities, can change the incentive structures on campus. This means adopting a proactive rather than a passive strategy, making it clear that the individual freedom of scholars and students is, ultimately, more important than the freedom or autonomy of the university.

At the very end, Goodwin even argues someone should ensure ‘all universities be regularly audited for academic freedom and free speech violations’, with fines for any that transgress. Yet that begs more questions than it answers: we don’t know who would do the audit or what the rules for it would be.

So there is a paradox at the heart of Goodwin’s critique. He ascribes the problems he sees to flaws in the ‘system’ whereby the number of university administrators, institutions’ central bureaucracy and the pay of vice-chancellors have all increased rapidly. But such changes have often reflected:
1. external influences, such as the increase in the regulation of education (in response to scandals of the Trump U variety);
2. the need to have flattering statistics (such as to present to the Treasury in the battle for public resources); and
3. recognition that the old ways of working are not going to root out inappropriate behaviours (for example, sexual harassment).
Perhaps making universities more accountable to regulators and policymakers will make them bastions of free speech in the way Goodwin hopes, but might it not just clog up the lives of academics even more?

Reprinted with permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved.
Source link
February 6, 2025
The Role of Data Analytics in Higher Education
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Data analytics has become the cornerstone of effective decision-making across industries, including higher education marketing. As a school administrator or marketer, you’re likely aware that competition for student enrollment is fiercer than ever.

To stand out, leveraging data analytics can transform your marketing strategy, enabling you to make informed decisions, optimize resources, and maximize ROI. But what does data analytics mean in the context of higher education marketing, and how can you apply it to achieve tangible results? Keep reading to understand the impact of data analytics on your school’s marketing campaigns, some benefits you can expect, and how to implement them.

Struggling with enrollment?

Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

The Significance of Data Analytics in Education Marketing

What is the role of data analysis in education marketing? Data analytics involves collecting, processing, and interpreting data to uncover patterns, trends, and actionable insights. In higher education marketing, data analytics enables you to understand your target audience—prospective students, parents, alumni, and other stakeholders—better and craft strategies that resonate with them.

Data analytics goes beyond tracking website visits or social media likes. It involves deep-diving into metrics such as application trends, conversion rates, engagement levels, and even predictive modelling to anticipate future behaviour. For example, analyzing prospective students’ journey from initial interaction with your website to applying can reveal opportunities to refine your marketing campaigns. Data analytics equips you to attract and retain the right students by more effectively addressing their needs.

Source: HEM

Do you need support as you create a more data-driven higher education marketing campaign? Reach out to learn more about our specialized digital marketing services.

Benefits of a Data-Driven Marketing Campaign

What are the benefits of big data analytics in higher education marketing? A data-driven approach to marketing offers several advantages that can elevate your institution’s performance and visibility. First, it enhances decision-making. With access to real-time and historical data, you can base your decisions on evidence rather than assumptions. For example, if you notice that email campaigns targeting a particular geographic region yield a higher application rate, you can allocate more resources to similar efforts.

Second, data analytics in higher education enables personalization. Prospective students now expect tailored experiences that speak to their unique aspirations and challenges. By leveraging data, you can segment your audience and deliver content that resonates deeply with each group. This level of personalization increases engagement and fosters trust and loyalty.

Additionally, data analytics optimizes your budget. In the past, marketing efforts often involved a degree of guesswork, leading to wasted resources. With data, you can pinpoint what works and what doesn’t, ensuring every dollar you spend contributes to your goals. For instance, if a social media ad targeting international students outperforms others, you can reallocate funds to expand that campaign.

Finally, data analytics offers the ability to measure success with precision. By setting key performance indicators (KPIs) and tracking them over time, you clearly understand what’s driving results. Whether the number of inquiries generated by a digital ad or the completion rate of an online application form, data analytics provides you with the tools to evaluate and refine your strategies continuously.

Source: HEM

Example: Our clients have access to our specialized performance-tracking services. The information in the image above, coupled with the school’s specific objectives, allows us to assess what is working and what needs changing. It informs our strategy, provides valuable insights into how new strategies are performing, and offers detailed insights into the changes that can be made for optimal results.

Types of Data Analytics Tools for Higher Education Marketers

The many data analytics tools available can seem overwhelming, but selecting the right ones can significantly improve your marketing efforts. These tools generally fall into a few key categories.

