Category: Featured

  • Another way of thinking about the national assessment of people, culture, and environment

    Another way of thinking about the national assessment of people, culture, and environment

    There is a multi-directional relationship between research culture and research assessment.

    Poor research assessment can lead to poor research cultures. The Wellcome Trust survey in 2020 made this very clear.

    Assessing the wrong things (such as a narrow focus on publication indicators), or the right things in the wrong way (such as societal impact rankings based on bibliometrics) is having a catalogue of negative effects on the scholarly enterprise.

    Assessing the assessment

    In a similar way, too much research assessment can also lead to poor research cultures. Researchers are one of the most heavily assessed professions in the world. They are assessed for promotion, recruitment, probation, appraisal, tenure, grant proposals, fellowships, and output peer review. Their lives and work are constantly under scrutiny, creating competitive and high-stress environments.

    But there is also a logic (Campbell’s Law) that tells us that if we assess research culture it can lead to greater investment into improving it. And it is this logic that the UK Joint HE funding bodies have drawn on in their drive to increase the weighting given to the assessment of People, Culture & Environment in REF 2029. This makes perfect sense: given the evidence that positive and healthy research cultures are a thriving element of Research Excellence, it would be remiss of any Research Excellence Framework not to attempt to assess, and therefore incentivise them.

    The challenge we have comes back to my first two points. Even assessing the right things, but in the wrong way, can be counterproductive, as may increasing the volume of assessment. Given research culture is such a multi-faceted concept, the worry is that the assessment job will become so huge that it quickly becomes burdensome, thus having a negative impact on those research cultures we want to improve.

    It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it

    Just as research culture is not so much about the research that you do but the way that you do it, so research culture assessment should concern itself not so much with the outcomes of that assessment but with the way the assessment takes place.

    This is really important to get right.

    I’ve argued before that research culture is a hygiene factor. Most dimensions of culture relate to standards that it’s critically important we all get right: enabling open research, dealing with misconduct, building community, supporting collaboration, and giving researchers the time to actually do research. These aren’t things for which we should offer gold stars but basic thresholds we all should meet. And to my mind they should be assessed as such.

    Indeed this is exactly how the REF assessed open research in 2021 (and will do so again in 2029). They set an expectation that 95 per cent of qualifying outputs should be open access, and if you failed to hit the threshold, excess closed outputs were simply unclassified. End of. There were no GPAs for open access.

    In the tender for the PCE indicator project, the nature of research culture as a hygiene factor was recognised by proposing “barrier to entry” measures. The expectation seemed to be that for some research culture elements institutions would be expected to meet a certain threshold, and if they failed they would be ineligible to even submit to REF.

    Better use of codes of practice

    This proposal did not make it into the current PCE assessment pilot. However, the REF already has a “barrier to entry” mechanism, of course, which is the completion of an acceptable REF Code of Practice (CoP).

    An institution’s REF CoP is about how they propose to deliver their REF, not how they deliver their research (although there are obvious crossovers). And REF have distinguished between the two in their latest CoP Policy module governing the writing of these codes.

    But given that REF Codes of Practice are now supposed to be ongoing, living documents, I don’t see why they shouldn’t take the form of more research-focussed (rather than REF-focussed) codes. It certainly wouldn’t harm research culture if all research performing organisations had a thorough research code of practice (most do of course) and one that covers a uniform range of topics that we all agree are critical to good research culture. This could be a step beyond the current Terms & Conditions associated with QR funding in England. And it would be a means of incentivising positive research cultures without ‘grading’ them. With your REF CoP, it’s pass or fail. And if you don’t pass first time, you get another attempt.

    Enhanced use of culture and environment data

    The other way of assessing culture to incentivise behaviours without it leading to any particular rating or ranking is to simply start collecting & surfacing data on things we care about. For example, the requirement to share gender pay gap data and to report misconduct cases, has focussed institutional minds on those things without there being any associated assessment mechanism. If you check out the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data on proportion of male:female professors, in most UK institutions you can see the ratio heading in the right direction year on year. This is the power of sharing data, even when there’s no gold or glory on offer for doing so.

    And of course, the REF already has a mechanism to share data to inform, but not directly make an assessment, in the form of ’Environment Data’. In REF 2021, Section 4 of an institution’s submission was essentially completed for them by the REF team by extracting from the HESA data, the number of doctoral degrees awarded (4a) and the volume of research income (4b); and from the Research Councils, the volume of research income in kind (4c).

    This data was provided to add context to environment assessments, but not to replace them. And it would seem entirely sensible to me that we identify a range of additional data – such as the gender & ethnicity of research-performing staff groups at various grades – to better contextualise the assessment of PCE, and to get matters other than the volume of research funding up the agendas of senior university committees.

    Context-sensitive research culture assessment

    That is not to say that Codes of Practice and data sharing should be the only means of incentivising research culture of course. Culture was a significant element of REF Environment statements in 2021, and we shouldn’t row back on it now. Indeed, given that healthy research cultures are an integral part of research excellence, it would be remiss not to allocate some credit to those who do this well.

    Of course there are significant challenges to making such assessments robust and fair in the current climate. The first of these is the complex nature of research culture – and the fact that no framework is going to cover every aspect that might matter to individual institutions. Placing boundaries around what counts as research culture could mean institutions cease working on agendas that are important to them, because they ostensibly don’t matter to REF.

    The second challenge is the severe and uncertain financial constraints currently faced by the majority of UK HEIs. Making the case for a happy and collaborative workforce when half are facing redundancy is a tough ask. A related issue here is the hugely varying levels of research (culture) capital across the sector as I’ve argued before. Those in receipt of a £1 million ‘Enhancing Research Culture’ fund from Research England, are likely to make a much better showing than those doing research culture on a shoe-string.

