Category: Featured

  • Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Commuter student support takes different forms, from student lounges to travel bursaries.

    However, when it comes to something as simple as the information that universities provide to prospective students and current students, it remains stubbornly focused on traditional, residential students.

    As a result, commuters make untenable choices at the applicant stage, find student life difficult to navigate and feel a profound lack of belonging, throughout their student experience.

    Getting it right at the start is as important as throughout.

    What information is out there

    In our research, which we are currently preparing for publication, we talked to commuter students and uncovered the practical impacts of a lack of information. Students suggested that their choice of institution, choice of course and the choice either to commute or relocate may have been different, if they had known about the personal, financial and educational impacts of commuting.

    They didn’t just talk about travel information – bus routes, train times, car parking – which is still important and largely missing from university webpages and prospectuses. They focused more on their need for information to help them to navigate life as a student who commutes.

    Commuter students told us that this absence of information suggested to them that universities don’t see commuters, leading them to feel that they don’t belong and they don’t matter.

    The hidden curriculum

    Our findings suggest that commuters need information in two areas, “rules of the game” and “sense of belonging.”

    These are the terms developed by Dr Katharine Hubbard and colleagues to describe the two domains of the “hidden curriculum” that universities must make explicit, if non-traditional students are to succeed at university.

    Our research sought to address this hidden curriculum for commuter students by developing best practice guidance for information that universities should provide to support commuters in their choices, transition and day-to-day university experience.

    We randomly selected 30 universities from the 147 institutions currently registered in the UK. We entered their website and searched “commuter students.”

    We downloaded and assessed the content and utility of the first four search results and then used Google search to find “university name commuter students” and followed the same method.

    We found that the hidden curriculum for commuters is very real. Very few institutions have information for commuter students. Very few have information available to students pre-application, to enable an informed decision and very few have information specifically to support commuters.

    Those that do, tend to focus on commuters in the negative, discouraging travel to university, in a sustainability context and framing commuting as a challenge and encouraging relocation to halls of residence.

    Getting it right

    But there are universities that are getting it right. Our research identified some best practices.

    Some institutions provide information about being a commuter at every stage of the student lifecycle and for every student touchpoint. Ideally, including a commuter student equivalent for all information, advice and guidance that is provided.

    This is especially important whenever students are making a choice – of institution, course, module, accommodation – and whenever you are providing a service – extra-curricular activities, support and other resources. Not only will this enable informed choice, it will increase the visibility of commuters, which will enhance their sense of belonging.

    It’s also important to be clear about learning and teaching, to enable commuter students to make informed decisions about how possible it is to succeed as a commuter. For example, is attendance mandatory for all taught sessions? How many days a week will students be timetabled to attend and when will they know? Do students have to be able to physically access the library? Do you provide on-commute learning options?

    Institutions should also ensure that information for commuters is easy to find and take a joined-up approach. We found that the best information for students was content like blogs written by commuters chronicling a day in their life, presenting “life hacks” or linking students to a commuter community. These were available via student societies, or the students’ union, which often aren’t linked to from the institution’s webpages.

    Information should be “student first.” For example, ensure that travel information is available to support commuters to access their learning, rather than information about sustainability, or to discourage driving. Most of the travel information that we reviewed was abrasive in its tone, highlighting the inaccessibility of campus to car drivers and focusing on promoting modes that commuters shouldn’t use – this is noble, but it isn’t useful and it adds to the feeling that commuters are not welcome.

    Another example is, rather than linking to your Access and Participation Plan as evidence that you consider the needs of commuters, interpret this and talk directly to them.

    Finally, most of the information that we reviewed highlighted the problematic nature of commuting – but it can be a positive choice. Information provided by students, for students, was especially effective in promoting the benefits of commuting, supporting students to navigate life as a commuter, from a practical and emotional perspective.

    Providing commuters with more honest information about the multiple costs and benefits of being a commuter student, at every stage of the student lifecycle, alongside practical support to help them to overcome these, will support students to succeed. It demonstrates, through information alone, that students are welcome and that they belong.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students, click here to read more.

    Source link

  • Advice from Indigenous students to Indigenous students

    Advice from Indigenous students to Indigenous students

    Navigating student life, especially when entering university or tertiary education for the first time, is no easy feat.

    Students are often dealing with newfound independence, more travel, gruelling schedules, and a shift in priorities, all while trying to develop new skills and knowledge.

    Finding support and motivation during this time is essential, but it means different things to different people.

    In my role as chief executive of Aurora Education Foundation, I work with a number of Indigenous scholars who are studying at some of the world’s most prestigious universities.

    Recently, I asked three of them to share what had helped them get to where they are now and what advice they had for other students just starting their educational journey.

    Lean on your loved ones

    Warumungu woman Mady Wills is currently completing a Master of Science in Developmental Psychology and Psychopathology at King’s College London, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship.

    Mady said the support she received from her loved ones was invaluable along her journey, but almost equally, the doubt she received from others around her motivated her to achieve her best.

    “Reflecting on my educational journey so far, I have a huge amount of gratitude for the support I have received along the way. It hasn’t always been easy, and I have faced moments of doubt – both my own and from others – that challenged my commitment to my dreams,” she said.

    “But sometimes when people doubt you, question you, or make you second guess your dreams, it can actually be the most powerful motivator.

    The journey (whatever this looks like, be it career, high school, TAFE or Uni) is not meant to be a smooth one, and it’s important to remember that encouragement doesn’t always come in the form of praise. Sometimes, scepticism fuels resilience.

