Category: Featured

  • Making Fourth Generation Universities intentional: sounds good but what does it mean? 

    Making Fourth Generation Universities intentional: sounds good but what does it mean? 

    • By Lucy Haire, Director of Partnerships at HEPI.

    At a recent roundtable discussion of university leaders convened by HEPI with Elsevier, the focus was the concept of the Fourth Generation University. If first-generation universities focused on teaching, second-generation universities on research, third-generation universities on knowledge exchange, then fourth-generation universities combine all those things for the express purpose of addressing real-world challenges. Rather than universities beavering away and occasionally ‘throwing something out there,’ commented one roundtable guest, the idea is to link university delivery to specific goals in partnerships with other agencies.   

    ‘It is tempting in a time of financial crisis in the UK university sector to withdraw into core activities’ continued the discussion contributor, ‘when in fact the opposite is needed – bold steps into more explicit civic engagement.’  One former head of a medical school said that he had never been asked what society needed of his institution. Fourth Generation Universities, conversely, link their work to health priorities and any number of other pressing public concerns. They respond head-on to the UK Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson’s Five Priorities for Universities outlined in her letter to vice-chancellors in autumn 2024, especially number two about economic growth and number three about civic roles. In addition, the Government has stated that it will be publishing a document this summer setting out some plans for higher education reform. 

    Elsevier is at the heart of developments, establishing a Fourth Generation University global community and a basket of metrics to analyse progress. Eindhoven University of Technology is a trailblazer in the field, and early adopters in the UK include the Universities of Newcastle, Swansea, Aston and Strathclyde, among others. Robert Jan-Smits, recently retired president of the executive board of Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE), and also former Director General of Research and Innovation at the European Commission, offers his reflections on the initiative which, he states, might not suit every institution.  

    One HEPI and Elsevier roundtable participant who has analysed and encouraged university civic engagement across the UK explained that the three components for success were strong leadership, strong relationships and a strong sense of intentionality. He cautioned that the country is divided in terms of public engagement: swaths of the country never or seldom set foot on a university campus, nor have knowledge of higher education’s work and impact. A chorus of university leaders at the discussion acknowledged their need to do more in terms of better serving and communicating with such groups. University-speak and the dreaded sector acronyms should be banned! 

    There are plenty of success stories of universities acting as anchor institutions in their regions. Many boast start-up business support, science and innovation parks and strategic collaboration with regional authorities. Others address skills shortages, health inequalities, local transport deficits and low university participation rates. They are all important employers and many serve local, national and global communities simultaneously. Cybersecurity and defence projects which bring together industry and academia, often from multiple institutions, are in ever-increasing demand. One discussion participant reminded the group that some higher education institutions, such as Coventry University, had been set up with civic goals in mind, while another said that resource and planning were needed to develop the right ecosystems and infrastructure in which Fourth Generation Universities can thrive. 

    While there could be pockets of resistance, most academics can be persuaded that if their students’ job prospects are improved and their own research sharpened, the aims of Fourth Generation Universities are worthwhile. Fully integrating the student voice was key, with a special mention for Arts and Humanities graduates whose storytelling capabilities should be deployed to showcase the positive impact of Fourth Generation initiatives.  

    One roundtable contributor advised that the UK should take note of what is happening in American universities in terms of heated anti-intellectual rhetoric and huge funding cuts since the start of Donald Trump’s second administration. People need to see the ‘tangible impact’ of universities and understand the connections between their lives and the Academy as a bulwark against aggression.  

    Attention around the table turned to the recent UK local elections in which a relative political newcomer, Reform, made huge strides. Those universities working in partnership with councils now controlled by Reform reported positive early engagement and an understanding among new councillors of the importance of the success of their local universities. Meanwhile, when it comes to national politics, higher education policy is not seen as a vote-winner.  

    Perhaps if universities could make their impact on the economy better known, the sector could garner more strategic attention from the government, not least to support the growth agenda. One guest suggested posing a counterfactual: ‘What if there were no, or far fewer, universities? What would the impact be on the economy?’ Another speaker referenced the trend in Australia of universities reporting outcomes like how much growth and employment they had delivered. UK funding systems such as Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) could be developed to better incentivise Fourth-Generation initiatives. The gathered group also remembered that developing more rigorous and consistent methods to measure both the private and public benefits of universities, including social and civic outcomes, was a key priority in Universities UK 2024 Opportunity, Growth and Partnership: a blueprint for change. The metric frameworks being developed by the Fourth Generation University global community could provide a basis on which to start.  

