Category: Featured

  • Podcast: Funding, attendance, student hardship

    Podcast: Funding, attendance, student hardship

    This week on the podcast Minister of State for Skills Jacqui Smith helped launch a pamphlet on whether universities are “worth it” – and was notably cold on extra money. But does she mean outlay or eventual return to the Treasury?

    Plus there’s changes afoot in Scotland, UKVI is cracking down on attendance for international students and students are still feeling the pinch financially – is a return to maintenance grants a lost possibility?

    With Ben Vulliamy, Executive Director at the Association of Heads of University Administration, Dani Payne, Senior Researcher at the Social Market Foundation, Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Jacqui Smith rules out (much) more money while her department assesses the impacts

    The Scottish government wants its own post-study work offer

    A new funding body landscape emerges in Scotland

    UKVI is tightening the rules on international student attendance

    Higher education should lift students out of poverty – not trap them within it

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Dartington | Wonkhe

    Higher education postcard: Dartington | Wonkhe

    Dartington Hall is a splendid old country house.

    Its great hall dates from 1388, and has a wonderful hammerbeam roof, an a porch where the arms of Richard II can still be seen. The trouble with keeping old buildings going – when you’re no longer a medieval feudal lord, and when wages have risen – is that upkeep is pretty tough. So it was fortunate that Dartington was bought, in 1925, by Leonard and Dorothy Elmhirst.

    The Elmhirsts were interesting. Leonard was from minor English gentry, poor but clearly clever (he completed his degree in agriculture from Cornell in two years). Dorothy inherited at 17 a fortune (about half a billion dollars in todays money). She met Leonard when he was seeking donations to support his club for international students at Cornell. Romance blossomed: they married in 1925.

    But before then, Leonard had accepted a job as secretary to Nobel-prize-winning polymath, poet and painter Rabindranath Tagore. This took him to India, where he supported Tagore’s work on rural reconstruction. This influenced him and Dorothy to attempt something similar in the UK, and in 1925 they purchased Dartington Hall. This became a home for all sorts of experimental work – on agriculture and rural economics and society, and also arts and creativity. About 1500 people worked on the estate; it gave concerts (the BBC broadcast the English Singers Quartet on 24 November 1934, and on Saturday 1 December 1934 a concert by Claud Biggs on the piano, accompanying contralto Astra Desmond); and the Western Morning News and Daily Gazette was entranced, on 28 May 1934, with Uday Shan Kar’s Hindu dancing.

    In 1935 a charitable trust was established to run the estate, and a a wide variety of activities continued. These included summer schools (such as the Fabian Society school which is pictured on the card), concerts, classes of all sorts. Post war, these activities became more significant: an adult education centre was established in 1955, and in 1961 Dartington College of the Arts was founded. Initially this focused on training teachers in the arts: music, dance and drama, and visual arts.

    In 1973 the college gained “assisted” status and received funding from Devon County Council to extend its offer to provide undergraduate degrees. Degrees were awarded by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA), the body which awarded degrees across the non-university higher education sector. This was prompted by a shift in government policy to require teacher education to be to degree-level (the first of many such shifts in professional education over the years).

    The changes in funding arrangements in the late 1980s – the removal of polytechnics and colleges from local authority control, and the creation of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council – created financial challenges for Dartington, as it lost its special funding. These were addressed by closing some programmes and rationalising others. And again, in 2006, the college faced financial difficulties. Scale appears to have been the problem, exacerbated by the college not owning its buildings and therefore being unable easily to expand student numbers.

    This time the problems were insurmountable, and the college merged what was then Falmouth University College, and is now Falmouth University. The provision was moved away from the Dartington site.

    But that isn’t the end of the story for higher education at Dartington: Dartington Hall Trust is registered with the Office for Students and established a provider with two faculties: Dartington School of Arts and Schumacher College (each of which continued the work of former colleges associated with the Dartington site).

    Back to the postcard: we’ve encountered the Fabians before, in the establishment of the London School of Economics. They seem to have run summer schools at Dartington for several summers in the 1940s at least, but I haven’t been able to track down which one this card depicts. Can anyone recognise any of the earnest (Bevin or otherwise) socialists?

    And here’s the jigsaw for you to have a go at. Have fun!

    Source link

  • ‘Sobering news’: Sonoma State University makes broad cuts to tackle $24M deficit

    ‘Sobering news’: Sonoma State University makes broad cuts to tackle $24M deficit

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Sonoma State University is moving to cut staff, faculty, programs, departments and its athletics programs as it faces a larger-than-expected deficit of nearly $24 million.
    • Interim President Emily Cutrer described the depth of the university’s budget hole as “sobering news.” To manage it, the university is cutting four management positions and 12 staff positions, and it will not renew contracts of 46 tenured and adjunct faculty members for the 2025-26 academic year. 
    • It also plans to axe about two dozen undergraduate and graduate programs. Additionally, it will eliminate its departments of art history, economics, geology, philosophy, theater and dance, and women and gender studies, while consolidating other programs and schools.