    “For me, each challenge, doubt or difficult moment strengthened my determination to work harder, to prove my capabilities, and to demonstrate what is possible. All I would say to anyone even considering taking this step – submitting that scholarship application or researching that course abroad – do it.”

    Build stamina

    For Wardandi Noongar woman Danielle Kampers, developing stamina was key to her success. Danielle is studying a Master of Science in Oceanography at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship.

    Danielle said one piece of advice about cultivating stamina and resilience changed her outlook on her education journey and set her up with the tools she needed to succeed.

    “When I started my science degree it filled me with enthusiasm to address significant challenges in marine environments and explore the wonders of scientific inquiry,” she said.

    “One piece of advice that stayed with me was the importance of ‘stamina’ – it’s crucial for a fulfilling and productive career in science. Cultivate resilience, manage stress effectively, stay flexible, maintain a positive outlook even during tough times and the rest will work out for itself.

    “Additionally, don’t hesitate to ask for help when needed, support and kindness are passed along and often come back around when you need it most.”

    Focus on what you can control

    Warumungu man Ethan Taylor, who is currently studying at the University of Oxford to complete a Doctor of Philosophy in Politics, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship, said that while hurdles are bound to happen on any journey, remaining focused on your goal was most important.

    “I would encourage other aspiring Indigenous scholars to stay driven and focus on what’s in their control. If something doesn’t work out, that’s okay – keep moving,” he said.

    “Hard work will never guarantee you success in academic or scholarly pursuit, but it will certainly put you in the best position to be successful.

    “If you’re a humanities or social science student like me, keep focussing on the fundamentals of scholarship in this area: reading and writing. Keep reading widely in your field and keep eliciting feedback in your writing.

    “Keep thinking and developing your ideas, even in the face of apparent rejection or failure. At the end of the day, by mastering these fundamentals and learning how to articulate yourself better, you’ll end up becoming someone who can’t be ignored or overlooked.”

    Leila Smith is the founder and chief executive of the Aurora Education Foundation.

    Source link

  • CSUDH announces alternate funding sources for Work-Study

    CSUDH announces alternate funding sources for Work-Study

    On Feb. 25, California State University, Dominguez Hills, communicated to campus employers that the university had utilized nearly all of its Federal Work-Study (FWS) funds for the current school year. The notice was amplified by this article, which incorrectly stated that the campus was terminating student employees.

    CSUDH is fully committed to ensuring our FWS students receive the amount they expected to be awarded. Administrators have identified alternate funding sources to compensate these students, including university scholarship and grant funds for those who qualify, as well as discretionary funding where needed.

    This will be a complex task, due to the different situations each student employee and department are in. For now, the university is asking that departments postpone any employment-related decisions for affected student workers until financial aid staff provide further details.

    Going forward, CSUDH is implementing new internal controls over FWS hiring and tracking to address anticipated high demand for FWS. We will also be hosting FWS trainings to support employers and timekeepers who will be hiring and managing FWS.

    CSUDH deeply appreciates the patience and collaboration of our campus community while we work to resolve this matter quickly and equitably for all impacted students.

    Sincerely,

    Lilly McKibbin
    Media Relations Specialist
    California State University, Dominguez Hills

    Source link

  • The case against impartial university teaching

    The case against impartial university teaching

    “I don’t share my political or religious perspectives at work; I never have”, asserted my experienced professorial colleague over an informal coffee. “A bit of shame, but kind of admirable, right?”, I thought.

    I recalled a politics lecturer during my time as an undergraduate, who, like seemingly most of that generation of academics (1990s-00s), believed in impartiality and explicitly stated his liberal neutrality when presenting challenging topics: may the best arguments win. The problem was that through reading his online bio and finding his works in the library, one could very quickly discern his political and philosophical leanings!

    When I began teaching philosophy at the same university a few years later, I too attempted to feign neutrality; neither sharing my political nor religious leanings, nor ethnic or cultural heritage. It wasn’t the done thing. Autobiography and self-disclosure had no place in the philosophy seminar room.

    I’ve since thawed. I’m now leaning far more towards disclosure than when I started teaching. I long held neutral impartiality as the gold standard of instruction, whereby challenging – and perhaps controversial – topics were discussed, but the educator held the space for students to explore perspectives, without sharing their own. This, while often the received wisdom, and certainly well-intentioned, is, I now reflect, limited.

    For an academic to be teaching on a module, especially if they’ve created it, means they’re very likely to be published in that field of inquiry. Engaged students will find such materials, understand their lecturer’s perspectives, and recognise when they’re playing devil’s advocate in sessions. Furthermore, given that we teach face to face, and not in confession booths, the visibility of us as lecturers often speaks volumes; students will make an array of assumptions. For example, if in a session led by the university’s chaplain, it’s safe for students to assume that they’re a member of the Church of England.

    Kelly’s heuristic quartet

    There is a case to be argued for “committed impartiality” as per Social Scientist Thomas Kelly’s (1986) heuristic quartet:

    • Exclusive neutrality: The educator takes a neutral position and eschews any potentially controversial issues; i.e. appropriate in a school context, but too reductive for HE.
    • Exclusive partiality: The educator takes a biased position; i.e. traditionally a big no no. Think here of educators who use their classes to enact their activism.
    • Neutral impartiality: The educator is impartial and neutral, encouraging students to explore controversial issues; i.e. the gold standard of HE instruction based on received wisdom.
    • Committed impartiality: The educator takes a biased position while also being impartial; i.e. seen with scepticism by those who practise neutral impartiality. This is a potentially slippery slope into exclusive partiality.