    From publican to professor, fishmonger to founder, cabbie to the cabinet, Fourth Generation Universities need to make sense, deliver outcomes and foster a sense of shared endeavour in a turbulent world. 

    Source link

  • Only connect: why investing in relational infrastructure is critical for universities

    Only connect: why investing in relational infrastructure is critical for universities

    Today on the HEPI blog, we explore the discussions at a recent HEPI roundtable with Elsevier on the topic of the Fourth Generation University – which combines teaching, research and knowledge exchange.

    You can read a full write-up of the roundtable, by HEPI’s own Director of Partnerships, Lucy Haire, at this link – or read on for a discussion of relational infrastructure by Sarah Chaytor.

    • Sarah Chaytor is Director of Strategy & Policy and Joint Chief of Staff to the UCL Vice-Provost, Research, Innovation & Global Engagement.

    At a recent HEPI roundtable dinner with Elsevier to discuss how universities could strengthen their regional and civic contributions, there was a rather sobering discussion of the ‘low stock’ of universities amongst both government and the public.

    This was in the context of an ongoing, international discussion about the concept of ‘fourth generation’ universities. These are defined as ‘global universities that are fully integrated in their local innovation ecosystem with the aim of tackling worldwide societal challenges and driving regional economic growth.’

    We are well-versed in our sector on the economic benefits of universities and well-practiced in trumpeting these to ourselves and to government. Yet at the same time, there is a growing evidence base on the disconnect between the British public and universities. Reports from UPP/HEPI and from Public First suggest a significant lack of awareness amongst many citizens of how universities positively affect their daily lives or contribute to the places they live. As someone working in university research, I am particularly concerned by public attitudes to research and development (R&D) – important work done by CaSE on public perceptions of R&D has found that a significant majority of people think that that ‘R&D doesn’t benefit people like them’ or feel neutral or unsure about R&D’s impacts.

    I’m not sure that, as a sector, we have fully grasped how serious this is. It cannot be a state of affairs that we simply shrug our shoulders at. As CaSE has observed: ‘This is a precarious position for a sector that receives substantial public investment.’  We risk undermining the ‘social compact’ that exists between universities and the public – that is, the basis on which we receive public funding (especially for R&D) is our ability to make a broader contribution.

    I conclude from this that the focus over the past 20 years or so on universities’ economic contribution doesn’t cut through to those citizens who feel that the economy simply doesn’t work for them. Making universities part of an abstract and disconnected concept of economic growth is of no interest to people worried about access to housing, cost of living or the state of their local high street. It also overlooks the multifaceted ways in which universities are contributing to places across the UK, from providing jobs to sports facilities to cultural institutions to working with community groups to undertaking the research that can save lives or tackle pressing challenges. 

    I think we need to focus more on how universities can make human connections and articulate their research benefit in human terms. To draw from Peter Kyle’s framing of innovation, we need to show how universities are putting their considerable assets and resources to use for the public good. From a research perspective, this requires us to think about the purpose of knowledge and how we connect knowledge to communities across the country.  In particular, we need to work much better to build trusted relationships that enable us to understand the needs of communities and citizens around the country and ensure that we are demonstrably meeting these.

    For me, that starts with taking much more seriously the need to invest in the ‘relational infrastructure’ that can support those connections. Put simply, relational infrastructure is the people, structures and processes that support universities to connect with other parts of society. At its core are people – people who build and maintain relationships, who manage processes and structures for engagement, who keep connections going between specific projects and funding periods.

    In my own world of academic-policy engagement, this relational infrastructure is the crucial ‘glue’ which underpins a whole host of interactions, projects, and exchange of ideas. It supports ways of working with policymakers that are about long-term partnership and collaboration rather than one-off transactions. (More on this in the final report from the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement project.)

    We know that universities can tell a powerful story about their civic contribution – as the Civic University Commission noted, universities are ‘hugely important to the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of the places in which they are located’. This concept is echoed in the idea of the ‘fourth generation’ university. But perhaps we have focused too much on shiny projects and initiatives, and not enough on the simple relational approaches which underpin successful and long-term engagement and meaningful partnerships.