Web analytics platforms, such as Google Analytics, allow you to track user behaviour on your website. From page views to time spent on specific pages, these tools help you understand how prospective students interact with your digital presence. For instance, if many visitors drop off on your application page, it may indicate a need to simplify the process.

Customer relationship management (CRM) systems, like our system, Mautic, help you manage and analyze interactions with prospective and current students. CRMs help you organize your outreach efforts, track the progress of leads through the enrollment funnel, and identify trends in student engagement.

As a higher education institution, a system like our Student Portal will guide your prospects down the enrollment funnel. The Student Portal keeps track of vital student information such as their names, contact information, and relationship with your school. You need these data points to retarget students effectively through ads and email campaigns.

Source: HEM | Student Portal

Example: Here, you see how our SIS (Student Information System) tracks the progress of school applications, complete with insights like each prospect’s program of interest and location. This data is vital for creating and timing marketing materials, such as email campaigns based on each contact’s current needs, guiding them to the next phase of the enrollment funnel.

Social media analytics tools, including platforms like Hootsuite or Sprout Social, provide insights into your social media performance. These tools can reveal which types of content resonate most with your audience, enabling you to fine-tune your messaging.

Source: Sprout Social

Example: Social media is a powerful tool for a higher education institution, particularly when targeting Gen-Z prospects. Like any marketing tactic, optimizing social media platforms requires measuring post-performance. A tool like Sprout Social, pictured above, tracks paid and organic performance, streamlining reports and even offering insights into competitor data.

Predictive analytics platforms, such as Tableau or SAS, take your efforts further by using historical data to forecast future outcomes. These tools can help you identify at-risk students who may not complete the enrollment process or predict which programs are likely to see increased interest based on current trends.

Use These Actionable Tips for Optimizing ROI Using Data Analytics

Clearly define your goals to maximize the impact of data analytics in education marketing campaigns. Whether you aim to increase enrollment in a specific program, boost alumni engagement, or expand your reach internationally, having a clear objective will guide your efforts and help you measure success effectively.

Next, ensure that you’re collecting the right data. Too often, institutions fall into the trap of gathering vast amounts of data without a clear plan for its use. Focus on metrics that align with your goals, such as lead generation, conversion rates, and engagement levels. Regularly audit your data collection processes to ensure they remain relevant and efficient.

Once you’ve gathered your data, prioritize analysis. This step involves identifying patterns and trends that can inform your strategy. For instance, if your data shows that most applications come from mobile devices, optimizing your website for mobile users becomes a top priority. Similarly, if you notice that email open rates are highest on Tuesdays, you can adjust your sending schedule accordingly.

Another key aspect of optimizing ROI is experimentation. Use your data to test different strategies, such as varying your ad copy, targeting different demographics, or experimenting with new platforms. Over time, you’ll better understand what resonates with your audience.

Don’t overlook the importance of collaboration. Data analytics should be integrated across departments. By sharing insights with admissions, student services, and academic departments, you can create a more cohesive and impactful strategy and carve an efficient path toward the desired results. For example, if your analytics reveal a growing interest in STEM programs, your academic team can develop targeted resources to meet that demand.

Finally, invest in ongoing education and training. Data analytics constantly evolves, and staying up-to-date on the latest tools and techniques is essential. Encourage your team to participate in workshops, webinars, and courses to enhance their skills and bring fresh insights to your campaigns.

How We Help Clients to Leverage Data Analytics Solutions: A Case Study with Western University

The transformative potential of data analytics is best illustrated through real-world examples. Western University of Health Sciences, a leading graduate school for health professionals in California, partnered with us to optimize its data analytics strategy. The collaboration highlights how implementing tailored data solutions can drive meaningful results.

HEM began by conducting program—and service-specific interviews with Western University staff to identify the analytics needs of managers across the institution. These discussions revealed unique departmental needs, prompting the creation of tailored analytics profiles and corresponding website objectives. Subsequently, data was segmented and collected in alignment with these tailored profiles, ensuring actionable insights for each group.

A comprehensive technical audit of Western’s web ecosystem revealed several challenges in implementing analytics tools. HEM recommended and implemented a series of changes through a custom analytics implementation guide. These changes included the university’s web team developing and installing cross- and subdomain tracking codes and creating data filters, such as internal traffic exclusion.