    While referring principally to the teaching of “controversial” topics in school education, I think the quartet can be helpfully adapted to fit the context of contemporary HE teaching in the social sciences and humanities. Kelly claimed that owing to its contradictory position, “committed impartiality” is the most defensible course of action for educators to engage in teaching controversial issues. This is because it requires the educator to put their cards on the table and encourage debate without claiming an unbiased standpoint.

    Wading

    When discussing loaded issues such as race, sexuality and religious perspectives, perhaps this is where the received wisdom about steadfastly refusing to disclose shines through and avoids the – especially contemporary – quagmire of a shallow form of identity politics and virtue signalling that can sometimes turn into a form of oppression Olympics? The “disclosure dilemma” is, of course, ultimately a personal, context bound one.

    In the context of schools, the issue of disclosure is much more vexed, given that teachers are effectively agents of the state who have a moral duty to avoid prosletysing given the power dynamic of the classroom (I recall the example during COvid-19 of a teacher in Nottinghamshire getting national attention for encouraging students to write letters of frustration to the then PM).

    While school curricula are obviously created by groups of individuals with political agendas, in HE we too have areas of expertise, interest, and passion. In an increasingly regulatory framework, the dissemination of our darlings is bound by legislation such as the Equality Act (2010), and The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act (2023). Furthermore, to adhere to these acts within a localised context, my employer has a university dignity policy, mission statements, and, within my department, enacts the Chatham House Rule. We also provide trigger warnings to create inclusive learning environments.

    Tightrope

    This discussion has implications for those in the social sciences, especially those who deal, like I do, with explicitly political content (I recognise that the personal is also the political). Of course, navigating the tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality is tricky. The received wisdom is valuable insofar as it helps the educator to avoid this balancing act. But when the educator has a specialism that speaks to a political issue of the day, it is arguably upon them to do so. For example, in March 2023 I was teaching a session for final year UG students on migration in the context of international education when the Gary Lineker “issue” kicked off. I had a well-informed perspective on that issue, and it linked neatly to the scheduled taught content that day. It’s fair to say that I teetered on that tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality!

    The challenge is not about self-censorship in the service of an apparently noble ideal of neutral impartiality, but enacting personal commitment and setting the groundwork for civic debate. Deciding to disclose may have the intended learning outcome of rapport building, modelling particular behaviours or perspectives, humanising oneself, normalising situations, or problematising a set of affairs; it’s about practising the messy craft of educating, and being open to self-transformation.

    Risk aversion

    I’m sure others could make equally compelling cases for different positions within, and outside of, Kelly’s heuristic quartet. I think a primary driver behind neutrality is, rather than a noble but impossible quest for untainted discourse, perhaps one of nervousness; nervousness of being seen as doctrinaire or unduly influencing students’ perspectives?

    Overall, the disclosing instructor must consider their visibility in terms of gender, age, physical presence, professional titles etc. that starkly reinforce a power imbalance between student and academic, aka judge, jury and executioner in terms of grades and longer-term prospects. Where the stakes are high boldness of speech, disclosing personal leanings in a learning environment are worth the risk.

    Source link

  • Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    It’s no secret that politicians are getting more involved in higher education. And while some level of involvement with how colleges and universities operate is appropriate given the amount of taxpayer money spent on campuses, nobody should be surprised to learn that greater political involvement can pose academic freedom risks.

    Last Monday, for example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the creation of Florida’s own Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), named after the Trump Administration’s Elon Musk-led initiative to cut federal spending. The Florida task force is to conduct “a deep dive into all facets of college and university operations and spending and make recommendations to the Board of Governors and State Board of Education to eliminate any wasteful spending.”

    There are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment.

    During his live announcement, DeSantis expanded on what he called “the DOGE-ing of our state university system,” saying it would include “examining courses, programming, and staff” with an aim towards helping students gain “meaningful employment.” But the governor also, troublingly, made clear that he’s continuing to take aim at a particular set of viewpoints:

    [S]ome of the ideological studies stuff, we just want to prune that and get that out, and we want to make sure that these universities are really serving the classical mission of what a university should be. And that’s not to impose ideology.

    Politicians have long complained about taxpayer money spent on what they see as frivolous academic pursuits — the proverbial degree in “underwater basket weaving” — but what DeSantis posits goes further. This task force won’t simply be focused on (say) eliminating majors that offer no real job prospects. Rather, it will seek out courses involving “ideological studies stuff,” presumably by reviewing course descriptions or syllabi, that in the task force’s view is not worth teaching. 

    That’s not just an invitation to viewpoint discrimination — it’s an explicit mandate.

    It’s not hard to see how this could threaten academic freedom by pressuring faculty members to substitute state-level politics for their academic judgment. 

    For example, let’s say the University of Florida’s Chinese Studies department decides that, to understand contemporary China, students need to take a class on Marxist-Leninist political thought. It’s easy to see how this could be relevant given that China is a Communist country. It’s also easy to see how an outside agency like Florida DOGE might view this as an effort to propagandize students into Marxism.

    What’s the likely result?