    Dive Insight:

    In announcing the cuts at Sonoma State, Cutrer outlined several forces behind the university’s growing budget gap. She cited, in part, inflation — in personnel costs, as well as supplies and utilities. Recent cost escalations led the university to the “unfortunate realization” that its yearslong deficit was even larger than expected, the president said. 

    But the public institution’s chief challenge is enrollment, Cutrer said, noting a 38% decline since its peak in 2015. (Fall headcount stood at just under 6,000 in 2023, per federal data.) Those decreases hit the university’s revenue in tuition and fees as well as in enrollment-based funding from the California State University system. 

    To cope, Sonoma over the past two years has offered buyouts, made “strategic” job cuts and frozen hiring, among other operational moves, Cutrer said. 

    “Unfortunately, the actions taken so far, difficult though they have been, are not enough,” she added. “Further steps must be taken to fully close the budget gap and ensure Sonoma State’s financial capacity to best serve its current and future students and adapt to a changing higher education landscape.” 

    Those steps entail broad-based cuts. On the chopping block is a wide range of programs, including bachelor’s programs in art, economics, physics, philosophy and many others. Some master’s programs are also slated to be cut, among them Spanish, English and public administration. 

    Meanwhile, other programs will be consolidated. For example, Sonoma’s departments of American multicultural studies, Chicano and Latino studies, and Native American studies are set to merge into an ethnic studies department with a single major under it. 

    Also making headlines is Sonoma’s decision to end its Division II NCAA athletics programs after the current academic year, which was made after a “thorough review of the university’s financial necessities and long-term sustainability,” the institution said. Sonoma plans to honor the scholarships of current student athletes and to support those who decide to transfer to another school, such as by helping them obtain their transcripts.

    Expected savings from the cuts include:

    • $8 million in reduced instructional costs. 
    • $3.8 million from reorganization.
    • $3.7 million from cutting athletics. 
    • $3.3 million from hiring freeze.  
    • $1.3 million from university-wide budget reductions.

    Cutrer said the round of cuts likely represent the “large majority” Sonoma will have to make this year, but she warned more could be necessary as it discusses shared services with Cal State.

    Sonoma is by no means the only public institution in California making cuts. The Cal State and University of California systems are both scrambling to manage potential reductions in state funding amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars after Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his latest budget proposal for the 2025-26 fiscal year. 

    After the proposal’s release earlier this month, Cal State — facing a state funding reduction of $375 million — said that a “shortfall of this magnitude will negatively impact academic programming, student services, course offerings and the CSU workforce.”

    Source link

  • Law professor challenges university after campus ‘shooting’ hypothetical changed in lesson plan

    Law professor challenges university after campus ‘shooting’ hypothetical changed in lesson plan

    Those concerned that law schools are shying away from teaching some areas of law to avoid controversy just got more reasons to worry, this time courtesy of the University of Hawai’i at Manoa and its absurd treatment of law professor Kenneth Lawson.

    Lawson, an accomplished faculty member at UH, used a simple hypothetical to teach the idea of “transferred intent,” a legal concept invoked when a defendant intends to harm one person, but ends up harming a second person instead. As is common in law school, Lawson offered a hypothetical to convey this idea: Imagine if a dean at his institution tried to shoot another dean, missed, and hit Lawson instead.

    Here’s a screenshot from part of his lesson:

    Those who have been to law school will understand that using campus figures to illustrate hypotheticals is not at all unusual, and is intended to add a bit of levity and grounding to what can be pretty esoteric topics.

    But when an anonymous student filed a complaint, calling the hypothetical “extremely disturbing” and citing the context of some shootings near the university’s campus, administrators summoned Lawson to a meeting near the end of last semester. Though they acknowledged he had not violated any university policy, they nevertheless mandated that he remove the thought experiment from a posted video of the class — or they would change it for him

    The ability of administrators to forcibly alter course materials is positively ripe for abuse.

    Lawson hadn’t thought twice about including the example, and had been using the example for years, not simply because it wasn’t unusual but because the protections of academic freedom give faculty wide latitude in determining how to approach controversial or potentially difficult material. When Lawson refused to alter the video of his presentation, given that he had not violated any policy, and using the hypothetical was well within his academic freedom rights, administrators just went on the school’s online curriculum system, where faculty submit presentations, to make the changes themselves.

    Remember: these changes were being made because, supposedly, some found a hypothetical of campus figures being shot to be disturbing. So this is what the administration came up with.

    Slide with an image of law professor Ken Lawson alongside generic man/woman icons

    You will note that there is still a campus figure on that slide, and it’s the person who was (hypothetically) shot: Professor Lawson. Only the deans have been removed. It seems that at UH, some hypothetical victims are more equal than others.