    Relational infrastructure is all too easy to overlook or to take for granted. It rarely appears in business cases or exciting new project proposals. But it is one of our most precious assets and should be actively cultivated. This requires institutions to acknowledge the need for long-term investment and to recognise that, whilst it will deliver dividends for universities, these will not necessarily arise a short time-frame or via our ‘usual’ metrics. What relational infrastructure will deliver is deep and meaningful connections with other parts of society, which enable universities to put their research (and other) assets to public good use.

    It’s time to take our responsibility to develop and maintain relational infrastructure seriously – it is the route to rebuilding our relationship with wider society.

    Source link

  • College Board cancels award program for high-performing Black and Latino students

    College Board cancels award program for high-performing Black and Latino students

    The College Board this month changed the criteria for its National Recognition Program awards in a move that could shift tens of thousands of scholarship dollars from Black and Latino students to white students.

    Colleges used the awards to recruit and offer scholarships to high-performing students from groups underrepresented in higher education. The award previously recognized academic achievement by students in five categories — Black, Hispanic, Native American, first-generation and those living in rural areas or small towns.

    The racial categories have been eliminated.

    Now, students living in small towns and rural areas can still earn the award if they score in the top 10 percent among all small-town and rural students in their state on the PSAT — a precursor to the SAT that is administered in high schools around the country. The same is true for first-generation students but not for students in underrepresented racial categories.

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    Critics said they were disappointed by the College Board’s decision.

    “They believed racial inequality was something important to address yesterday, and by changing that, they’re implying that it’s not something important to fight for now,” said Rachel Perera, a fellow in government studies at the liberal Brookings Institution. “That’s the heart of the question that’s being debated — although it’s not being debated in explicit terms — does racial discrimination exist?”

    In a statement on its website, the College Board noted the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the use of race in admissions, although the National Recognition Program awards were used for scholarships and recruitment, not admissions.

    “Recent legal and regulatory actions have further limited the utility of these awards for students and colleges,” the statement says. Also, President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear his disapproval of race-conscious policies in higher education, and some states have banned consideration of race in scholarship decisions. 

    In 2023-24, the College Board issued 115,000 recognition awards, and a little less than half were in the racial categories. The previous year there were more than 80,000 awards and the majority were for Black, Hispanic and Native American students. While the College Board doesn’t hand out money itself, universities use it to select students for scholarships. The Board has not maintained a list of which institutions used the racial categories, according to Holly Stepp, College Board’s director of communications.

    The College Board started the program in 1983 to recognize high-performing Hispanic students. In 2020, the other two racial categories and the small town and rural designations were added. First-generation students could win the award starting last year. Small towns could include those with modest incomes or wealthy enclaves like Aspen, Colorado. All students must also have at least a B+ average.

    Related: Cutting race-based scholarships blocks path to college, students say

    While students of all races can now earn the awards, the removal of the racial categories will likely disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic students.

    On average, Asian and white students score higher on PSATs. White students’ average score on the PSAT last year was 994 last year compared with 821 for Black students — a gap of 173 points. Asian students’ average was even higher at 1108 while Hispanic and Native American students averaged 852 and 828 respectively.

    “It’s a move towards race-blind categories when we know that education and access to education isn’t race-blind,” said Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the left-leaning policy and advocacy group EdTrust.

    Some conservatives praised the move, however, arguing that race-conscious scholarship and recruitment programs were ways to get around the Supreme Court’s rulings on affirmative action and that they were a form of reverse discrimination.

    Jonathan Butcher, senior research fellow in education policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he believes that racial discrimination does exist and should be addressed, but that race-conscious education policies were both illegal and ineffective.

    “If you are using racial preferences, you are setting students up for a loss of confidence when they struggle in a situation they’re not prepared for,” Butcher said.

    Related: How did students pitch themselves to colleges after last year’s affirmative action ruling?

    In place of the racial categories, a new designation has been added this year that recognizes students who score in the top 10 percent of their high school on the PSAT.

    Experts say colleges are unlikely to offer scholarships to all students who score in the top 10 percent of every high school in the country, given the cost that would entail. Officials at the University of New Mexico, for example, said they would stop using the College Board designations beginning in the 2026-27 school year.

    “We’re currently analyzing our scholarship strategy, but changes will be made across the board,” said Steve Carr, the university’s director of communications, in an email.

    In 2023-24, the University of New Mexico awarded scholarships based on the College Board designations worth $15,000 each to 149 Black, Hispanic and Native American students.