    The third is that we are already half-way through this assessment period and we’re only expected to get the final guidance in 2026 – two years prior to submission. And given the financial challenges outlined above, this is going to make this new element of our submission especially difficult. It was partly for this reason that some early work to consider the assessment of research culture was clear that this should celebrate the ‘journey travelled’, rather than a ‘destination achieved’.

    For this reason, to my mind, the only thing we can reasonably expect all HEIs to do right now with regards to research culture is to:

    • Identify the strengths and challenges inherent within your existing research culture;
    • Develop a strategy and action plan(s) by which to celebrate those strengths and address those challenges;
    • Agree a set of measures by which to monitor your progress against your research culture ambitions. These could be inspired by some of the suggestions resulting from the Vitae & Technopolis PCE workshops & Pilot exercise;
    • Describe your progress against those ambitions and measures. This could be demonstrated both qualitatively and quantitatively, through data and narratives.

    Once again, there is an existing REF assessment mechanism open to us here, and that is the use of the case study. We assess research impact by effectively asking HEIs to tell us their best stories – I don’t see why we shouldn’t make the same ask of PCE, at least for this REF.

    Stepping stone REF

    The UK joint funding bodies have made a bold and sector-leading move to focus research performing organisations’ attention on the people and cultures that make for world-leading research endeavours through the mechanism of assessment. Given the challenges we face as a society, ensuring we attract, train, and retain high quality research talent is critical to our success. However, the assessment of research culture has the power both to make things better or worse: to incentivise positive research cultures or to increase burdensome and competitive cultures that don’t tackle all the issues that really matter to institutions.

    To my mind, given the broad range of topics that are being worked on by institutions in the name of improving research culture, and where we are in the REF cycle, and the financial constraints facing the sector, we might benefit from a shift in the mechanisms proposed to assess research culture in 2029 and to see this as a stepping stone REF.

    Making better use of existing mechanisms such as a Codes of Practice and Environment and Culture data would assess the “hygiene factor” elements of culture without unhelpfully associating any star ratings to them. Ratings should be better applied to the efforts taken by institutions to understand, plan, monitor, and demonstrate progress against their own, mission-driven research culture ambitions. This is where the real work is and where real differentiations between institutions can be made, when contextually assessed. Then, in 2036, when we can hope that the sector will be in a financially more stable place, and with ten years of research culture improvement time behind us, we can assess institutions against their own ambitions, as to whether they are starting to move the dial on this important work.

    Source link

  • When OfS reopens its register, there will be implications for everyone else

    When OfS reopens its register, there will be implications for everyone else

    The process may be paused right now, but if you are thinking of registering with the Office for Students (by choice, or following the requirement for larger franchise providers to get on board) the game is changing.

    The Office for Students has issued a consultation on two new initial conditions of registration.

    Interested parties have until 23 April to offer feedback, with the overwhelming majority of conditions due to come into force from August – at the point where OfS is planning to resume registration activity following the current pause.

    This will have a particular impact on providers who are currently planning (or preparing to restart) submissions quashed when the pause started. Expectations and requirements will change – and while OfS hopes to primarily assess documents a provider will already have, these things do tend to be tailored to fit requirements.

    C5: Treating students fairly

    New condition C5 replaces C1 (consumer law) and C3 (protection plans) as initial conditions – an assessment will be based on identifying behaviours that constitute unfair treatment of students (there is a list) from documents providers already have.

    There are implications from that one that reach far beyond new applications to the register – Jim Dickinson has covered those in detail elsewhere on the site.

    E7: Effective governance

    This new initial condition replaces the current E1 (on public interest governance) and E2 (on management and governance), though those two remain as ongoing conditions. OfS offers a rationale:

    We are increasingly finding that newly established providers (with less experience of delivering higher education) are less sure about what is required in terms of the self-assessment we ask for at registration. This leads to inefficiencies in the assessment.

    Providers have been engaged in substantial back-and-forth conversations with OfS about what is expected during registration. The regulator has noted that people are describing existing documents where it would be quicker to submit them, and has spotted that what is submitted can often be poorly written and excessively tailored to paint a rosy (and hopefully successful) picture.

    Some applicants have been borrowing and adapting plans and documentation from other providers that are inapplicable (a small, single subject, provider using processes developed for a traditional, multi-faculty, university) – in part because of perceived expectations that newly established providers need to have the same range of processes and policies.

    So the self-assessment aspect will go – the plan is that providers should submit actual governance documents, a five year action plan, and other bits on the knowledge and experience of those involved.

    One surprising shift is that there will no longer be an explicit test of “public interest governance” (the Nolan principles and suchlike) in the registration process. OfS reckon that the strengths of the rest of these new requirements, plus the continued inclusion in ongoing condition E1, makes up for this.

    Ditto the absence of the (largely toothless) student protection plan – the line being that this should be visible to students via the documentation provided, which is a win for all those applicants who read governance documentation before they decide where to apply. See Jim’s piece for more detail.

    Documentation

    So what would you now need to submit:

    • The governing body’s terms of reference (or similar), which would cover purpose, membership, appointment procedures, responsibilities, decision-making procedures, meeting frequency and the arrangements for reviewing effectiveness
    • Establishing documents – like a Royal Charter or articles of association
    • A scheme of delegation (or anything else useful) about who makes decisions and how
    • Documentation pertaining to risk and audit – the operations of the committee responsible is given as one example
    • A policy on conflict of interest

    These are, to be clear, governance documents, not detailed operational arrangements – although of course such policies would need to be operationalised for ongoing conditions E1 and E2.