    • Most obviously, the department might decide to avoid conflict with the government by eliminating the class altogether despite believing it was needed, therefore impoverishing students’ education.
    • Even if it did decide to require the class, the department is likely to pressure its instructor not to include things that look pro-Marxist, regardless of whether the professor thinks it would be the best material for the course. That poorly serves students and limits a professor’s ability to engage in the intellectual pursuit of teaching, to boot.
    • Finally, even if the department were to offer the class without compromising on content, its instructor will most certainly feel “in the crosshairs,” restricted from following his or her academic conscience lest he or she get the class eliminated through an incautious word.

    Colleges should not be immune from investigations into waste and abuse. And there are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment. It remains to be seen whether this is how Florida DOGE will actually operate, but the governor’s remarks create plenty of cause for concern.

    Lest there be any doubt that governors of any party are capable of interfering in isolated academic decisions if given the opportunity, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (no friend of DeSantis) last Tuesday ordered the immediate removal of a CUNY-Hunter College job posting for a professor of Palestinian Studies. Hochul also ordered “a thorough review of the position to ensure that antisemitic theories are not promoted in the classroom.”

    The job listing certainly listed plenty of controversial topics, calling for a “historically grounded scholar who takes a critical lens to issues pertaining to Palestine including but not limited to: settler colonialism, genocide, human rights, apartheid, migration, climate and infrastructure devastation, health, race, gender, and sexuality.” Yet the very next sentence stated, “We are open to diverse theoretical and methodological approaches.”

    Critics are unlikely to believe that the job was really open to scholars with diverse approaches to whether, say, Israel is an “apartheid” state. Maybe it was, maybe not. But one can’t make that determination simply based on the language of the listing, and there is no reason to believe that the governor of New York is (or should be expected to be) the best-qualified person to make that call.

    Faculty members are supposed to be hired because they are subject-matter experts who have the ability and knowledge in the field to make informed academic judgments. Readers may recall that Winston Churchill famously opined that democracy is “the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.” That’s just as true when it comes to academic faculty making academic decisions — like it or not, there are no better alternatives. Even if one believes a particular group of public college faculty is, itself, making decisions that harm higher education, as DeSantis and Hochul both seem to believe, there’s one thing we can know for sure: transferring that job to politicians will only make it worse.

    Source link

  • Statement on President Trump’s Truth Social post threatening funding cuts for ‘illegal protests’

    Statement on President Trump’s Truth Social post threatening funding cuts for ‘illegal protests’

    President Trump posted a message on Truth Social this morning that put social media and college campuses on high alert. He wrote:

    Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct, but the president does not have unilateral authority to revoke federal funds, even for colleges that allow “illegal” protests. 

    If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding by taking it to federal court, or via notice to Congress and an administrative hearing. It is not simply a discretionary decision that the president can make.  

    President Trump also lacks the authority to expel individual students, who are entitled to due process on public college campuses and, almost universally, on private campuses as well.

    Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.

    As FIRE knows too well from our work defending student and faculty rights under the Obama and Biden administrations, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later. 

    Even the most controversial political speech is protected by the First Amendment. As the  Supreme Court reminds us, in America, we don’t use the law to punish those with whom we disagree. Instead, “[a]s a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” 

    Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard. 

    However, students who engage in misconduct must still receive due process — whether through a campus or criminal tribunal. This requires fair, consistent application of existing law or policy, in a manner that respects students’ rights.

    President Trump needs to stand by his past promise to be a champion for free expression. That means doing so for all views — including those his administration dislikes.

     

    Source link

  • Edward Peck’s performance at the Education Committee

    Edward Peck’s performance at the Education Committee

    There’s something wonderfully postmodern about Edward Peck’s committee hearing ahead of his likely appointment as the next chair of the Office for Students.

    While the first chair of the regulator, Michael Barber, arrived with a fully documented quasi-academic theory of delivery – and while the second, James Wharton, brought a certain kind of political cunning – Edward Peck has a fully fledged multi-disciplinary research-informed theory of leadership as performance.

    How should we understand leadership as performance?

    The idea of performativity – broadly speaking that the descriptive language we use in a given situation has a direct impact on the situation itself – has informed a conceptualisation of leadership as a performance that interrelates both with the wider ideas of what it is to be a leader and the narrower immediate context as a particular leadership “act”. This shifts the focus on leadership from a kind of all-powerful “strongman” (with the consequent cod-psychological popular literature on essential attributes of successful leaders available at an airport near you) to something more subtle around relationships, language, and behavior across multiple settings as shaping experiences of leadership.

    Leaders – in other words – are sensemakers, both in terms of explaining (and thus shaping) reality for those around them, and in collaboratively situating activities carried out by an organisation within this negotiated reality. Sometimes these acts can be almost ritualistic (“is” performance) like in representing the university at a graduation ceremony where roles and norms are predetermined.

    At other points these are more spontaneous (“as” performance) a narrative (a pre-existing conceptualisation of an experience or situation) enacted to an audience in response to an everyday stimulus – something like a discussion of university finances during a spontaneous conversation with a member of staff on campus).

    Not an actual theatre

    This isn’t a literal assertion that leadership is theatre – that it is a kind of scripted reality that lacks authenticity – but the idea that the actions of leaders reiterate (and thus endorse) organisational norms and organisational cultures. So when Peck repeatedly qualified his responses to the education committee with reference to what the OfS had learned in eight years of regulatory activity, and in his need to understand the way in which the legal framework in which regulation takes place has been interpreted he is situating himself as a part of an ongoing story rather than attempting to begin telling a new one.