    The University of Arizona also offered scholarships to students who earned National Recognition Program awards in the racial designations last year.

    “The university was already evaluating its scholarship strategy and will consider the College Board’s announcement as we determine how best to move forward and support our students,” said Mitch Zak, spokesman for the University of Arizona, in an email.

    In addition to the PSAT scores, students are eligible for the College Board award if they score a 3 or higher out of 5 on two Advanced Placement exams taken during their ninth and/or 10th grade year, although many high schools don’t uniformly offer AP courses to freshmen and sophomores.

    “We can’t really have a conversation around merit if we’re not all at the same starting point in terms of what we receive from our K-12 education,” said Del Pilar, “and how we’re able to navigate the test prep environment, or the lack of test prep that certain communities receive.”

    Contact senior investigative reporter Meredith Kolodner at 212-870-1063 or [email protected] or on Signal at merkolodner.04

    This story about the College Board was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Supporting Student Mental Health in the Classroom: A Faculty Guide to Compassionate Engagement – Faculty Focus

    Supporting Student Mental Health in the Classroom: A Faculty Guide to Compassionate Engagement – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The future of HTQs requires commitment and certainty from the government

    The future of HTQs requires commitment and certainty from the government

    The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) – formerly the Institute for Apprenticeships – has been central to reforms aimed at increasing standardisation and quality in technical education at all levels in England since 2017.

    As it slips into the shadows from where Skills England is about to emerge, we wanted to explore how IfATE’s work establishing a quality assurance process for level 4 and 5 technical education – launched in 2020 – could be built upon and improved.

    Since IfATE introduced the process of approving level 4 and 5 qualifications as Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs), more than 80 FE colleges, universities and awarding organisations have successfully submitted their qualifications. We decided that their experiences – and their views on the future – were a good place to start.

    We interviewed 46 individuals from 17 organisations to explore their motivations for being “early adopters” of HTQs, their feedback on the approval process itself, and their recommendations for making it better. Ultimately we were keen to find out what would encourage and enable more organisations to apply for HTQ status for their qualifications, and in this way help address the “missing middle” of England’s workforce skills. The full report can be read here.

    Managing a heavy burden

    Unsurprisingly, a strong recommendation was to make the approvals process less burdensome. There was widespread appreciation of the support provided by IfATE, and evidence of their responsiveness to early adopters’ feedback across all five cycles of HTQ approvals. This said, respondents noted that mapping qualifications – particularly those with multiple pathways – to the knowledge, skills and behaviours of occupational standards remained complex and time consuming.

    It was clear that the level of resource and responsiveness shown by IfATE needs to be maintained by Skills England, particularly as occupational standards continue to evolve, and new awarding bodies come into the fold. However, our respondents also noted that manageability could be improved if the approvals process became more integrated with extant internal and external quality assurance and approvals processes, including professional body accreditations.

    Gaining traction, but slowly

    Reassuringly, many of our respondents reported that one positive outcome of getting their qualifications ready for HTQ approval was the stimulation of renewed engagement with employers – with benefits that went beyond simply endorsing the qualification at hand.

    Similarly, for some respondents the decision about whether to put forward a qualification for approval had acted as a catalyst for the further engagement and support of senior leaders in their organisation with higher technical education (HTE) – as part of their widening participation commitments and/or their portfolio diversification and growth.

    Yet alongside this positivity, respondents reported that awareness of the HTQ quality mark, and what it represents, remains low among prospective students and employers. A key reason for this was seen to be a lack of commitment from the Department for Education (DfE) to widespread and visible brand backing.

    DfE did make funding available to successful applicants via the HTE Growth Fund in 2021, and two further rounds of HTE Skills Injection Funds (including funding for localised marketing) – but the potential clawback of these funds should recruitment not meet projected numbers led to some uncertainty about the benefits of applying for short term and unconfirmed funding streams.

    If even those organisations who have already been successful in getting HTQ approval are feeling dubious about the future, then clearly much more needs to be done to encourage those who have not yet entered the field.

    Let’s not forget the missing middle

    There is no reason to doubt that the current government cares about addressing the skills gap known as the “missing middle”, as ignoring it may pose serious risks to growth and opportunity missions. So we – and the many organisations that have invested in HTQs and wish to see them flourish and thrive – have a couple of hopes.