    In assessing these documents, OfS intends to look at the “appropriateness of arrangements”, bearing in mind a provider’s size, complexity, context, and business plan.

    Oh yeah, you need a five year business plan too. The regulator hasn’t been impressed with what has been seen so far.

    Some providers applying for registration have not been able to demonstrate that they have sufficient understanding of how the higher education sector operates. This can result in a provider making unrealistic assumptions in its planning, such as overestimating its ability to recruit students in a competitive market, which can pose risks to the ongoing viability of the provider and cause associated harm to students.

    Part of being sufficiently equipped to deliver higher education is preparing to meet the relevant regulatory requirements. We have encountered issues where newly registered providers were not sufficiently aware of the regulatory framework and so did not have robust plans in place to meet ongoing requirements

    And there’s a telling indication that problems multiply pretty quickly when the plans get hit with a dose of operational reality.

    Where a provider does not have robust plans in place, it may encounter financial challenges after registration. Providers have at times taken steps to address this without fully considering the risk of doing so, for example:

    a. Rapidly entering into new partnership arrangements because of the unexpected withdrawal of a current partner without having the governance and management processes needed to manage this change properly.

    b. Employing financially incentivised external recruitment agents to meet recruitment targets that are too ambitious.

    c. Taking out additional unplanned borrowing to fund unanticipated expenditure.

    All of these behaviours can result in negative consequences for students and taxpayers

    Being objective

    Who could possibly have foreseen, eh? Going forward OfS would like business plans to be comprehensive and clearly written – and demonstrate an understanding of the sector, of managing risks, and of the conditions of registration.

    It’s all standard stuff (objectives and targets and how to achieve them, risks and how to manage them, regulatory compliance) over a challengingly long five-year period. OfS’ assessment will not be based on the targets themselves, but whether the provider can deliver these in practice given their resources and prevailing sector conditions. As an overriding primary consideration the plans need to focus on the interests of students.

    There’s no expectation that there will be an assessment of the objectives in and of themselves (or whether they are a proper thing for the provider to pursue), and OfS would not endorse these objectives – it’s more a matter of understanding a provider’s chosen approach in looking at the plans it has to deliver. A neat distinction.

    People who need people

    So who will be delivering these plans? The new condition would set out key knowledge and expertise for the chair of the governing body, accountable officer, and where applicable, the person with overarching responsibility for financial management and an independent member of the governing body. There’s a sensible sounding list on pages 30-33, but the big shocker is that these would be assessed via an interview with OfS officers!

    Yes, you read that right: 30 to 60 minutes based on key questions allowing said knowledge and experience to be demonstrated. On one level it feels sensible to talk to the people involved as a way of establishing the credibility of plans, but the feeling that OfS is appointing (or approving the appointment of) your chief financial officer is a hard one to shake.

    In contrast the “fit and proper persons” test is pretty much as expected, with additional requirements to supply new information (if you are disqualified as a director or trustee, or declared bankrupt) during the course of the application process. This is a welcome admission that these processes can take a long time to work through.

    You’ve probably spotted that OfS and government are now very focused on fraud in the sector – and assessment of arrangements to prevent fraud will focus on an institution’s track record where it has already been delivering higher education as part of a franchise or partnership arrangement.

    Other requirements for registration applications

    Got all that? Well strap in, there’s more.

    There’s the new C5, the new E7, and OfS intends to beef up their financial information requirements from August 2025 too.

    Financial viability and sustainability is currently assessed via initial condition D – providers already submit full, audited, financial statements for up to three years alongside four years of forecasts and a commentary on these. OfS has noted that new registrants tend to defer their first year of recruitment (setting up a HE provider is hard!) and substantially under recruit when they do – with current financial and recruitment pressures this isn’t going to improve any time soon.

    The new requirement is an addition to the template, which allows a provider to model financial viability against different yet plausible scenarios: zero growth over four years and 40 per cent below forecast followed by three years of zero growth for those currently delivering HE – zero growth followed by 80 per cent below forecast for the next three years for those entirely new to the sector.

    These aren’t set in stone – OfS reserves the right to tweak them based on emerging sector issues. And we may also get an alternative for providers whether the business model is not predominantly balanced on higher education provision.

    The commentary to this new table would let the provider set out mitigations, or provide evidence that these scenarios are unrealistic. But even so, there is a risk here that condition D becomes the hard one to pass – OfS reckon this is fair enough given short– and medium– term challenges to the sector. Although one cannot help but think of the many existing registered providers that would not pass these tests.

    By OfS request

    There’s another welcome recognition that applying for registration takes ages in the requirement for a provider to submit updated finances, student numbers, and commentary in the late stages of application by OfS request. While this makes sense in that the regulator isn’t relying on year-old (and the rest…) numbers this is a hard sell for those prospective registrants now expecting to submit similar data twice – although it could be argued that this gets them used to regular submissions while registered.

    Likewise, if the financial year turns over during the registration process you’ll need to put an extra batch of audited financial statements in for that year.

    And, wonderfully, OfS wants an ownership and corporate structure diagram too – it’s been finding some structures “complex”, poor thing.

    If your provider is or has been under investigation by another regulator – or awarding organisation, professional body, funding body, statutory body, and so forth – you’d better believe that OfS wants to know about that up front too. Apparently it keeps finding out about such things midway through the assessment process – and it does tend to be relevant, even if it is not an automatic fail.

    The rules are for the 60 months proceeding application, any investigation that closed or opened during the application period is something OfS wants to know about: a brief description, the responsible body, the dates, and the findings and/or outcomes.

    And if you are looking forward to the exciting world of “reportable events”, something similar now applies during registration. If stuff happens (there’s a long and familiar list on page 42) then you’d best drop OfS a note within 28 days.