One of the highest priorities was tracking student registration behaviour. HEM developed a custom “apply now” registration funnel that integrated seamlessly with Western’s SunGard Banner registration pages to address this. This funnel provided a clear view of prospect and registrant behaviour across the main website and its subdomains, offering valuable insights into the user journey.

Over three months, HEM implemented these solutions and provided custom monthly reports to program managers. These reports verified the successful integration of changes, including the application of filters and cross-domain tracking. As a result, Western’s managers gained the ability to fully track student registrations, monitor library download behaviour, and make data-informed decisions to enhance student services.

Western University’s Director of Instructional Technology praised HEM’s efforts, noting that the refined tracking capabilities clarified how prospective students navigated the site. The successful collaboration demonstrates the significant impact of data analytics solutions on improving user experience and institutional efficiency.

Source: HEM

HEM continues to build data-driven marketing campaigns for clients, streamlining their workflows, providing deep insights, increasing engagement, and boosting enrollment.

Higher ed data analytics is necessary for building effective marketing campaigns. By understanding its role and potential, you can craft data-driven strategies that elevate your institution’s visibility, improve engagement, and optimize ROI. As you embrace data analytics, remember that its true power lies in its ability to guide informed decision-making and foster continuous improvement. Whether you aim to attract more students, enhance retention, or build stronger alumni relationships, data analytics provides the roadmap to success. Start leveraging its insights today and position your institution as a leader in an increasingly competitive landscape.

Struggling with enrollment?

Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the role of data analysis in education marketing?

Data analytics involves collecting, processing, and interpreting data to uncover patterns, trends, and actionable insights. In higher education marketing, data analytics enables you to better understand your target audience—prospective students, parents, alumni, and other stakeholders—and craft strategies that resonate with them.

What are the benefits of big data analytics in higher education marketing?

A data-driven approach to marketing offers several advantages that can elevate your institution’s performance and visibility, including:
- Decision-making
- Personalization
- Cost efficiency
- The ability to track results
Source link
February 5, 2025
How removing funding disparities for ‘disruptor institutions’ could help fulfil the ambition of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement
- Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris is Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham.
Whilst we are still waiting for the government to decide on the operationalisation of the future direction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), it is easy to agree that providing all new learners with a tuition fee loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use up to the age of 60 is a good thing in principle.

In recent articles, Professor Deborah Johnston and Rose Stephenson have both presented useful positions and summaries on the status quo. For the University of Buckingham, the merits of the LLE are clear, but it is the relationship between the LLE and courses of different lengths that is central to our concern.

At Buckingham, we take pride in our unique approach to education. As a disruptor institution and the only private university in the UK with a Royal Charter, we emphasise our small and independent nature. Our distinctive positioning has enabled us to create a unique learning environment. We have successfully developed ‘accelerated degrees’, including our flagship degree models: the two-year undergraduate degree and the four-and-a-half-year undergraduate medical degree.

Where other institutions have a long summer holiday, at Buckingham we have a fourth term – the same amount of classroom time over a whole degree as in other universities, but a term in the summer which means that students can enter the labour market a year earlier and incur a year’s less accommodation and living expenses as well.

Alternatively, in three years, our students at Buckingham can undertake two qualifications: a foundation plus an undergraduate or an undergraduate plus a postgraduate degree. The year’s shape also more closely resembles the world of work and therefore ably prepares students more authentically for their future careers. We know this approach is working, and adds value. We are in the Top 10 for Graduate Prospects (outcomes) and:
- 92% of our graduates agree their current activity is meaningful (sector 85%).
- 88% of our graduates feel their current activity fits with their future plans (sector 78%).
- 83% of our graduates say they are using what they learn while studying (sector 69%).
- 97% of our graduates are in work or study (sector 89%).
- 72% of our graduates are in full-time employment (sector 61%).
Buckingham has been a beacon for accelerated degrees to help students achieve their degrees in a shorter period and get out into the workplace or onto further study sooner. We can also see this model allowing students to interrupt their studies and take their degrees in shorter chunks (each of our terms, for example), which would be possible with the LLE framework once it is implemented. However, there is a fundamental unfairness facing Buckingham and others that needs to be addressed.