    First, that Skills England maintains strong and continuous engagement with current and future HTQ providers – providing good labour market data on what qualifications are needed, offering personalised support during the approval process, and engaging with the wider sector in order to improve the process.

    But also, we hope that DfE can quickly resolve funding uncertainties for HTQs – including their potential for funding under the growth and skills levy and their primacy in the rollout of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement – and that the department showcases this commitment through a national marketing campaign. This could include building an HTQ ambassadors network, and an annual HTQ celebratory week (similar to those currently supported for T levels and apprenticeships).

    The latest data from DfE shows that in 2022–23 numbers of entrants for Level 4 and 5 education increased after a long period of decline. The contribution of HTQs to this increase may well be small but the strong focus on HTE since 2017, from which HTQ approval arose, will have contributed. We’ve made a great start – let’s not lose momentum now.

    Source link

  • The case for playful leadership

    The case for playful leadership

    Of course: UK higher education is in a perilous state, with ever-tightening institutional budgets, thousands of staff at risk of redundancy, institutions on the verge of closure, and the threat of AI causing a rush back to closed-book exams.

    In this context, a call to play might seem mis-timed and perhaps a little tone-deaf.

    Please bear with us. Play is about more than games and goofiness and is far from frivolous. It endorses a philosophy that supports openness, creativity, and bravery: qualities that the sector really needs from its leaders right now.

    Risk aversion

    In times of difficulty there is a temptation for institutions to revert to traditional values and avoid risks. This might manifest in removing small, specialist, or contentious courses in favour of large popular subjects, in stifling academic freedom and discussion, or in a reluctance to explore new ideas or research. As pressures grow from government and popular media, leaders may become increasingly leery of making decisions that make their institution stand out.

    This culture of inertia, pressure, and performativity sucks the joy and creativity from academia, hampers change and makes it difficult for institutions to make the efficiencies necessary to be financially sustainable without shedding staff and closing courses on an endless repeat cycle.

    And this environment is exhausting and unsustainable. In a world where change is the only constant, we need to embrace new possibilities and prepare staff and students to manage and embrace uncertainty. We must all be resilient, creative, and engaged, and play can facilitate this at all levels.

    Playful learning

    The use of playful learning approaches across the sector has increased in the last decade. Play pedagogies are finally being taken seriously: membership of the Playful Learning Association has grown to over 600 over the last fifteen years and the annual conference regularly sells out.

    In research too, play is often the key that unlocks the greatest discoveries (Nobel prize physicists attest to it): having space to experiment, be creative and mess around with ideas, data or materials is essential for ground-breaking contributions to knowledge. The ESRC has recently funded a significant three-year multi-institution research project led by Northumbria university that will evidence what forms of playful learning work and why.

    But it is past time for play to be taken seriously by leadership. Higher education leaders could benefit from a philosophy of play: being willing to change and try new ideas, embracing open leadership, and being brave enough to endorse new approaches that set them apart for the sector. The ability to fail well is crucial and having the vulnerability to publicly accept that leaders do not always know the answers allows institutions to learn from mistakes openly and collegiately.

    Vulnerability and humanity

    There are examples of sector leaders who demonstrate these values. It has been refreshing to see vice chancellors show their humanity and honest vulnerability on social media and platforms like Wonkhe. For example, recently vice chancellors at Middlesex University, Buckinghamshire New University, and Plymouth Marjon University have offered honest reflections on what it means to be the leader of a modern university, giving very different, more personal and playful lenses on senior leadership than the usual corporate statements and press releases.

    At Northumbria University, leadership has driven a strategic push for experiential learning across all programmes, embracing active and authentic learning to provide students with the real-life skills and experiences they will need to thrive beyond university. This has been achieved through open discussion with staff communities of practice and led from the bottom up as well as the top down; staff are encouraged to be creative and experiment. It is not a cheap or easy option, but it differentiates the university and comes from a belief that this approach is best for our students.

    At Anglia Ruskin University, open and empathetic leadership has been key to navigating the institution through challenging times, with senior leaders holding honest community events and talking openly about vulnerability. When trying to understand institutional belonging, leaders facilitated playful thinking through Lego workshops to develop shared principles. Play also influenced a strategic development for student experience, using techniques from video games to create an engaging introduction to the university for all incoming students.