    Finally, from January 2026 you won’t be able to reapply within 18 months of an unsuccessful registration application. This “double jeopardy” rule is a new one, and it looks like it is aimed at ensuring that OfS capacity is not clogged with resubmissions of poor quality applications where identified weaknesses are not addressed. We learn that 40 per cent of applications don’t comply with the existing guidance.

    There is the possibility of individual exemptions from this rule, for example where there have been IIT problems or where information that was not available for reasons outside of the provider’s control is now available.

    How this will be done

    The changes to application requirements were done via the same “manner of application” loophole – section 3(5) of HERA – that was used to pause the registration process. It is, as we said at the time, a reach in terms of legislative interpretation but it is difficult to argue against many of the principles here.

    It is regrettable that the same group of providers that have been forced to delay or resubmit applications due to the pause will now have to do considerable extra work to get these into the new format.

    While the principle of assessing existing documents rather than new ones is a good one, the reality of this is not as neat as regulators sometimes think. For an expected influx of new registrations – the franchise thing, and whatever ends up happening with the lifelong learning entitlement is expected to flush out at least a few – it makes sense to have all this in order. But there are always winners and losers with these things, and the losers have lost several times in a row here.

    The only other disappointment is probably that these new approaches will apply only to new registrations – there’s clearly a lot of benefit to similar approaches (especially for C5 and the financial requirements) to be extended to existing registered providers, and it is likely that there is more to come on that front.

    Source link

  • ‘Betraying an entire generation of students’? What do Trump University and Matt Goodwin’s excoriating new book tell us about universities today?

    ‘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

  • Trump signs order banning trans athletes in women’s sports

    Trump signs order banning trans athletes in women’s sports

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday banning transgender women from participating in women’s sports.

    “The war on women’s sports is over,” he said. “With my action this afternoon, we are putting every school receiving taxpayer dollars on notice that if you let men take over women’s sports teams or invade your locker rooms, you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding.”

    The executive order, signed on National Girls and Women in Sports Day, declares that it’s “the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.” Under the order, the assistant to the president for domestic policy will bring together representatives of “major athletic organizations and governing bodies, and female athletes harmed by such policies, to promote policies that are fair and safe, in the best interests of female athletes.”

    The president’s latest action builds on the GOP’s broader campaign to remove all recognition of transgender individuals from state and federal programs. On his first day in office, Trump signed a separate executive action declaring that there are only two sexes and banning federal funding for any program related to “gender ideology.” And House Republicans have passed a bill that would unilaterally ban trans women from competing in women’s sports. In nearly half of the country, trans women are banned from playing women’s sports at the K-12 or higher education level, but the order would take those bans nationwide.

    Additionally, the order calls on the education secretary to prioritize “Title IX enforcement actions against educational institutions (including athletic associations composed of or governed by such institutions) that deny female students an equal opportunity to participate in sports and athletic events by requiring them, in the women’s category, to compete with or against or to appear unclothed before males.” (Federally funded K-12 public schools and colleges are required to comply with Title IX, which bars discrimination based on sex in educational settings.)

    Charlie Baker, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, told Congress recently that out of the more than 500,000 college athletes, fewer than 10 were transgender. The NCAA released a statement Wednesday that said, “The NCAA Board of Governors is reviewing the executive order and will take necessary steps to align NCAA policy in the coming days, subject to further guidance from the administration.”

    As Trump spoke Wednesday, girls and women—including former University of Kentucky swimmer and anti-trans advocate Riley Gaines—stood behind him, often clapping in support.

    After thanking them, the president turned back to face the rest of the East Room audience. He acknowledged the federal lawmakers, state attorneys general and governors in attendance, describing them as “friends of women’s sports.”

    “My administration will not stand by and watch men beat and batter women,” he said. “It’s going to end and nobody’s gonna be able to do a damn thing about it because when I speak [I] speak with authority.” (Trump was referring to an Olympic gold medal–winning Algerian boxer whom some accused of being transgender; the boxer has publicly said she was born a woman.)

    Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement that trans students do not pose a threat in sports and deserve the same opportunities as their peers.

    “The far-right’s disturbing obsession with controlling the bodies, hearts, and minds of our country’s youth harms all students,” Graves said.

    Education secretary nominee Linda McMahon attended the ceremony, though her confirmation hearing for the office has yet to be scheduled. In the meantime, the department is being led by a collection of acting officials and appointees, including Deputy General Counsel Candice Jackson, who described the president’s order as “a demonstration of common sense.”

    “The President affirmed that this administration will protect female athletes from the danger of competing against and the indignity of sharing private spaces with someone of the opposite sex,” Jackson said in a news release. “The Department of Education stands proudly with President Trump’s action as we prioritize Title IX enforcement against educational institutions that refuse to give female athletes the Title IX protections they deserve.”

    Other Republican lawmakers praised the order Wednesday, arguing it would ensure women and girls won’t be pushed to the sidelines.

    But Representative Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia and ranking member on the House education committee, was quick to oppose the order, calling it “yet another overreach by this administration” and saying its lack of clarity will further complicate what should be addressed by sports associations.

    “Rather than address the real, urgent issues that students and families are facing every day, this administration continues to target vulnerable students—specifically transgender girls and women—with a shameless attempt to bully them,” he said in a statement. “They are willing to use the most vulnerable Americans as pawns in a political game.”