To understand this issue, we must first delve into the technical world of registering with the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator for higher education in England. Providers of higher education can (although not at the moment as new registrations are paused) register with the OfS under two categories:

1) Approved (fee cap)
Source link
February 5, 2025
Excluding Level 7 modules from the LLE is a huge, missed opportunity
Ahead of a House of Lords debate on the topic of lifelong learning later this week, today’s blog features two posts on the topic.

Elsewhere on the site, Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham, highlights what is, in her view, a critical flaw in the LLE: the unfair funding gap facing students on accelerated two-year degree programmes, despite their clear benefits for employability and skills development. You can read that piece here.

And below, Dr. Michelle Morgan explores the gaps in the Government’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), questioning why postgraduate taught courses have been left out and what this means for students, universities, and businesses.

So the Government has announced that the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will come into effect in September 2026.

The government is arguing that the LLE will allow people to develop new skills and gain new qualifications at a time that is right for them. The LLE will focus on:
- full courses at level 4 to 6, such as degrees, technical qualifications, and designated distance learning and online courses
- modules of high-value technical courses at levels 4 to 5.
It is argued that it will help drive sustained economic growth, break down barriers to opportunity broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training, and support greater learner mobility between institutions.

However, yet again the sector’s postgraduate taught (PGT) provision has been ignored. By excluding this level of study, the ambitions of the Government will not be as great as they could be, and it is a huge, missed opportunity for higher education and this is why.

The first problem: Declining PGT participation of UK-domiciled students

In the past 10 years, the higher education sector has increasingly relied on international master’s students to fund itself. EU and non-EU PGT students are nearly all undertaking master’s degrees, whereas for UK-domiciled students, a master’s degree only constitutes around 55% of those on PGT courses. Taught courses include master’s, postgraduate certificates, diplomas, and institutional credits and postgraduate certificates in education.

For Master’s participation, 2019/20 was a pivotal year as non-EU participation surpassed UK-domiciled for the first time. In each year since 2021/22, UK-domiciled Master’s enrolments have declined (see Table 1). Although we do not have Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) return data to view for 2022/23 and 2023/24, there is a strong sense across the sector that we will see a decline in master’s participation, especially among international students.

Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

The decline is the same pattern that occurred leading up to 2010/11. The only reason why master’s participation continued to increase then was due to non-EU enrolments. The response by the Government to re-energise the UK-domiciled market after the Higher Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE, which was then the regulator) Phase 1 and 2 of the Postgraduate Support Scheme was to bring in the Postgraduate Loan. As soon as this happened, you could hear an audible sigh of relief across the sector, and there was an attitude of ‘that will solve the problem so let’s just focus on growing the master’s market’. The sector did not consider the demand for master’s qualifications by business and industry, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Employer demand for Master’s graduates

There are disciplines where a master’s is required for career progression such as professional accreditation. However, as the 11 University Postgraduate Experience Project found, which was one of 20 projects funded as part of the HEFCE Phase 1 Postgraduate Support Scheme, many SMEs did not need master’s graduates. Most useful to them was for higher education to provide short courses and modules that provided their staff with advanced skills in key areas such as Business and IT and emerging ones such as Generative AI. According to the Department for Business and Trade’s report on Business population estimates for the UK and regions in 2024, there were 5.6 million UK businesses in 2024 of which 5.5 million were SMEs, accounting for 99.8% of all businesses. By ignoring the needs of business and industry, we are losing an opportunity to engage with a critical market.

Funding and repayment

As soon as the Postgraduate Loan was introduced, most universities immediately raised their fees. The aim of the £10,000 loan was to cover fees and some maintenance. Although the loan for September 2024 English starters is now £12,471, for many this will not come close to covering their costs. What is also not factored into any discussion is that someone who has both an undergraduate and a postgraduate loan must pay them back concurrently. This equates to 9% for the undergraduate loan and 6% for the postgraduate, or 15% of someone’s salary on top of tax, National Insurance and any other employee-related costs. Although employers’ national insurance contributions are increasing next year, if there is any tax or National Insurance increase for the individual next year, this will further reduce their disposable income.