    There’s no denying that this is silly, and many will be tempted to chalk it up as just more campus craziness. But there’s a disturbing wrinkle here, which is that the ability of administrators to forcibly alter course materials is positively ripe for abuse. The university’s administrators have granted themselves unilateral authority to interfere with faculty teaching decisions, despite the fact that UH is a public institution bound by the First Amendment, which views academic freedom, which protects that right, as a “special concern.” If administrators can “memory hole” bits and pieces of curricula they don’t like, even when it violates no rule, where does it stop?

    UH still has an opportunity to do the right thing. It’s easy, too — all it has to do is step back and let faculty teach, and save the video editing for film class.

    FIRE wrote the university on Dec. 13, urging it to reverse course and restore Lawson’s original hypothetical. The university responded in early January, declining to substantively engage with our concerns or detail specific issues with our argument. Lawson, and all UH students, deserve better. As our second letter states: 

    FIRE’s concerns are only amplified by the fact that this alleged capitulation to sensitivity is occurring in a law school. To receive a proper education in the law, students will inevitably encounter difficult topics like sexual assault, homicide, physical assault, domestic violence, and may be faced in school and in their careers with descriptions of personal injuries far more graphic than those in Lawson’s hypothetical. Where do UH administrators draw the line regarding their interference in faculty instruction if they feel free to operate under a nebulous standard of protecting students from “disturbing and harmful” material? 

    Lawson has submitted a grievance about the situation, so UH still has an opportunity to do the right thing. It’s easy, too — all it has to do is step back and let faculty teach, and save the video editing for film class.

    Source link

  • Personalized Communication Strategies That Drive Student Engagement in Higher Education

    Personalized Communication Strategies That Drive Student Engagement in Higher Education

    Key Takeaways:

    • Personalized, timely, and relevant communication is key to engaging prospective students and meeting enrollment goals in higher education.



    • Effective strategies rely on immediacy, relevance, automation, and trackability, ensuring impactful and consistent interactions.



    • Omnichannel outreach, using a mix of email, SMS, print, and digital platforms, enhances visibility and builds trust by meeting students where they are.



    • Data-driven tools enable tailored, personalized communication, real-time adjustments, and sustainable strategies.

     

    Connecting with prospective undergraduate students in meaningful ways requires a thoughtful blend of strategy, immediacy, and personalization. Gone are the days when generic messaging could effectively spark interest or drive engagement. Today’s prospective students expect communications that reflect an understanding of their individual needs, aspirations, and priorities and their value to your institution.

    Institutions aiming to enhance their enrollment strategies must adopt a more data-informed and strategic approach to communication. This means reaching out with the right message, at the right time, and through the right channels.

     

    Laying the Foundation for Communication Success

    Effective communication with students is built on four key principles: immediacy, relevance, automation, and trackability. Each element plays a critical role in ensuring that interactions resonate with students and influence their decision-making process.

    • Immediacy: Quick and timely responses that change as students’ behaviors change demonstrate attentiveness and can make a significant impression on prospective students. Delays in following up on inquiries or campus visits risk the loss of momentum and interest. Statistics show that the school that responds to inquiries first is more likely to convince that student to enroll.



    • Relevance: Tailored, personalized communication should go beyond basic name inclusion. Students expect messages that address their specific interests. Misaligned content, such as sending information unrelated to a student’s expressed major, can quickly undermine trust.



    • Automation: Streamlined, automated workflows keep communication consistent and dependable, even during staff transitions or times of high demand. Manual processes, such as college fair follow-ups that sit unprocessed for long periods, can derail engagement. Automation prevents these bottlenecks, enabling timely responses even when staff are unavailable.



    • Trackability: Monitoring communication effectiveness helps institutions refine their strategies and optimize ROI.

    By integrating these principles, higher education institutions can deliver a cohesive and impactful communication strategy that strengthens student engagement and builds trust.

     

    The Importance of Omnichannel Outreach

    While email has long been—and remains—a cornerstone of communication, relying on it exclusively is no longer sufficient. The sheer volume of emails students receive daily makes it easy for even the most well-crafted messages to be overlooked. To stand out, institutions must adopt an omnichannel approach with campaigns that combine email with print materials, SMS messaging, voice blasts, digital ads, social media engagement, and microsites, all tailored to student interests.

    Each channel serves a unique purpose for student engagement in higher education. Print materials, for example, are particularly effective at involving families in the decision-making process. A well-designed brochure placed on a kitchen table can spark conversations among family members, especially parents, who are often key influencers in the college selection process.

    Similarly, integrating consistent, tailored messaging across multiple channels ensures that students receive a seamless experience. Whether they encounter an institution on social media, via a targeted ad, by SMS message, or through an email campaign, the message should feel cohesive and tailored to their interests. Omnichannel strategies, timed appropriately through the enrollment timeline, not only improve visibility but also demonstrate an institution’s commitment to meeting students where they are, thus building trust and rapport.