    Source link

  • VICTORY: University of Wyoming administrators reject student government’s proposal to slash media funding

    VICTORY: University of Wyoming administrators reject student government’s proposal to slash media funding

    Administrators at the University of Wyoming have agreed to cut student media funding by only 8.5%, repudiating a censorial student government proposal to punish student media by cutting the funding by 75% because students “don’t like” student newspaper the Branding Iron’s editorial choices. The change came after FIRE wrote to the university, explaining that the proposed funding cut was based on the content of the student newspaper, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.

    On Nov. 19, the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming passed a resolution recommending a drastic 75% cut to the fee that funds student media, including the student newspaper Branding Iron. The resolution, drafted by the Tuition Allocation and Student Fee Review Committee, cited staffing challenges, the quantity of advertising, and supposed “errors” in content as reasons for the cut. During the debate, several senators made their true motivations plain, tying their votes to personal distaste for the Branding Iron’s editorial choices, writing quality, and student opinions.

    When they distribute student fee funding, student government members exercise state power. The First Amendment bars the government, and the students to whom it delegates its power, from taking away resources based on the content of a media outlet’s expression. For good reason.

    Student media often have to write critical stories about their peers, administrators, and student government officials. So it goes when serving as a check on power, but that work would be nigh impossible without the First Amendment’s guarantee that citizens cannot be retaliated against for what they say. Cutting funding based on content impairs student journalists’ ability to confidently report on the world around them, and FIRE has beat back similar efforts across the country.

    Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.

    Though several student senators argued they had no “vendetta” against the student paper, their reliance upon opinions about the content of student media was enough to render their decision content-based. And any content-based restriction, however innocuous the stated motivation, must be regarded with a jaundiced eye lest those in power go unchecked.

    Thanks to FIRE’s efforts, student journalists at UW are back to covering events in their community and beyond.

    Having such dedicated staff on the local beat is especially important in places like Wyoming, where there are fewer outlets to cover local issues.

    “When we look at the University of Wyoming, and we consider that it is the only four year university in our entire state, our student media’s impact is so much more important,” said Branding Iron editor-in-chief Ven Meester. “We are a college campus in one of the reddest states in the nation. From student organizations, to speakers, to community events, we have an exceptional amount of political diversity.”

    Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.

    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link

  • Career coaches fill critical gaps in Ph.D. training

    Career coaches fill critical gaps in Ph.D. training

    To the editor:

    In “The Doctoral Dilemma” (Feb. 3, 2025), Inside Higher Ed reporter Johanna Alonso describes career coaching as a “cottage industry” of “gurus” that emerged to fill critical gaps in graduate training. As a career coach cited in the article, I was disappointed to see such an inaccurate and biased portrayal of my work. 

    Coaching is a professional industry with proven methods, tools, and credentialing provided by the International Coaching Federation (ICF). Coaching is distinct from “consulting,” and it’s an intentional, strategic step for anyone seeking to change careers. This is why Johns Hopkins University employs coaches as part of its Doctoral Life Design Studio. Yet, the article portrays these university-led coaching initiatives as legitimate, structured and holistic, while describing coaching outside of the university as an opportunistic “cottage industry.” Why frame the same service in two very different ways?

    From our wide-ranging, 20-minute interview, Alonso only highlighted my hourly rate—$250/hour for a single one-to-one meeting—without any context. There is no mention of the benefits of career coaching, or whether universities like Johns Hopkins pay their coaches a similar rate. The monetary cost, presented in isolation, suggests exploitation. The reality? As a neurodivergent person, I find one-to-one meetings draining, so I’ve priced them to limit bookings. Instead, I direct Ph.D.s toward my free library of online content, my lower-cost group programs and my discounted coaching packages, all of which have helped Ph.D.s secure industry roles that double or triple their academic salaries. The article doesn’t include these details.

    The most telling sign of the article’s bias is the use of the word “guru.” Why use a loaded term like “guru” instead of “expert” to describe career coaches? As I frequently remind my clients, language shapes perception. Ph.D.s are more likely to be seen as industry-ready professionals if they use terms like “multi-year research project” instead of “dissertation” or “stakeholders” instead of “academic advisers.” The same logic applies here—calling career coaches “gurus” trivializes our work, implying we are self-appointed influencers rather than qualified professionals. I’ll never forget the professor who once tweeted, “If life outside of academia is so great, why do alt-ac gurus spend so much time talking about it? Don’t they have better things to do?”

    My response? “I wouldn’t have to do this if professors provided ANY professional development for non-academic careers.”

    Because contrary to what the article claims, I didn’t start my coaching business because I wished there were more resources available to me. I started it because, after I quit my postdoctoral fellowship for an industry career, I spent untold hours providing uncompensated career support to Ph.D.s. For nearly two years, I responded to thousands of messages, created online resources, reviewed résumés and met one-to-one with hundreds of Ph.D. students, postdocs and even tenured professors—all for free, in my leisure time. Eventually, I burned out from the incessant demand. I realized that, if I was going to continue pouring my time into helping Ph.D.s, I needed to be compensated. That’s when I started my business.

    Academia conditions us to see for-profit businesses as unethical, while “nonprofit” universities push students into a lifetime of high-interest debt. It convinces us that charging for expertise is predatory, while asking Ph.D.s to work for poverty wages is somehow noble. It forces us to internalize the idea that, if you truly care about something, you should sacrifice your well-being and life for it. But our time is valuable. Our skills are valuable. We deserve to be fairly compensated for our labor, inside and outside of academia.

    Career coaching isn’t the problem. The real problem is that academia still refuses to take a critical look in the mirror.

    Ashley Ruba is the founder of After Academia.

    Source link

  • Coming soon: ‘Executive Watch’ — Tracking the Trump Administration’s free speech record — First Amendment News 456

    Coming soon: ‘Executive Watch’ — Tracking the Trump Administration’s free speech record — First Amendment News 456

    To lift a line from the songwriter extraordinaire of our era, “the times they are a- changin’.” Indeed, they are — and this is certainly true in our own corner of the world, the world of free speech. 