The Postgraduate Loan also differs between UK countries. In England, the loan does not cover stand-alone postgraduate certificates and diplomas, unlike in Scotland, where non-master’s postgraduate taught course participation is 56% compared to 44% in England. If they were included, then maybe the LLE as it stands would not be quite as restricted. The English loan system is not agile enough to support engagement in short or non-master’s courses, and English universities plan their finances for master’s enrolments and anticipated completions. A student should not have to register and enrol on a master’s if they only want or need to do a postgraduate certificate or diploma. If an individual needs a master’s for professional accreditation, this will not stop them from doing a master’s. In fact, we may see an increase in integrated degrees being undertaken where a master’s is incorporated into the undergraduate degree as a result.

Additionally, we have just had the announcement that undergraduate loans are slightly increasing, but no announcement has been made for postgraduate loans. The current system hinders engagement. It also adopts a deficit model approach, as these qualifications are deemed exit qualifications if someone fails to achieve the Master’s.

Ability to participate in master’s study

What is also overlooked in discussions are the debt levels of undergraduate alumni and how this could explain the decreasing number of UK-domiciled 21-24-year-old participants. The majority of PGT enrolments are for the age group of 30 years and over.

Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

When the Postgraduate Loan was introduced in 2016, only one cohort had graduated under the £9,000 a year fee regime introduced in 2012. We now have 10 cohorts who graduated under that regime. It is maybe not a surprise therefore that the largest group investing in postgraduate taught study are those with the smallest amount of undergraduate debt.

Last year, I got the results of a Freedom of Information request from the Student Loan Company regarding the debt levels for English-domiciled recipients entering postgraduate Master’s study in 2021/22 (see Figure 1). Of the 72,618, 74.8% had debt in excess of £40,000 and 11.9% over £70,000. This debt will include any repeated years as well as longer length undergraduate courses such as integrated degrees with placements. With the recent announcement that fee levels will rise by £285 to £9,535 in 2025/26, this will increase individual debt.

Figure 1: Debt levels of 72,618 English-domiciled master’s students who also have an undergraduate loan (fee and maintenance) in 2021/22 only

The recent Times and Sunday Times showed how parental financial support differs by student groups and universities. The universities where parents pay the most – up to £30,000 – are mainly Russell Groups. And when you explore postgraduate taught participation by ethnicity, 66% are White. How will the factors highlighted above enable widening participation at the postgraduate level which delivers advanced skills, competencies and knowledge?

We need a rethink

The LLE that will be introduced will not super-proof the pipeline for longevity of postgraduate taught study nor provide the advanced skills that are accessible, meaningful and needed for the individual, society or business and industry.

So we need to start thinking now about the long-term implications of student debt, and social and economic needs so we can develop policy, strategy and practice. To do this though, the sector needs to start thinking about how we can reimagine and do things differently, Government needs to listen to key stakeholders, and we must proactively work together and not against one another.
Source link
February 5, 2025
It’s not too late to fix the Renters’ Rights Bill
- By Calum MacInnes, Chairman of the Student Accredited Private Rental Sector (SAPRS).
Today, the Renters’ Rights Bill will undergo its Second Reading in the House of Lords. This far-reaching Bill is long overdue. Once it becomes law, it will deliver a much-needed overhaul of private rented sector regulation in England.

With the Bill, the Labour Government has a huge opportunity to deliver a rental market that is fairer and improves housing quality for the millions of renters in the UK.

However, at present, the Government is blind to the woes of one particular group of renters: students.

Students risk being hit by a ‘double whammy’ of increased tuition fees and the financial impact the Renters’ Rights Bill will have, shortening student housing supply even further and making it more expensive.

The Bill’s passage through the Lords presents a vital opportunity to ensure the Bill delivers an overhaul of the private rented sector. As one of the most vulnerable groups of renters particularly affected by high costs of living, the legislation must consider students and the unique nature of the student private rented sector. The concerns about student welfare in the rental market appear to resonate with the wider public: New research commissioned by SAPRS (Student Accredited Private Rental Sector), a coalition of second- and third-year student accommodation providers across Britain, has found that a majority (66%) of the British public believe that the Government does not care about students.

They are an important group of voters, in particular for the Labour Party, and the Government risks alienating them. Students will remember, and Keir Starmer might receive payback at the next General Election’s polling station.

HEPI and higher education organisations like Universities UK have previously rightly warned the legislation threatens the availability, affordability, and quality of student housing as the sector is already at crisis point.