    This is likely to be important to those who might think a return to a HEFCE-like situation in which leaders were former vice chancellors and things were, apparently, nicer (they weren’t nicer, but this is the story some like to tell) – Peck is entering the stage in the middle of the play and is clearly looking to be an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary chair.

    What he does seem to want to do, in narrative terms, is to use more of the language that institutional leaders themselves use within regulation. In Peck’s performativity theory – these linguistic shifts are important in that they themselves have an impact on the collective understanding of what is going on.

    Usually about six

    The best example of this was, inevitably, about university finances. To Peck there are “usually about six” things that universities do to balance income with expenditure in times of financial constriction – he didn’t name the six, but the impression he was looking to give is that these are well-known and familiar interventions among those who run universities. With this frame, he was able to put the onus on universities rather than regulators to act (“a lot of institutions are still on this journey”), allowing him the appeal to accepted wisdom in being clear that it was not for the Office for Students to bail out universities, and to go further to suggest that if there was a credible route to sustainable business it would be visible to banks (and, I guess, other lenders) and it should not be for the government to create a “moral hazard” by stepping in.

    Committee member Manuela Perteghella pushed him on what he had specifically learned from what Nottingham Trent University had done to stave off financial problems (NTU ran a £9.5m surplus last year, but saw around a 10 per cent reduction in student numbers this year). The first example he reached for can again be traced back to the way he has written about leadership in the past – he made much of the need to “be clear with colleagues” about the problems that the university was facing and do so regularly and openly (there is a quarterly town hall meeting).

    As a leader you do have the chance to control the narrative – and this shapes the way problems are understood. Peck noted the problems that other providers had faced in submitting unrealistic income or recruitment projections to the Office for Students – grand (if broad) plans that made any subsequent need for economy harder to sell internally. He was able to sell a 10 per cent reduction in staff numbers at NTU on the basis of needing less staff to teach less students (based on historical precedent) – and being clear about recruitment problems early allowed him to say that all these job losses would be voluntary.

    The historical precedent – an appeal to a quantifiable and shared memory within the organisation – also made it easier to make the case for a lower staff headcount maintaining the quality of education. If, after all, we could teach this number of students at an acceptable level a few years back with this number of staff, why can’t it be done in 2025?

    Independence day

    One of the stories that has become accepted fact about the Office for Students is that it is too close to the government – reverse regulatory capture, if you like. The Behan report (and to a lesser extent the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee report) undermined this assumption a little – there are examples of places where OfS pushed back against the department, although the very nature of the beast means that such independence is rarely visible in public.

    As chair Peck would clearly need to work with government on the underpinning policy framework – hinting at a “new” policy under development for release in the summer, most likely the much-heralded “HE reform” package – but emphasised that “operational” decisions would be independent, and that his network of contacts across the sector would help OfS build better relationships with institutions.

    Again, this isn’t new – or even particularly notable – but it’s another pointer to his explanatory mode of leadership. It suggests that the problem is one of communication, and he even suggests his own ability to communicate as the solution. Virtuoso performance as leadership. When we get to the actual structural changes there’s a sense that OfS has been on the right track recently – revamped student panels, more student surveys. The only novelty is a promised re-engagement with NUS.

    Curtain call

    There’s a lot of stuff that would remain in a Peck-led OfS: he’s keen on B3 as driving value for money, keen to get stuck in on regulating modular provision, feel like we are in the right place on freedom of speech given recent changes, pleased with TEF and access and participation plan (though he asked a fascinating question around what happens to those who register with UCAS – he is interim chair there, currently – but are not placed by the end of the cycle).

    For much of this, regulation is a matter of establishing codes of practice and ensuring that the actions of universities are within these bounds – Peck’s government work on student mental health should have provided the clue there. The codes themselves set the stage, the universities act within those boundaries. You could argue this as legalism, but it makes more sense as freedom within set parameters, something which universities (and indeed academics) will find comfortingly familiar.

    In their 2009 book, “Performing Leadership” Peck and Helen Dickinson (now a professor at the University of New South Wales) cite one compelling example (an unpublished conference paper by Druckett from 2007) of the way the performance of a particular style of management has an impact on lived experience of university staff.

    the case study… illustrates that the assertion, arguably the over-assertion, of the hierarchical and individualist ways of organising by senior management is generating negative feedback from the academics in the organisation. The consequences of not allowing the isolate and enclave approaches to contribute adequately to the organisational settlement may be having, or have in future, significant detrimental consequences for the university.

    The classic postmodernist understanding of the organisation, in contrast, is one of multiple narratives within a common framework. If you feel that OfS has been too deterministic – too rules based rather than risk based – within the first eight years, the way in which Peck (and whoever he chooses as a senior executive team) allows other voices to fill the stage will be fascinating to watch.

    Source link

  • ensure college grads gain higher incomes

    ensure college grads gain higher incomes

    Seventeen years ago, the Lumina Foundation set out to try to raise the percentage of working-age U.S. adults with a college credential from 38 percent to 60 percent by 2025.

    It didn’t reach that goal, though it was only short a few percentage points; today, 55 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 have a college degree or short-term credential, an increase that Lumina CEO Jamie Merisotis called “one of the most significant but least recognized success stories of the past decade and a half.” 

    But times have changed since 2008, Lumina’s leaders said during a news briefing Monday, and in developing a new goal for the coming 15 years, they chose to focus not only on college attainment, but also on making sure that people’s college degrees help them find success and prosperity in their careers.