     

    Leveraging Data for Personalization

    Modern communication strategies must be rooted in data. By analyzing student preferences and behaviors, institutions can craft messages that resonate on an individual level. With data-informed insights, institutions can identify what matters most to prospective students—whether that’s career outcomes, financial aid, or specific academic opportunities—and address those priorities directly.

    For example, students interested in STEM programs may be more receptive to communications highlighting research opportunities and faculty expertise, while first-generation students may appreciate messages emphasizing affordability and support services.

    To further maximize impact, institutions can use surveys and initial engagement data to tailor their outreach strategies, which allows them to deploy resources efficiently while maintaining relevance. For example, expensive print materials can be reserved for students who show strong interest in particular programs, while a social media campaign may be more appropriate for inquiries earlier in the enrollment cycle.

    Real-time data tracking lets institutions segment their strategies dynamically. If a particular campaign underperforms across the board or for certain cohorts of students, modifications can be made immediately to better align with student preferences. This agility is essential for maintaining relevance and impact throughout the recruitment cycle.

     

    Building a Sustainable Communication Infrastructure

    Sustainable communication strategies rely on the integration of advanced tools and technologies. While a customer relationship management (CRM) system lays a strong foundation, institutions often need more specialized solutions to elevate their outreach efforts. Liaison offers a suite of products designed to enhance and streamline communication and enrollment strategies, including:

    • Enrollment Marketing (EM): Liaison’s EM software and marketing services help institutions manage and analyze personalized, automated omnichannel campaigns, ensuring consistent and effective messaging across multiple channels.



    • Othot: This AI-driven tool leverages predictive and prescriptive analytics to optimize communication strategies and enrollment decisions, tailoring outreach to align with student behavior and institutional goals.



    • Centralized Application Service (CAS): By simplifying the admissions process for students and providing institutions with tools for marketing, data management, and application processing, CAS supports efficient communication with applicants.

    By incorporating these technologies, along with Liaison’s CRMs, institutions can maintain a seamless and unified communication flow so that prospective students receive timely, relevant, and personalized messages. These solutions also allow institutions to monitor campaign performance and adjust strategies in real-time, maximizing the effectiveness of resources and making messaging more impactful for target audiences. This integration reduces reliance on fragmented workflows, preventing gaps or delays caused by disconnected platforms.

    Aligning tools and strategies across departments using Liaison’s technologies keeps messaging consistent and impactful, even as prospective students engage with multiple touchpoints throughout their journey.

     

    Achieving Long-Term Engagement

    Effective communication with students is about building relationships that extend beyond the initial stages of recruitment. Institutions that invest in understanding and addressing the unique needs of their prospective students position themselves as partners in their academic journey.

    By delivering personalized, timely, and relevant messages through multiple channels, institutions can foster deeper connections and enhance student engagement in higher education. As the competitive landscape of enrollment continues to shift, adopting a strategic and data-informed approach to communication will remain essential for success.

    Ready to elevate your communication strategies? Discover how Liaison’s advanced tools and technologies can transform how you connect with prospective students. From personalized, omnichannel campaigns to data-driven insights, our solutions help you engage students meaningfully and meet your enrollment goals. Contact us today to learn more.

    About the Author

    Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.

    Source link

  • How Stony Brook University got students off academic probation

    How Stony Brook University got students off academic probation

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    WASHINGTON — The transition from high school to higher education is often tumultuous, and students can face a unique disadvantage their first year. With so few credits banked, one or two bad final grades can tank their cumulative GPA and risk their academic standing.

    One institution undertook an experiment to assist such students and saw promising results after just one semester.

    In summer 2024, Stony Brook University launched the Summer Academic Resilience Program, or SARP, a pilot program designed to support first-year students who had been placed on academic probation after their first semesters.

    Leaders at the public New York institution presented the results Wednesday at the American Association of Colleges and Universities‘ annual conference. 

    In just a few months, the program — which offered one-on-one coaching and wraparound services — improved the students’ GPAs and raised the institution’s overall first-year retention rate by 1 percentage point, they said.

    A common challenge

    A 2.0 GPA is the typical threshold for academic probation. The higher education research nonprofit California Competes found that 1 in 5 students end their first years with a cumulative GPA below that.

    Research has also shown that students’ likelihood of academic success and on-time graduation diminishes once they’re put on probation.

    At Stony Brook, 210 first-year students were placed on academic probation in fall 2023. Just 22 were reinstated to good standing in the spring. And 24 went on to be suspended, the last step before being dismissed.

    And that was an improvement from the year before, according to Rachelle Germana, senior associate provost for undergraduate education at Stony Brook.

    “In fall of 2022, we reinstated one first-year student who had been suspended — only one,” she told conference attendees. Another 32 students were suspended that term.