As part of the Bill, the Government plans to end fixed-term tenancy agreements (FTTAs) ignoring the special case that is student housing. Student housing relies on cyclical FTTAs that have successfully balanced student and landlord needs by aligning with university term times and ensuring landlords have security of tenure each year. By dismantling this model, the Bill risks reducing housing availability, creating uncertainty for students and disrupting the cyclical rental market.

There is an easy solution, and it is not too late for the Government to listen to the sector and students and to fix the Bill. On the issue of fixed-term tenancies, the Bill must create parity between the student private rental and the purpose-built sector – anything else risks exacerbating the existing crisis.

Our proposed SAPRS code of conduct would establish standards of conduct and practice for the management of the student private rental distinct from the purpose-built sector, aimed at creating a framework of standards to facilitate effective and fair treatment of students.

An exemption along these lines is already included in the Bill for the purpose-built sector; there is no clear reason why the same exemption should not apply to private rentals, and the Government has so far refused to spell out a convincing reason.

If the Bill is not changed, the Government will miss a vital opportunity to deliver a better deal for students – and risk punishing an important part of its electorate.
Source link
February 4, 2025
Is going to university still worth it? A widening participation student’s view

By David Lam, Activities Officer at the Students’ Union Bath.

As a child, I always envisioned a very traditional educational journey. I would work my way through high school, do my A levels and then end up at a good university, graduating into a well-paid job. I think this is the journey most undertake or are pointed towards as we were told that university students almost always earn more than those without one. It’s a no-brainer, right?

However, there have been recent conversations about the value of going to university and getting a degree. Being a student is tough right now, because:

Despite these challenges, record numbers of students from TUNDRA 1 (lowest participation) backgrounds have made it to university. A remarkable stat! But why has this happened? I believe university opens so many more opportunities for you besides a good education and, for this reason, people would prefer to earn and learn rather than not doing it at all.

Going to university allows you to access a whole load of new experiences through societies and sports clubs at a relatively low cost and without much commitment. At Bath, there are over 200 groups that you can join, ranging from common interests like football and board games to more niche ones like sailing and gliding. I am sure there are equally wide offers at other universities. Having gone to a state school, I never had the opportunity to try all these things while others from more privileged backgrounds did.

Studying at Bath meant I had access to a wide range of placements for my year in industry. Without the wonderful placement team showing me all the world had to offer, I would not have known where to start, nor would I have ever considered doing a placement. I had always seen movies that involved people going for the best year of their life abroad in a sunny place, making friends for life and being temporarily free from studying. I decided I wanted that experience too, but then the Covid-19 Pandemic hit, meaning my opportunities suddenly shrank. Despite the setback of a global pandemic, I eventually found an opportunity and I ended up working in Madrid as a Physical Education (PE) teacher in an international school. It was the best year of my life, living the dream I’d seen on TV, thanks to my university’s placement team’s support.

Attending university exposes you to people from diverse backgrounds. Coming from a small town in the Midlands, predominantly made up of white British residents, I was one of only three kids of colour in my entire primary school. So arriving in Bath and encountering people who looked like me was a strikingly different experience. Some of my closest friends come from all over the world and, yes, eventually when we all leave Bath, I will be visiting them at some point! The chances of me making such friendships would have been minimal had I stayed in my little town and I would have nowhere near as enlightened an understanding of other cultures as I have now.

University is often the first real taste of freedom for many, marking the transition from life at home to living independently. You are no longer surrounded by an endless supply of clean clothes or home-cooked meals; instead, you are managing your own routine and life, all within the relatively safe university environment. This shift into the big wide world fosters resilience and builds people skills. You will inevitably encounter challenges, like that one housemate who never does their dishes. But part of the university experience is learning to handle these issues yourself, having the tough conversations and solving problems independently rather than relying on someone else to step in. Along the way, you will meet both amazing people and those who are not so great. While no degree teaches you how to interact with others, living with a diverse group of people forces you to learn those essential skills.

For these reasons, I still believe there is value in going to university. While not everyone’s experience is the same, the underlying benefits remain. The university experience represents a beacon of opportunity and opens so many doors. It leads to things you would have never imagined doing, like living in another country for a whole year or writing a blog for a higher education think tank. Seeing the Office for Students turn its attention to the wider student experience, rather than exclusively to education, is welcome. I believe more places should be taking this holistic view and I look forward to seeing what their new strategy comes out with it.

Source link

February 3, 2025