    That’s why the foundation’s new goal aims to increase the number of adults in the labor force who have a “credential of value”—meaning they have earned a college credential and now make an income at least 15 percent more than the national average for high school graduates—to 75 percent by 2040. That number lines up with various labor projections, such as a Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce report, released earlier this year, that anticipated that 72 percent of jobs will require postsecondary education or training by the year 2031.

    Lumina’s leaders decided to focus on earnings in large part because of Americans’ lack of confidence in the value of higher education. Polls by Gallup and Lumina have shown that a major reason people don’t think a degree is worth the high cost of attending college is because they don’t believe higher education sets people up well to be successful in the workforce.

    “Our view is that we’ve got to do more to transform higher education workforce systems in order to meet human talent needs, in order to expand economic prosperity for individuals and for families and for communities,” said Merisotis. “Today, we have to make sure higher education literally serves more people better.”

    Currently, only 44.1 percent of the U.S. labor force—which includes members of the military and those who are looking for work—has a college degree or certificate and earns at least 15 percent more than those with just a high school diploma, according to the foundation’s analysis of Census data. Those rates are significantly lower for Native American, Hispanic and Black people, and higher for white and Asian people.

    The foundation laid out four pillars it plans to prioritize to reach that 75 percent goal: continuing to expand access to college, promoting student success and retention, redesigning college and workforce readiness to better support today’s students, and ensuring the credentials students receive do, in fact, pay off.

    Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the education equity nonprofit EdTrust, lauded the foundation for turning its focus to college value—and for providing a definition of what a valuable credential actually is.

    “The return-on-investment piece is under serious scrutiny nationally,” he said. “Including a metric that measures outcome—that measures income as an outcome—pushes folks to think about the return on investment of higher education that I think is a much-needed data point”—though he noted that earning 15 percent more than high school graduates, who made an average of about $38,000 in 2023, seems like “a low bar.”

    (Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning, said at the media briefing that the 15 percent figure was determined in consultation with multiple labor economists.)

    Lumina’s quest to increase credentials of value will be a boon not only to graduates, but also to employers seeking to recruit talent they can trust will have the job skills to succeed in their role, according to Shawn VanDerziel, president and CEO of the National Association of Colleges and Employers. In an email to Inside Higher Ed, he called the project a “worthy goal” and a “win-win” for graduates and employers.

    “The education landscape is changing and how adults are consuming education is changing,” he wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed. “With Lumina’s assistance, I hope we can expand the speed at which our educational institutions can evolve to meet the changing needs of employers and their focus on skills-based hiring.”

    Charles Ansell, vice president for research, policy and advocacy at Complete College America, noted that while he appreciated the foundation’s focus on the value of credentials, he was also happy Lumina hadn’t shifted its focus away from attainment entirely.

    “College attainment is still the best predictor of the higher wage outcomes,” he said. “If you have full-time-student graduation rates hovering in the 20s at best in the community college space … it’s hard to get economic mobility. It’s still extremely important to put that attainment goal itself first and not to lose sight of quantifying that college completion.”

    As for whether the 75 percent goal seems achievable? That’s irrelevant, Ansel argued, because it’s simply what needs to happen to keep the country’s economy and democracy healthy.

    “We should never lie to ourselves about what we need to do,” he said. “I don’t find it unrealistic—it’s what we need to do.”

    Source link

  • The disruptive idea of the university

    The disruptive idea of the university

    by Rob Cuthbert

    “Ideas of the university in the public domain are hopelessly impoverished. ‘Impoverished’ because they are unduly confined to a small range of possible conceptions of the university; and ‘hopelessly’ because they are too often without hope, taking the form of either a hand-wringing over the current state of the university or merely offering a defence of the emerging nature of ‘the entrepreneurial university’.”

    Fifty years on from the Robbins Report, that was how Ron Barnett began Imagining the University in 2013, and it seems that nothing much has changed since then. Stefan Collini had written a much-cited book, What are universities for?, in 2012, which as the Guardian review said (Conrad, 2012) was “heavy on hand-wringing and light on real answers”. Tom Sperlinger, Josie McLellan and Richard Pettigrew wrote Who are universities for? Remaking higher education in 2018, which despite its respectable intentions was more akin to what Barnett called a ‘defence of the emerging nature of the entrepreneurial university’, aiming in the authors’ words to “make UK universities more accessible and responsive to a changing economy.”

    By 2019 Raewyn Connell was taking a rather different tack in The Good University: What Universities Actually Do and Why It’s Time for Radical Change:

    “… what should a ‘good university’ look like? … Raewyn Connell asks us to consider just that, challenging us to rethink the fundamentals of what universities do. Drawing on the examples offered by pioneering universities and educational reformers around the world, Connell outlines a practical vision for how our universities can become both more engaging and more productive places, driven by social good rather than profit, helping to build fairer societies.”

    Simon Marginson and his colleagues in the Centre for Global Higher Education have pursued a broad programme to conceptualise and promote the idea of the public good of higher education, but in his interviews with English university leaders:

    “Nearly all advocated a broad public good role … and provided examples of public outcomes in higher education. However, these concepts lacked clarity, while at the same time the shaping effects of the market were sharply understood.”

    His sad conclusion was that:

    “English policy on the public good outcomes of higher education has been hi-jacked, reworked, and emptied out in Treasury’s long successful drive to implement a fee-based market.”