    Open to possibilities

    There are already examples of successful playful leadership in the sector, and we believe that it is those leaders who are not afraid to be open – both to new ideas and to making mistakes – that will have the best chance for success in our increasingly hostile and uncertain climate. Institutions face difficult choices on how to differentiate and survive; higher education cannot continue as it is.

    The next few years will be challenging, and leaders will need to be more open to possibilities, creative in their approaches, and willing to embrace and learn from their mistakes as the sector reshapes into something sustainable – built with and for our current and future staff and students. Now more than ever, play really matters.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: University of Greater Manchester

    Higher education postcard: University of Greater Manchester

    Greetings from Bolton. Definitely Bolton.

    In 1824, a mechanics’ institute was established in Bolton. Mechanics’ institutes were a new phenomenon – the first was established in Scotland in 1821. They were, in essence, a subscription-based club which provided an opportunity for education, aimed at the better-off members of the working class.

    As the 1857 advert in the Bolton Chronicle shows, it was still going fifty years later.

    You can see the 1857 subscription fees in the advertisement. It’s hard to directly read across into today’s prices, because costs and wage structures change so much over the years. On a straightforward inflation calculation, using the Bank of England calculator, the annual fee would be about £50 today, which is a bit of a bargain. But comparing wages makes this feel different – for example, an average agricultural wage in 1857 was just shy of 11 shillings a week, so the subscription would be a quarter of a week’s wages. (And note also that the annual fee of ten shillings was just the quarterly fee multiplied by four. No discounts here for upfront payment.)

    The curriculum looks good, but elementary: school rather than higher education. And this makes sense – many people would have had minimal schooling. Only about 70 per cent of the population could read and write. And so a good basic education didn’t hurt.

    By the late 1880s there was a groundswell of opinion that Bolton needed better. As reported in the Bolton Evening News of 1 December 1886, the new chairman of the Mechanics’ Institute, Mr John Haywood MA, argued that:

    In Manchester, they are content with one well-equipped technical school; whereas in Bolton we must, forsooth, have three struggling institutions, with the result, as far as the Mechanics’ is concerned, that the progress made is in the direction of increased debt.

    The newspaper continued: “Mr Haywood thinks that Bolton has gone mad on sectarian and political distinctions when its young men cannot even sit on the same form to receive technical education.”

    And so in 1887 the committee of the Mechanics’ Institute agreed to establish a technical school. A committee was established, which raised funds, but found itself short; and an appeal was made to the county council. And in 1891 the Bolton Technical School opened.

    In 1926 Bolton Technical School became Bolton Technical College, and in 1941 a new building opened – that shown on the card – which enabled a broader range of courses to be offered. Engineering was, apparently, the most popular.

    In 1964 the college bifurcated, splitting the lower and higher level education. Bolton Technical College focused on FE, and the Bolton Institute of Technology focused on higher studies.

    A brief aside is now necessary, to introduce another institution, the Bolton Training College. This focused on training teachers for technical subjects and was one of three in the country doing this (the others being in Huddersfield and at Garnett College, in London). I’m afraid I can’t tell you when it was founded, but it is clear that there was a threat to close it in the 1950s, happily averted.

    And in 1982 the Bolton Institute of Technology merged with the Bolton Training College to form the Bolton Institute of Higher Education. This gained taught degree awarding powers in 1992, research degree awarding powers in 1996 and became a university in 2004.

    In December 2024 the university changed its name, becoming the University of Greater Manchester. And in what is becoming a bit of a busy year for the university, in governance terms, it was placed under enhanced OfS monitoring in February and suspended its vice chancellor in May. Let’s see what June and July bring for the university.

    The postcard was sent in October 1961 to Miss Medley in Andover.

    Dear Janet, Today I am going through to Blackpool to see “West Side Story”. The week has flown by, and tomorrow I shall have to return to the quiet South from the lively North. Love Jillian

    And here’s the customary jigsaw – hope you enjoy it. Comment below if you can identify the cars.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Cuts, student suicide, widening access

    Podcast: Cuts, student suicide, widening access

    This week on the podcast we examine the government’s brutal funding cuts to universities.

    What does the £108m reduction in the Strategic Priorities Grant mean for higher education, and why are media studies and journalism courses losing their high-cost subject funding?

    Plus we discuss the independent review of student suicides, and explore new research on widening participation and regional disparities.

    With Shân Wareing, Vice Chancellor at Middlesex University, Richard Brabner, Executive Chair at the UPP Foundation, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Why not take a risk-based approach to discrimination or harassment on campus?