    The situation led Stony Brook, a member of the State University of New York system, to design the pilot program to improve student outcomes more quickly and prevent suspension after probation.

    In summer 2024, SARP enrolled 30 first-year students on probation. Michelle Setnikar, associate director and academic standing coordinator at Stony Brook, described the cohort as both racially and economically diverse.

    Nearly all participating students reported facing a significant personal challenge, such as mental health concerns, a family crisis or financial difficulties. Almost half said they were experiencing two or more such challenges at once.

    The pilot offered participants full financial support, covering the cost of two summer courses, housing and meals. It also conducted a needs assessment for each student and connected them with wraparound support services, including a dedicated academic advisor and one-on-one financial aid consultations.

    Before the program, the pilot group’s average cumulative GPA was 1.62, Germana said. After the summer semester, the average increased to 2.03. And by the end of fall 2024, the group’s cumulative GPA had risen to 2.65.

    More than a third of participants, 11, finished 2024 with GPAs above 3.0, Germana said.

    “What became even more impressive for us was the way in which the students demonstrated improved academic skills, which was reflected in their summer term GPA,” she said. “For five credits across these 30 students, they averaged a 3.67 GPA with the support that was provided.”

    Probation also carries nonacademic consequences, including loss of financial aid, Germana said. Even if affected students stay enrolled, the loss of funds can force them to take fewer classes and slow their progress through their programs.

    “We covered some balances for some of these students to help promote their retention, because they had been so successful as far as their GPA was concerned,” Germana said.

    Stony Brook will continue the SARP program this summer and aims to slowly increase the number of students it serves, Germana said. For 2025, the goal is to enroll up to 50 students and put a more robust financial aid plan in place.

    Source link

  • The Chicago Canon | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    The Chicago Canon | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    The University of Chicago is known for its commitment to free
    speech and academic freedom. Why are these values important to the
    university? Where do they originate? And how do they help
    administrators navigate conflicts and controversies?

    Tony Banout and Tom Ginsburg direct the University of
    Chicago’s Forum for Free Inquiry
    and Expression
    , which
    received a $100 million gift
    last year. They are also
    editors of “The
    Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression
    ,” a new book
    that collects foundational texts that inform the university’s free
    speech tradition.

    Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    sotospeak@thefire.org.


    Read the transcript
    .

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    03:31 Origin of book

    07:14 UChicago’s founding principles

    12:41 Free speech in a university context

    19:17 2015 UChicago committee report

    32:03 1967 Kalven report

    38:02 Institutional neutrality

    57:41 Applying free speech principles beyond the
    university

    01:04:21 Future steps for the Forum

    01:06:35 Outro

    Show notes:


    The University of Chicago’s Report of the Committee on Freedom of
    Expression
    (2015)


    Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support

    (last updated 2024)


    The University of Chicago Kalven Report
    (1967)

    Source link

  • Butterflies and Biology for Life

    Butterflies and Biology for Life

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    When I was in sixth grade, my homeroom teacher brought monarch caterpillars into our classroom. One of our homework assignments was to walk around our backyard and find milkweed (the only kind of plant monarch caterpillars eat) to feed our caterpillars. Now, over 25 years later, I still clearly remember the excitement of hunting around in my backyard to find milkweed and checking every day to see the metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly.

    You might say that raising monarch caterpillars gave me the bug to want to be a biologist.

    An early interest in biology sparks a lifelong dedication

    As the years went by, my interest in biology didn’t wane. In college, molecular biology became my primary focus area. During graduate school and beyond, I trained in both molecular biology and the learning sciences, settling into a career in biology education. I taught Non-Majors and Majors Biology while running a research lab dedicated to understanding how people learn biology.

    A lack of enthusiasm from students

    When I taught Non-Majors Biology, I noticed a concerning trend among my students: All in all, they didn’t like biology.

    That may be too gentle. The comments from an “introduce yourself” activity that I use in the first week of class revealed that most of my students were either afraid to take a biology class, thought the subject was boring, or didn’t think they could succeed at it. Some people even flat-out admitted they hated the subject.

    Now, as a self-professed biology nerd, those comments took me aback. As a learning sciences researcher, I wanted to know why there were such pervasive negative feelings about biology. As a biology educator, I wanted to know what to do about it.

    A common point of view

    Negative perceptions around biology are common, driving people away from engaging with the big biology issues we face today. Lack of knowledge around scientific topics can make it easier to be duped by misinformation, leading one to potentially make decisions against their own best interests. We see this with issues ranging from climate change to vaccines.

    Acknowledging that biology is all around us is important not only because it enriches our lives, but because it’s also important to the health and welfare of our society. Biology is everywhere, and engagement starts with reimagining how we think about biology’s role in our lives. It’s about reigniting wonder and emphasizing  relevance. It’s about giving students the chance to learn biological material in a way that makes sense to them. When we start to make connections between the classroom and the real world,  it becomes easier to engage with bigger concepts and ideas.