    For better and worse, Donald Trump and his agents are rearranging the structure of free expression in America. Only a few weeks into his presidency, things are proceeding at a breakneck speed, with a flurry of executive orders flying out the windows of the White House. Even early on, there is a sense that what will follow may well mark one of those pinpoints in our history when that “experiment” of which Holmes spoke is tested. Whatever else happens, it is important that there is some record of these times and what happened in them. To that end, we will soon launch a new segment within FAN called “Executive Watch” to track it all: the President’s orders, the executive agencies’ actions, the activities of the President’s affiliates, and Mr. Trump’s personal undertakings.

    Enter Professor Timothy Zick, the William and Mary Law School Robert & Elizabeth Scott Research Professor and John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship. 

    Prof. Timothy Zick

    Zick is the author of five books on the subject: “Speech out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places,” “The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties,” “The Dynamic Free Speech Clause: Free Speech and its Relation to Other Constitutional Rights,” “The First Amendment in the Trump Era,” and “Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protest.” He is also the co-author of a First Amendment casebook, “The First Amendment: Cases and Theory.”

    For all of the above reasons and others, Professor Zick is well suited to undertake the “Executive Watch” bi-monthly feature of First Amendment News. 

    Even at this early stage, this project comes a time when news stories like the following 21 surface with increasing frequency:



    WATCH VIDEO: Trump Calls For Changes To First Amendment, Demands “Mandatory One-Year In Jail” For U.S. Flag Burning.

    By chronicling such information and then analyzing it, the hope is that our readers will have a more informed sense of the state of free speech at a time when so much is in flux. There is the hope that “Executive Watch” will prompt further discussion of that vital freedom that is at the core of constitutional government in America.

    FBI agents file First Amendment class action

    While FBI agents may be at-will employees who can, generally speaking, be fired for “any reason or no reason,” they can’t be fired for an unconstitutional reason, or as punishment for the exercise of their constitutional rights (e.g. he can’t fire all the African-American agents, or all the agents registered as Democrats).

    The Complaint, filed in DC District Court, is posted here. Plaintiffs are “employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future for such activity.” They “intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.”

    Knight Institute on need for fact-checking platform

    [Recently] Meta announced changes . . . to its content moderation policies, including that it’s replacing third-party fact checking with a Community Notes model that allows users to publicly flag content they believe to be incorrect or misleading. 

    The following can be attributed to Katherine Glenn Bass, the Knight Institute’s research director:

    Katy Glenn Bass Research Director Knight Institute

    Katy Glenn Bass

    “Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement today is a stark reminder that many of the biggest platforms we use to communicate about issues of public importance are owned by billionaires who are not accountable to us. Apart from the obvious effort to signal political allegiance, the impact of the announced changes will not be clear for some time. But if we have any hope of measuring or understanding what is happening on these platforms, we need strong protections for the independent researchers and journalists who study them, and better mechanisms for ensuring they can access platform data.”

    In 2019, more than 200 researchers signed an open letter in support of the Knight Institute’s efforts to persuade Facebook to amend its terms of service to establish a “safe harbor” for public-interest journalism and research on the platform. Read more about that effort here.

    Shibley on Harvard’s anti-Semitism settlement

    Robert Shibley

    Robert Shibley

    Just one day after President Trump took office, Harvard agreed to settle two lawsuits brought against it by Jewish students that alleged the university ignored “severe and pervasive anti-Semitism on campus” and created “an unbearable educational environment” in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza.

    While the settlement language itself does not appear to be public, a press release filed on the official docket of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law v. President and Fellows of Harvard College included some details. Most notably, Harvard agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism. FIRE’s worry, shared by many others — including the definition’s primary author — is that, when added to policies used to punish discriminatory harassment on American campuses, the definition is too likely to be used to punish speech that is critical of Israel or its government but that is not motivated in animus against Jews or Israelis.

    FIRE has repeatedly proposed steps to address anti-Semitic discrimination on campus that would safeguard students from harassment while protecting freedom of speech, most recently in our inauguration-day letter to President Trump. Getting this right is important; any proposal that chills or censors protected speech on campus won’t pass constitutional muster at public universities, won’t square with free speech promises at private universities (like Harvard), and won’t effectively address anti-Semitism.

    Nevertheless, attempts to codify the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into laws or regulations are nothing new. FIRE posted a roundup of the widespread civil libertarian opposition to its codification last year, when Congress considered adopting it as federal law. Among those opponents is the definition’s primary author, Kenneth Stern, who spoke at length with FIRE’s Nico Perrino on our So to Speak podcast about why it’s not the right tool for the job of regulating speech. As Stern wrote back in 2016 for The New York Times: “The definition was intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe. It was never supposed to curtail speech on campus. . . . And Jewish students are protected under the law as it now stands.” (Perhaps “as it is now written” would have been more precise; whether colleges follow the law is a different issue.)

    As Stern predicted in that piece:

    If this bill becomes law it is easy to imagine calls for university administrators to stop pro-Palestinian speech. Even if lawsuits alleging Title VI violations fail, students and faculty members will be scared into silence, and administrators will err on the side of suppressing or censuring speech.

    Stern’s prediction is about to receive ground testing at Harvard, and likely at other universities that may follow its lead.

    Forthcoming book: New edition of Neier’s ‘Defending My Enemy’

    A new edition of the most important free speech book of the past half-century, with a new essay by the author on the ensuing fifty years of First Amendment controversies.