    This means that everyday pressures too often drive us back to either handwringing or apologetic entrepreneurialism, or some mixture of the two. Even Colin Riordan, one of the most thoughtful of VCs during his tenure at Cardiff, could not break the mould:

    “What are universities for? Everybody knows that universities exist to educate students and help to create a highly educated workforce. Most people know they’re also the place where research is done that ends up in technologies like smartphones, fuel-efficient cars and advanced medical care. That means universities are a critical part of the innovation process.”

    These ideas sell the university short, and leave their leaders and managers ill-equipped to live the values they need to protect.

    We are entering an era when Donald Trump and Elon Musk seem determined to ‘move fast and break things’, as the Facebook motto once had it. Mark Zuckerberg tried to move on ten years ago to “Move fast with stable infrastructure”, but it seems that Elon Musk didn’t get the memo, as the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ cuts huge swathes through and – as it presumably hopes – out of US government. Whether or not DOGE succeeds we will soon discover, but the disregard for stable infrastructure may well prove fatal to its own efforts.

    People would not normally accuse a university of moving fast, but what some might see as an excessive concern for stable infrastructure perhaps conceals the speed at which universities move to break existing ideas and understandings. The pursuit of truth may be an imperfect way to describe the aim of the university, but as an academic motivation it suffices to explain how one way of understanding will sometimes rapidly give way to another. Yes, we know that some paradigms hang on doggedly, often supported long past their sell-by date by academics with too much invested in them. But usually and eventually, often more suddenly, the truth will out.

    How can universities best protect their distinctive quality, of encouraging open-minded teaching and research which will create the most favourable conditions for learning, individually and collectively? Strategies and academic values have their place, they might even constitute the stable infrastructure that is needed for a university to flourish. But the infrastructure needs to be built on a simple idea which everyone can comprehend. And that simple idea has to be infinitely flexible while staying perpetually relevant – here is one I prepared earlier:

    “Many people can’t shake off the idea that management in higher education is or at least it should be about having clear objectives, and working out what to do through systematic analysis and ‘cascading’ objectives down through the organisation. They want to see the university as a rational machine, and the manager as a production controller, because Western scientistic culture has encouraged them to think that way.

    The best way to deal with that way of thinking is to agree with it. You say: yes, we must focus on our key objective. In teaching our key objective is personal learning, development and growth for students, a process which cannot be well specified in advance. In research our key objective is the generation of new knowledge. So in higher education the key objective in each of our two main activities is the generation of unpredictable outcomes. Now please tell me what your key performance indicators will be.”[1]

    The fundamental test of performance for a university is that it generates unpredictable outcomes. An infinitely flexible, endlessly relevant idea that everyone can understand – and always disruptive. That is why higher education matters – not just training students for the economy, not just innovation in research for economic growth. Universities need to keep generating unpredictable outcomes because that is their unique function as open public institutions, and that is what their wider society needs and deserves.

    Rob Cuthbert is editor of SRHE News and the SRHE Blog, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics. Email [email protected]. Twitter/X @RobCuthbert.

    [1] Text taken from inaugural professorial lecture; Rob Cuthbert, 7 November 2007

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Public confidence in higher education is declining. Even students, most of whom say they’re getting a quality education, question the value of a degree with respect to affordability. Such doubts increase higher education’s vulnerability to the threats it’s currently facing. All this evokes the long-running debate over whether higher education can be viewed as a public good. And when revisiting that debate, it’s instructive to know what students expect from their college or university—specifically, whether they consider themselves not just students but also customers.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s first-ever Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators, released last fall, 71 percent of administrators said that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves customers (most of these administrators also agreed that parents of students consider themselves customers).

    But what do undergraduates themselves say? According to a new analysis of IHE’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab, nearly the same share of students—65 percent—consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity, defined in the survey as expecting to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees.

    Some 41 percent of the survey’s 5,025 two- and four-year student respondents say they see themselves as customers both in their classes and across campus. Another 13 percent consider themselves customers only in their classes, while 11 percent view themselves as customers only outside of class, when interacting with staff and administrators across campus.

    Methodology

    Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

    Respondents include over 3,500 four-year students and 1,400 two-year students. Sixteen percent are exclusively online learners, and 40 percent are first-generation students.

    Top-line findings from the full survey are here and the full data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. The main annual survey asked questions on academic success, health and wellness, the college experience, and preparing for life after college.

    How satisfied are students as customers of their institution? When those who do not identify as customers (n=1,744) are asked to wear that hat for a moment, nearly half (45 percent) say they’re somewhat satisfied with their institution. Another quarter (23 percent) are very satisfied. The rest are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (19 percent), somewhat unsatisfied (9 percent), or very unsatisfied (3 percent).

    What about students who do identify as customers (n=3,280)? The satisfaction numbers are very similar, but this group is slightly less likely to have high satisfaction; 45 percent, the plurality, are somewhat satisfied with their institution and an additional 18 percent are very satisfied. Twenty percent are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, some 13 percent are somewhat unsatisfied and very few (4 percent) are very unsatisfied.

    The results are relatively consistent across sector and a swath of student characteristics. However, two-year college students are less likely than four-year college students to say they consider themselves customers both in classes and when interacting with staff and administrators outside of class, at 35 percent versus 43 percent, respectively.

    The higher-education-as-public-good debate typically centers on whether higher education meets the common criteria for a public good: nonexcludability, meaning it’s accessible to everyone, and nonrivalry, meaning one person’s use of the good the doesn’t limit others’ ability to use it.