    Connecting biology to the everyday

    Let’s look at hand washing, as an example of how to relate lipid biochemistry to our everyday routines.

    Okay, fine, we all know we’re supposed to do it, and yet nasty microorganisms like norovirus (transmitted mainly by the fecal-oral route, ahem) still tend to spread rampantly. Isn’t hand sanitizer sufficient? Or Lysol? The soap dispenser is out again — does it matter?

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, hand sanitizer doesn’t work well against norovirus. Think of norovirus as wearing a protective coat — hand sanitizer doesn’t penetrate, and since the virus doesn’t readily dry out on surfaces, it remains ready to infect on the surface of the skin. In order to effectively remove the virus, you have to use soap and water and rub your hands together. Why?

    Soap particles have water-repellant and water-loving components. Those water-repellant portions, combined with rubbing your hands back in forth, causes the virus to break apart. The soap particles surround the bits of virus, and water washes it away.

    If I talked about the structure of soap as a fatty acid with a carboxylic acid functional group, sodium ion, and fatty acid tail, and how with other fatty acids, it forms a micelle in water, students’ eyes would glaze over. On the contrast, breaking down the basics of why hand-washing works to illustrate the biochemistry proves far more interesting.

    Impacting student perceptions

    When biological principles are applied to our daily lives, they become inherently interesting. When students realize they can understand the biological principles behind their daily experiences, it becomes accessible. By viewing biology through a personal lens, students learn to appreciate rather than hate the subject.

    When students see biology everywhere, as an integral part of their lives, they are more likely to engage. As they engage, they realize they can understand biology, and that it’s actually interesting.

    Think back to the opening example — my homework was looking in my backyard for milkweed to feed to the classroom caterpillars. Biology was relatable and accessible and that made it exciting. That’s the driving framework behind my biology education practice. I always consider the relevancy in students’ lives as the main touchstone in my teaching practice.

    What is something that you can do in your classroom to bring your own excitement about the material in? What kind of real-world examples can you bring into your classroom? Come tell me about it on social media!

    LinkedIn

    Facebook

    Instagram

    Written by Dr. Melanie Peffer, Teaching Assistant Professor and Research Scientist Level II at the University of Colorado Boulder, and author of “Biology for Life: A Guide to Our Living World,” 1e.

     

    Interested in this first edition text for your biology course? Look for Peffer’s first edition text, “Biology for Life: A Guide to Our Living World,” 1e coming spring, 2025, and check out other available biology titles on the discipline page. 



    Source link

  • Report Reveals Harvard MBAs Struggling to Get Jobs (Palki Sharma)

    Report Reveals Harvard MBAs Struggling to Get Jobs (Palki Sharma)

    A new report has revealed that 23% of Harvard MBAs were jobless even three months after their graduation. Similar trends have been reported in top B-schools across the world. Once considered a sure-shot ticket to success, what explains the changing fortunes of MBA degrees?

    Source link

  • The Governance of European Higher Education: Convergence or Divergence? with Michael Shattock

    The Governance of European Higher Education: Convergence or Divergence? with Michael Shattock

    Higher education is famously isomorphic. Around the world, knowledge is divided into disciplines in almost identical ways. Around the world, students go through a largely similar bachelor’s, master’s, doctorate sequence. And around the world, higher education institutions are heavily stratified, mainly according to their research outputs. Higher education institutions aren’t exactly homogenous. But the systems they live in, what they do, what they cover, et cetera, are substantially similar, except for one thing. Governance.

    Governance can mean a few things in higher education. At the system level, it’s about the relationship between institutions, both individually and collectively, and government. At the institutional level, it’s about the nature of public oversight, if any. These two different varieties of governance vary enormously from one country to another, and I would argue, are at the root of the glorious level of disharmony, individuality, and sheer quirkiness we see across national systems today, despite all the drivers towards isomorphism.

    The person who’s possibly written the most about this topic anywhere, ever, is Michael Shattock. He’s the former Registrar of Warwick University, a visiting professor at the University College of London’s Institute of Education, and an Honorary Research Professor in the Department of Education at Oxford University. He’s the author or co-author of a number of books about university governance around the world, and he joined us for this episode to talk about one of his more recent books, published by Bloomsbury, called The Governance of European Higher Education, Convergence or Divergence, co-authored with Aniko Horvath and Juergen Enders.

    Europe has some very old and deep-seated differences in the ways universities are governed. The French, German, and English systems, to take only three, have completely different ideas about what the relationship between the university and the state should be, not to mention some very contrasting notions about the role of the professoriate in institutional management. What practical impact do these differences have? Well, that’s what Michael and I sat down to chat about a few weeks ago. I hope you enjoy the conversation.