    Cover of the book "Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America" by Aryeh Neier

    When Nazis wanted to express their right to free speech in 1977 by marching through Skokie, Illinois — a town with a large population of Holocaust survivors — Aryeh Neier, then the national director of the ACLU and himself a Holocaust survivor — came to the Nazis’ defense. Explaining what many saw as a despicable bridge too far for the First Amendment, Neier spelled out his thoughts about free speech in his 1977 book Defending My Enemy.

    Now, nearly fifty years later, Neier revisits the topic of free speech in a volume that includes his original essay along with an extended new piece addressing some of the most controversial free speech issues of the past half-century. Touching on hot-button First Amendment topics currently in play, the second half of the book includes First Amendment analysis of the “Unite the Right” march in Charlotteville, campus protest over the Israel/Gaza war, book banning, trigger warnings, right-wing hate speech, the heckler’s veto, and the recent attempts by public figures including Donald Trump to overturn the long-standing Sullivan v. The New York Times precedent shielding the media from libel claims.

    Including an afterword by longtime free speech champion Nadine Strossen, Defending My Enemy offers razor-sharp analysis from the man Muck Rack describes as having “a glittering civil liberties résumé.”

    Praise for Defending My Enemy

    “Aryeh Neier’s Defending My Enemy is as relevant today as it was when it was first published. The book is a powerful reminder of why free speech matters—not just for the voices we agree with, but for the voices we abhor. Neier’s story of defending Nazis’ rights to speak in Skokie underscores a timeless truth: If we want to preserve freedom for ourselves, we must be willing to defend it for others, no matter how deeply we disagree. At a time when censorship is on the rise globally, Defending My Enemy stands as a bold and principled call to action. Every advocate of free expression needs to read this book—and more importantly, live its lessons.” — Greg Lukianoff

    Forthcoming scholarly article: ‘Output of machine learning algorithms isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection’

    Stanford Law Review logo

    Machine learning algorithms increasingly mediate our public discourse – from search engines to social media platforms to artificial intelligence companies. And as their influence on online speech swells, so do questions of whether and how the First Amendment may apply to their output. A growing chorus of scholars has expressed doubt over whether the output of machine learning algorithms is truly speech within the meaning of the First Amendment, but none have suggested a workable way to cleanly draw the line between speech and non-speech.

    This Article proposes a way to successfully draw that line based on a principle that we call “speech certainty” – the basic idea that speech is only speech if the speaker knows what he said when he said it. This idea is rooted in the text, history, and purpose of the First Amendment, and built into modern speech doctrines of editorial discretion and expressive conduct. If this bedrock principle has been overlooked, it is because, until now, all speech has been imbued with speech certainty. Articulating its existence was never necessary. But machine learning has changed that. Unlike traditional code, a close look at how machine learning algorithms work reveals that the programmers who create them can never be certain of their output. Because that output lacks speech certainty, it’s not the programmer’s speech.

    Accordingly, this Article contends that the output of machine learning algorithms isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection. With the Supreme Court signaling its intent to address unresolved questions of online speech, we are poised to enter a new era of First Amendment jurisprudence in the coming years. As we do, scholars, practicing attorneys, and judges can no longer ignore how the algorithms underlying online speech actually work – and how they have changed with the advent of machine learning. 

    Without recognizing this paradigm shift in algorithmic speech, we risk sleepwalking into a radical departure from centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence. By failing to distinguish between traditional and machine learning algorithms, current consensus about algorithmic speech suggests that the Constitution should, for the first time in its history, protect speech that a speaker does not know he has said. Speech certainty provides a novel and principled approach to conceptualizing machine learning algorithms under existing First Amendment jurisprudence. 

    Related

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 455: “Eight free expression cases pending on SCOTUS docket”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Department of Education Releases Enforcement Guidance for Title IX

    Department of Education Releases Enforcement Guidance for Title IX

    by CUPA-HR | February 5, 2025

    On February 4, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to institutions of higher education regarding enforcement of Title IX regulations. Specifically, the letter reaffirms that OCR will enforce the first Trump administration’s Title IX rule instead of the Biden administration’s Title IX rule.

    As a reminder, in early January of this year, a judge from the Eastern District of Kentucky Court struck down the Biden administration’s rule nationwide, reverting enforcement back to the 2020 Title IX regulations for all institutions. In the Dear Colleague letter, OCR states that the Department of Justice is responsible for determining whether to appeal the district court’s decision, but they confirm that the decision was effective immediately and that the Biden administration’s rule is no longer in effect in any jurisdiction.

    In addition to the court decision, the letter also points to Trump’s executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The letter restates from the executive order that all federal agencies are directed to “‘enforce all sex-protective laws to promote [the] reality’ that there are ‘two sexes, male and female,’ and that ‘[t]hese sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.’” As such, the letter states that OCR must enforce Title IX consistent with the executive order.

    Finally, the letter orders all open Title IX investigations initiated under the Biden administration’s Title IX rule to “be immediately reoriented to comport fully with the requirements of the 2020 Title IX rule.” It also directs institutions to a Title IX resource page on the Department of Education’s website, which includes resources that provide an overview of the changing Title IX landscape over the past couple of years.

    CUPA-HR is hosting a webinar on Title IX and Title IV enforcement at OCR on February 25 at 1 p.m. ET. The webinar is free to attend but registration is limited. A recording of the webinar will be available after the live event. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for new developments related to Title IX enforcement under the new Trump administration.



    Source link

  • The Role of Data Analytics in Higher Education

    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.

    HEM 1HEM 1

    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.

    HEM 2HEM 2

    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.

    HEM 4HEM 4

    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.

    HEM 5HEM 5

    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.