    Whatuni Student Choice Awards

    For those in HE cold spots, higher education isn’t presenting as a good bet

    A review of student suicides suggests that standards are now necessary

    What have coroner’s reports said about student suicide?

    A brutal budget for strategic priorities from the Department for Education

    Why are we so embarrassed about Erasmus?

    Source link

  • Access partnerships need human relationships, not just programmes

    Access partnerships need human relationships, not just programmes

    Our schools and universities are experiencing difficult circumstances. One particularly worrying challenge – which is happening at the intersection of both – is the decline in widening participation.

    Recent research from the Education Policy Institute shows that widening participation in higher education in England has stalled.

    Despite a constant focus from the sector on the issue, young people eligible for free school meals remain half as likely to participate in higher education as their wider peer group.

    While various approaches exist nationwide, partnerships that directly connect university students with potential future applicants create unique opportunities for building social capital across communities.

    Models like this don’t just address academic attainment gaps – they forge meaningful relationships between people who might otherwise never interact, enriching both sides through expanded social networks and shared experiences.

    Our new agreement between the Tutor Trust and the University of Salford is a good example. The partnership enables Salford students to provide tutoring to local Year 6 pupils as they make the critical transition from primary to secondary school.

    The University of Salford has a strong track record of working with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to improve access to higher education. Our latest figures show that out of our nearly 27,000 current students, 50 per cent are first in family to attend university, and 49 per cent of students identify as minoritised ethnic.

    Our new partnership represents one of several approaches universities are implementing to create authentic connections between their current students and young people in their communities.

    Similar initiatives can be found across the higher education landscape. The University of Bristol’s Bristol Scholars programme connects current students as mentors with local schools, while Kings College London’s K+ programme creates long-term engagement between undergraduates and sixth form students from underrepresented backgrounds. What unites these initiatives is their focus on genuine, sustained human connection rather than simply institutional outreach.

    We have identified five ways in which these student-centered partnerships can increase widening participation in higher education:

    Closing the attainment gap

    At the core of successful widening participation is improved academic attainment for young people from low-income households.

    Currently at the end of Key Stage 2, the attainment gap in Salford between disadvantaged young people and their more privileged peers is 12 months, and this gap increases to 21.8 months by the end of Key Stage 4. In comparison, the attainment gap at the end of secondary school in London is 10.5 months.

    There is extensive evidence that tutoring is one of the most effective interventions to accelerate academic progress. When delivered by university students, this intervention simultaneously addresses the immediate attainment gap while building aspirations through organic relationships.

    Alleviating financial pressures

    Effective student-led programs must be delivered at no cost to pupils and minimal cost to schools, ensuring no family has to choose between their child’s education and essential living costs.

    These models also typically provide fair compensation to student tutors, with rates well above minimum wage. This dual benefit addresses financial barriers on both sides – removing cost as a barrier to access for school pupils while providing meaningful income for university students who may themselves come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Providing authentic role models

    When tutoring is delivered by university students, they naturally become relatable role models who help inspire their tutees to consider higher education as a realistic pathway.

    Research shows that pupils with tutors from similar backgrounds demonstrate higher engagement and increased academic progress. This highlights how representation matters – for young people from low-income backgrounds to see university as a realistic option, they benefit tremendously from interacting with people from similar lived experiences who are already succeeding in higher education.

    Integrating workplace skills into the student experience

    To ensure universities attract and retain students from all backgrounds, higher education must demonstrably prepare students for future careers. Recent surveys found that 72 percent of students feel universities could do more to integrate workplace skills into the curriculum.

    Student tutors develop invaluable real-world skills through their experiences in classroom settings, including communication, leadership, and adaptability. These experiences enhance their employability while allowing them to make meaningful contributions to their local communities.

    Building cross-community social networks

    Perhaps most important is how these partnerships build social capital across traditional divides. University students expand their understanding of diverse communities and challenges, while school pupils gain connections to networks they might otherwise never access.

    This exchange creates ripple effects beyond individual participants. Family members, friends, and wider community connections all benefit from these expanded networks, gradually breaking down the invisible barriers that often separate university and non-university communities.

    Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson recently wrote to all universities asking them to expand access and outcomes for disadvantaged students, aiming to remove structural barriers and improve inclusivity. Student partnership models of this sort directly respond to this call by addressing both immediate academic needs and deeper systemic barriers.