    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.17 | The Governance of European Higher Education: Convergence or Divergence? with Michael Shattock

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Michael, in your book, you talk about three grand traditions of European governance: the British or Anglosphere model, the French Napoleonic model, and the German Humboldtian model. How do those three styles or forms of governance vary when it comes to the relationship between universities and the state?

    Michael Shattock (MS): Well, I wouldn’t call them grand traditions. I think what they are now is more a set of underlying components of higher education policies.

    The Humboldtian tradition, which started in 1810, had an enormous influence across Europe because it brought research and teaching together into a single model. Around the same time, Napoleon established a single university for all of France, but it focused exclusively on teaching. This approach eventually led to the creation of the Grandes Écoles, which were also focused primarily on training.

    In the Anglosphere, universities were founded by local communities and had no initial relationship with the state. In the UK, for example, universities enjoyed considerable autonomy, which only began to change when they started seeking public funding. This relationship was formalized in 1919 and changed again after World War II in 1946, when the government decided to fully fund universities, which were struggling to recover financially.

    AU: One area where these traditions and these approaches to university-state relations have had a significant impact is in how countries have expanded their higher education systems since World War II. For example, some countries have introduced new universities or specialized institutions like the Fachhochschulen in Germany or the Institut Universitaire de Technologie in France. Does one system handle massification better than the others?

    MS: I think Germany has done particularly well in handling massification. Their success stems in part from the German constitution, which emphasizes homogeneity across the Länder. Another factor is that higher education in Germany is devolved to the Länder, so each of the 16 or 17 Länder has its own higher education system.

    These systems are interconnected and governed through collaboration between the Länder, the Conference of German Rectors, and, to some extent, the federal government through bodies like the Wissenschaftsrat. This framework ensures coordination without creating the competition you might see in more marketized systems.

    However, the German system isn’t without its issues. Following the Humboldtian model, Germany requires all universities to be both research- and teaching-oriented. The Fachhochschulen, which were established after the war, are not allowed to conduct research. As a result, three-quarters of students attend universities, while only one-quarter attend Fachhochschulen.

    Even so, the system is relatively equitable across the country and maintains strong principles of integrating research and teaching.

    AU: Governance isn’t just about university-state relations—it’s also about how institutions govern themselves. How do these three traditions differ in that regard?

    MS: Well, if we start with the Napoleonic tradition—which extends beyond France to Italy, Spain, and Portugal—you’ll see that universities are still under strong state control. In theory, the state is meant to act as a steering body, but in practice, these systems are highly regulated.

    The first issue when it comes to expansion in these systems is whether the state is willing to support growth and allocate resources accordingly. By contrast, in the UK, there’s a tacit belief that anyone with the appropriate qualifications should be able to access higher education. Theoretically, funding follows the students, but in reality, over the past five years, we’ve seen the students come while the funding often doesn’t follow.

    Secondly, there’s been a long-running debate—originating with the Lisbon declaration—about whether continental European universities should aim to match American universities. A series of reports, including excellent research by Professor Aguillon, highlighted a key difference: American universities often have lay-run governing bodies, whereas many European universities do not.

    This principle of having a governing body separate from purely academic leadership has been widely debated across Europe, with each country arriving at different solutions. In Hungary, for instance, the governing body consists of only five members, all from the ruling political party—a move that has faced objections in Brussels. Meanwhile, in Norway, the governing body includes two to five laypeople alongside academics, and they’ve even abolished the Senate, feeling it’s no longer necessary.

    So, there have been significant changes in the governance structures of universities, particularly in how these top-level committees are organized.

    AU:  Michael, you state in your book that European systems have faced three major challenges this century: the Lisbon declaration’s push to make Europe the most innovative society, the Bologna Process, and the rise of international rankings. How have European systems responded to these drivers? Have their responses been uniform, or have they diverged?

    MS: If you recall, my book has a secondary title, Convergence or Divergence. After the Lisbon Declaration, the expectation was that there would be significant convergence across European higher education systems. However, higher education wasn’t part of the Treaty of Rome, meaning the EU has no formal jurisdiction in this area.

    One might have assumed that the Bologna Process, with its establishment of the “3-2-3” model—three years for undergraduate degrees, two years for master’s degrees, and three years for PhDs—would lead to greater alignment in how universities are run. But that hasn’t been the case. In fact, the book strongly argues that divergence has overshadowed convergence, driven by national preconceptions and the varying resources available in different countries.

    Take Portugal, for example. In the book, we use it as a case study for universities in Southern Europe. Historically, Portugal’s universities were concentrated in coastal cities like Lisbon, Porto, and Coimbra, with no significant presence in rural areas. One of the country’s key higher education initiatives has been to establish institutions in the countryside. While not entirely successful, this effort has been an important part of their overall strategy to expand access.

    So, while divergence has often dominated, it’s worth noting that differing starting points can sometimes lead to similar endpoints. In some cases, divergent reactions to challenges may still result in convergence on a single model over time.