    HEM 6HEM 6

    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

  • Author Spotlight: Q&A With Reed Wicander of Physical Geology, 1e

    Author Spotlight: Q&A With Reed Wicander of Physical Geology, 1e

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    Tell us a little bit about yourself and your background (current title, professional milestones, professional history, education, research works, hobbies, etc.)

    I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, where I conduct research on various aspects of Paleozoic palynology, specifically the study of acritarchs. I am also a Professor Emeritus of Geology at Central Michigan University, where I taught undergraduate classes in physical geology, historical geology, prehistoric life and invertebrate paleontology for 39 years.

    I earned my B.S. degree in geology from San Diego State University in 1969 and my Ph.D. from UCLA in 1973. I was also a Postdoctoral Fellow at UCLA in 1976.

    I have published 61 professional papers, 34 geology textbooks of six different titles, including subsequent editions and given numerous presentations at professional meetings. I am currently involved in writing the fourth edition of “Geology: Earth in Perspective.”

    I was the recipient of the Central Michigan University Outstanding Teaching Award and the President’s Award for Research and Creative Activity.

    What was your driving force behind the creation of Physical Geology: Investigating Earth, and what aspects of this first edition are you most passionate about?

    The driving force behind the creation of “Physical Geology: Investigating Earth” was to write a geology textbook in an easy-to-read style with current examples and stunning photographs, connecting students to geology in the world around them. Having taught geology to undergraduates for 39 years, I’m aware of what students find interesting in an introductory science course, especially if they’re taking it to fulfill their general education requirements. This text illustrates why geology is an exciting and ever-changing science with direct links to all of us.

    In addition to covering the various topics of geology, this text integrates the current and relevant issues of climate change and environmental concerns throughout the book in a balanced approach, while emphasizing how these issues affect all of us.

    Physical geology encompasses such a vast array of topics and locations. In what ways does your textbook offer something truly unique and differentiating to the field?

    Besides the usual coverage of topics, this text offers several features in a visually engaging and text-friendly format to help students understand the topics covered and relate them to current events:

    • Virtual Field Trips, available in Cengage’s online learning platform, MindTap, offer students immersive, interactive experiences that take them beyond the classroom to some of the most iconic geological locations in the United States. These locations include Yosemite to study igneous rocks, Capitol Reef to examine sedimentary rocks and Hawaii to compare volcanoes, just to name just a few.

      • Virtual Field Trips feature a variety of media including video, high-quality animations and images, and GigaPan photography that allows students to zoom to a location up close, often closer than if they were physically there. Here’s an example of one such image where students can view the Grand Canyon to explore geologic time up close.

    • Concept Visualizations Animations are specifically designed to help students understand geological concepts in a visual format, such as Bowen’s reaction series and the formation of unconformities, two concepts that many students find challenging to understand from text and illustrations alone.

    • High-resolution photos have been chosen to highlight the visual nature of geology, particularly recent geologic events, contributing to the currency and relevancy of the examples discussed, as well as reinforcing the global nature of geology.

    Given the ever-evolving nature of geology and the earth itself, how does your text discuss the complexities of current events and modern issues to remain relevant and impactful for students, and what are they?

    Each chapter has been written to clarify the geologic concepts and topics covered to emphasize the understanding of the underlying principles and processes of geology.

    Geology in the Spotlight is a feature found in 16 of the 18 chapters and focuses on current issues in geology as they apply globally, and with an emphasis on natural resources, energy issues, environmental concerns and effects of a changing climate. Examples include Windmills and Wind Power, Glaciers and Global Warming, Engineering and Geology, Hydraulic Fracturing: Pros and Cons and Rare-Earth Elements and Critical Minerals as Geopolitical Weapons.

    Text, figure and table data reflect the most current published source information from internationally recognized and reputable institutions.

    How do you see this text deepening students’ understanding and fostering a more active engagement with its core concepts?

    Three examples illustrate an active engagement of the core chapter concepts:

    1. Learning Objectives focus on the important concepts discussed in the chapter and are designed to develop critical thinking skills.

    2. Some of the figures contain “Critical Thinking Questions” that are intended to encourage students to apply or analyze the material illustrated in the figure.

    3. At the end of each chapter is a “What Would You Do?” question that is open-ended so students can apply the chapter material learned to a real-life situation.

    With learners from diverse academic backgrounds, how does your text accommodate both those specializing in geology or earth science, and those encountering it through general education?

    This text is designed for an introductory geology course and is focused on understanding the different aspects and specialties of geology and how they relate to each other as part of a continuously dynamic and evolutionary planet.

    For those planning to major in geology, all of the basic concepts and topics of physical geology are covered and provide the foundation for the more specialized courses that follow.

    What do you hope instructors will take away from this textbook that will enhance their teaching?

    Hopefully, instructors will see how the many features of this text, including the spectacular photos, critical thinking skills and MindTap features, like Virtual Field Trips and animations, are all features that will provide the tools to stimulate active learning for the students.

    Lastly, what do you hope is the most significant takeaway students will carry with them after using your text?

    It is our hope that when students finish their physical geology course, they will come to appreciate the many connections between geology and their everyday lives, such as the causes and results of natural disasters like volcanic eruptions, landslides and earthquakes, as well as the less apparent, but equally significant links between geology and economic, social and political issues.

     

    Reed Wicander is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Central Michigan University, where he taught physical geology, historical geology, prehistoric life and invertebrate paleontology. Currently, he is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Dr. Wicander earned his B.S. degree in geology from San Diego State University and his Ph.D. from UCLA

     

     

    Interested in “Physical Geology: Investigating Earth,” 1e by Reed Wicander and James S. Monroe for your earth sciences course? Check out this first edition now.

    Source link