    Developing strong, community-led partnerships that connect real students with real potential applicants has never been more important. These models don’t just increase university participation statistics – they weave new social fabrics across communities, building mutual understanding and respect. When university students work directly with younger students from their surrounding communities, both groups gain perspective, connection, and belonging.

    The most powerful widening participation initiatives recognise that sustainable change requires more than institutional programs – it requires human relationships. When we invest in models that prioritise these connections, we create pathways to higher education that are supported not just by academic readiness, but by expanded social networks and authentic community bonds too.

    It improves the life chances of young people, benefits our universities, strengthens local communities, and ultimately creates a more cohesive society.

    Source link

  • Trump administration revokes Harvard’s ability to enroll international students

    Trump administration revokes Harvard’s ability to enroll international students

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Thursday pulled Harvard University’s authorization to enroll international students, dramatically escalating the already-tense battle between the Trump administration and the Ivy League institution. 
    • The agency accused Harvard of creating a “toxic campus climate” by accommodating “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators.” Kristi Noem, head of the department, also accused the university of “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.”
    • The move, which the university on Thursday called unlawful, endangers the visas of Harvard’s international students, as they must transfer to another college or they will lose their legal status. Almost 6,800 international students attended Harvard in the 2024-25 academic year, making up 27.2% of the university’s student body, according to institutional data.

    Dive Insight:

    In April, DHS threatened to revoke Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification if the university did not comply with an extensive records request about its “foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities” by the end of the month. International students studying in the U.S. can only attend colleges that are SEVP-approved.

    But DHS’ threat against Harvard, while substantial, was largely sidelined from public attention amid the Trump administration’s vast interruptions and cuts to the university’s federal funding. 

    That includes the Trump administration’s decision to freeze $2.2 billion of Harvard’s funding the same day the university publicly rebuked the government’s demands for academic, hiring and enrollment changes. 

    Since then, Harvard has sued the federal government over the withheld funding, arguing it is being used “as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking” and has “nothing at all to do with antisemitism” and compliance with civil rights laws as the Trump administration claims. 

    The university now faces another attack on its financial well-being: the loss of tuition revenue from international students.

    “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Noem said in a statement Thursday.

    In an email Thursday, a Harvard spokesperson called DHS’ actions unlawful and said the university’s international students and scholars enrich it immeasurably.

    “We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission,” the spokesperson said.

    Last month, Harvard’s undergraduate admissions office notified prospective international students that they may want to have a “backup plan” in place amid DHS’ threats, The Harvard Crimson reported. To that end, the university began allowing them to accept admission to both Harvard and another non-American institution.

    However, Harvard still bans international students from accepting spots at other U.S. colleges. In addition to legal reasons, the university said “the situation at Harvard might be replicated at other American universities,” according to the Crimson.

    Noam signaled her willingness to do just that.

    “Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” she said Thursday, arguing that Harvard had “had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing” and refused.

    Free speech advocates immediately panned DHS’ decision.

    “The administration seems hellbent on employing every means at its disposal — no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional — to retaliate against Harvard and other colleges and universities for speech it doesn’t like,” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said in a statement Thursday.

    FIRE also called DHS’ wide-ranging records request from Harvard “gravely alarming.” 

    “This sweeping fishing expedition reaches protected expression and must be flatly rejected,” the organization said.

    SEVP, a bureaucratic program not typically in the national limelight, gained attention as DHS under President Donald Trump abruptly canceled scores of visas held by international students studying in the U.S.

    These revocations, often enacted by the agency without warning or explanation, have prompted numerous lawsuits against DHS. 

    On April 25, the Trump administration doublebacked and reinstated the canceled visas, the exact number of which is unknown. The move came after judges in more than 50 lawsuits issued temporary injunctions against the visa cancellations, according to Politico.

    However, just days later, the Trump administration shared a policy expanding the authority of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to terminate educational visas through Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, the records management system run by SEVP.

    Under the policy, evidence of an international student’s failure to comply with the terms of their legal status — not proof or “clear and convincing evidence” — would be enough for ICE to revoke it, according to guidance issued Thursday by the law firm Hunton.

    The guidance also noted that the new policy did not address the federal government’s practice of terminating students’ visas without notifying them — meaning they may still have their legal status pulled without either them or their colleges being informed.

    Source link