    AU: Divergence often happens because systems start from different points. For example, the relationship between research and teaching has been diverging in some systems, especially through institutional stratification. Are we seeing convergence in academic culture around this?

    MS: I wouldn’t describe it as a convergence, but if you think back to Lisbon, there was a strong emphasis on increasing the commitment to research within university systems. This focus has led to significant changes in how higher education systems are structured.

    For example, in the UK, research and teaching are managed by two entirely separate government departments. The Department of Education oversees teaching, while the Department of Industry and Innovation handles research. As a result, universities receive funding from two distinct sources.

    In Portugal, we encountered an unusual situation where the government felt it needed to invest more in research. To address this, they proposed—or perhaps it was the universities’ idea—to move research activities off the main university campuses and into smaller, independent research centers. These centers would allow polytechnic researchers to collaborate with those from established research universities. However, this approach has created unintended consequences. These research campuses have become increasingly autonomous, to the point where university rectors often have little understanding of what’s happening at these off-campus sites. Rather than strengthening the polytechnics, this model has effectively turned university campuses into teaching-only institutions, which I see as a step backward.

    The EU has also become more involved in this area, despite not having a formal role in higher education. Through the Horizon program, the EU has made substantial funding available for academics across member states to compete for. Interestingly, the UK has just negotiated its way back into Horizon following Brexit. This shift suggests that the EU, which had previously focused on undergraduate teaching through initiatives like the Bologna Process, is now channeling its higher education investments almost entirely into research via Horizon.

    As a result, universities across Europe are being pulled in different directions, and the ways these tensions manifest vary significantly from country to country.

    AU: One part of your book I enjoyed was your discussion of student participation in governance. In continental Europe, students often have significant roles in decision-making. How do these roles differ across countries?

    MS: I think the cultures around student participation differ significantly between countries. Let me start with Germany. The German higher education system went through a difficult period of intense student activism in the 1980s and 1990s. What has emerged from that is a system where students now play a significant role in university governance, particularly through their involvement in the Senate.

    This involvement is quite remarkable. For instance, when a candidate for a professorship is presented to the Senate for approval, student members have the same rights as academic members to challenge or endorse the appointment. Students are deeply integrated into the university’s internal negotiations, and rectors often leverage student opinions to balance or counteract the influence of academic groups. In this way, students have become a central element of university governance.

    In Norway and Portugal, the role of students is slightly different. National student organizations in these countries hold substantial influence within government decision-making. Additionally, they take on responsibilities that, in systems like those in Britain or Canada, would typically fall to the universities themselves. These include providing student accommodation, offering career advice, and managing other social services.

    While students in these systems may engage with certain academic issues, their role in the direct governance or operational management of the university is far less pronounced than what we see in Germany.

    AU: This isn’t your first book on university governance. With this new book on Europe, do you see European systems heading in the same direction as the rest of the world, or are they charting a different course?

    MS: The global trend is toward greater state involvement and oversight in higher education. Even in countries like Japan, there has been an attempt to shift from a traditional government-management relationship with universities to what is described as a “steering” relationship. However, in reality, governments still maintain a significant grip on university systems.

    Looking across Europe, you can observe different approaches to state control. Take Hungary, for example. In Hungary, the state has effectively taken over the management of the higher education system. Chancellors, often drawn from other public service sectors, are imposed by the state to sit on university governing bodies alongside rectors, with significant control over finances.

    In contrast, countries like Norway and Germany have a much lighter touch when it comes to state intervention. In these systems, there is a belief—particularly in Germany—that university autonomy is crucial for institutional success. This stands in stark contrast to Britain, where there is a rhetoric supporting university autonomy, but in practice, universities are heavily influenced by external pressures like league tables and global rankings.

    Another interesting shift in recent years has been the growing recognition of universities as “anchors” in their communities. This concept emphasizes the important role universities play, particularly in smaller towns, in contributing to local social and economic well-being. This idea of universities having a broader community impact is relatively new compared to 25 years ago, but it reflects an evolving understanding of the societal role of higher education.

    AU: Let’s look forward 25 years. If you were to write this book again in 2050, would you expect more convergence or divergence?

    MS: Well, I have to admit, I was afraid you would ask me this question, and I’ve given it some thought. To put it simply, I believe that in Europe, divergence will persist. The nation-state, as it currently operates in Europe, will continue to resist attempts by the EU to modernize and harmonize higher education systems. This resistance makes it difficult to achieve the kind of convergence the EU envisions.

    AU: Michael, thank you so much for joining us today.

    MS: Pleasure.

    AU: And thank you to our producers, Tiffany McLennan and Sam Pufek, and to you, our listeners and viewers. If you have any questions about today’s episode or suggestions for future ones, email us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel. Join us next week when our guest will be Javier Botero, discussing developments in Colombian higher education. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link