    In this sense, counting students as customers of higher education hurts the public good argument: How can one be a customer of a public good? And concerns about a creeping customer service dynamic in higher education have long worried scholars, including the authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal for Educational Integrity arguing that a facile customer service model of higher education undermines the instructor-learner relationship by reducing it to transactional, vendor-vendee connection—one in which the institution meets the student’s expressed needs in exchange for payment. (Think grade inflation and more.) The name of that paper kind of says it all: “The Customer Isn’t Always Right: Limitations of ‘Customer Service’ Approaches to Education, or Why Higher Ed Is Not Burger King.”

    But is thinking of students as customers—and students thinking of themselves as customers—a universally bad thing?

    Alternative Models

    Various scholars have proposed alternatives to the customer service model of higher education.

    Student as client: Scholar Keith B. Murray, for instance, proposed in a December Inside Higher Ed opinion piece that it’s better to think of students as clients. Whereas vendors need to appeal to customers via a product at an attractive price point, he wrote, in “client-type transactions, exchange of time, effort and money by the consumer is predicated on one party’s professional expertise and advice.” Typical client-based vendor examples include “physicians, dentists, financial advisers, tax preparers, accountants, veterinarians, therapists and professors,” he added.

    Faculty and staff as stewards: Scholar Jeffrey Vetrano, in responding to Murray’s piece, also in Inside Higher Ed, advocated for a stewardship framework.

    “Faculty and staff at institutions of higher education are stewards of both our students and their educations. As such, we take personal responsibility for granting them every opportunity to succeed, by maintaining strong ethics as identified in Murray’s article. As stewards, every action we take is for the care and development of our students, and we strive for much more than a client/vendor relationship.”

    Luke Hobson, an instructional design leader and online lecturer with his own education podcast and blog, actually encouraged institutions to think of students as customers last year, citing these five reasons:

    • Focus on quality
    • Responsiveness to needs
    • Enhanced accountability
    • Market competitiveness
    • Feedback loop for continuous improvements

    Summing up all these points, Hobson wrote in a blog post that the “most significant factor” here was to “emphasize caring. A business cares about their customers. Without them, they can’t survive.” Moreover, he said, “The greatest educators I can think of share this trait in that they cared. They were passionate. They were there for the students and to see them succeed. They could all have different styles of teaching, but at the end of the day, they served their students. It’s this mentality that will keep students engaged in the learning environment.” Indeed, existing research links instructor caring to student trust and sense of belonging, both of which are associated with student success. Quality nonclassroom student support services also promote student success.

    Hobson also wrote that it’s “crucial to maintain a balance. Education is not a typical consumer good, and the primary goal of a university should be to educate and foster intellectual development, not just to satisfy customer demands. Students are coming to learn because they don’t have all the answers. They want to get better and they are seeking the expertise from the institution. The focus should be on helping them to reach their goals.”

    ‘Polarizing’ Idea

    A year later, Hobson recalls that post being his most polarizing ever, based on the feedback he got (some loved it, others hated it). But while he acknowledges the concerns of his peers—that, for example, a customer-focused model could hurt student autonomy by shifting the responsibility for learning onto institutions—his own views haven’t changed.

    Reviewing the Student Voice data, Hobson imagines that students who describe themselves as customers believe they’re “paying for the ultimate learning experience,” defined by a “comprehensive blend of academic rigor, personalized support and opportunities for professional and personal growth.”

    In this light, students expect “the best the university has to offer, including engaging faculty interactions, meaningful assignments, timely feedback and an overall environment that fosters intellectual and practical development,” he continues. They also “anticipate that this education will serve as a pathway to their future goals and aspirations. The effort they invest in their learning, they hope, will directly correlate to the outcomes they receive,” in the form of knowledge, skills or career opportunities.

    This model has parallel benefits for institutions, Hobson adds, in that it encourages a focus on quality, including in online education; responsiveness to student feedback and a general feedback loop for continuous improvements to the learning environment; accountability for delivering “value for tuition and aligning institutional actions with expectations for academic rigor and integrity”; and market competitiveness by virtue of providing exceptional experiences.

    Jhenai W. Chandler, vice president for research and policy at NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, who also reviewed the Student Voice data, says she understands the impulse to think about students as customers or even clients. And she’s recently been on the student side of this conversation, helping two people close to her choose a college based on their very different needs and wants: Chandler’s own mother returned to community college to advance specific career goals, while her high school daughter is exploring colleges based on their ability to deliver a well-rounded education both in and outside the classroom.

    Still, Chandler worries that framing the student as customer can sometimes reinforce “harmful misconceptions about the nature of higher education, particularly in a time when our field is under political scrutiny.”

    Instead of using terms such as “client” or “customer,” “we need to focus on a more meaningful conversation about the value we provide and the outcomes we generate for students and society,” she says. Higher education’s value is “rooted in evidence that shows how students’ lives and communities improve after degree completion, whether it’s an associate, bachelor’s or graduate degree. We have a responsibility to communicate this impact effectively—through data, outcomes and success stories—to students, parents, industry leaders and policymakers.”

    Chandler adds this: “Language and terminology can often be our worst enemies in this conversation, as the terms we use are not always understood outside of the academic world. We need to be intentional about the way we communicate, especially as we navigate misconceptions about what students expect from us.”

    What do you think students who view themselves as customers—in classes or of their institution as a whole—expect from professors and/or administrators or staff across campus? Are the expectations typically reasonable ones? Tell us about it.

    Source link