Category: Featured

  • Education Department mulls using AI chat bot for FAFSA help

    Education Department mulls using AI chat bot for FAFSA help

    The Education Department is considering terminating its contracts for thousands of call center employees hired to answer families’ questions about federal student aid, and may replace them with an artificial intelligence–powered chat bot, The New York Times reported Thursday.

    Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency apparently suggested the move, the Times reported, as part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending—which has already led to dozens if not hundreds of layoffs at the Education Department and the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts at the Institute for Education Sciences.

    The call centers employ 1,625 people who answer more than 15,000 calls per day, according to an Education Department report. The department greatly increased staffing at their call centers after last year’s bungled launch of the new FAFSA led to an overwhelming influx of calls. 

    Last September, a Government Accountability Office investigation found that in the first five months of the rollout, three-quarters of calls went unanswered. Last summer, the department hired 700 new agents to staff the lines and had planned to add another 225 after the launch of the 2024–25 FAFSA in November.

    One of the helplines DOGE is closely scrutinizing, according to the Times, is operated by the consulting firm Accenture. Accenture also operates the studentaid.gov website, which houses the online platform for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The department’s contract with the firm expires Feb. 19. According to sources in the Education Department who spoke with Inside Higher Ed, the department is considering significant reductions to its Accenture contract ahead of its renewal.

    Source link

  • What legacy does Yale-NUS College leave in Singapore?

    What legacy does Yale-NUS College leave in Singapore?

    When Wee Yang Soh was considering his degree options, he felt his choices were limited. The Singaporean had been offered a place to study chemistry at the National University of Singapore (NUS), but he was wary of accepting.

    In his experience, school had felt like he was simply being “trained” to pass exams. “I didn’t want my university education to be like that,” he said. Soh liked the idea of liberal arts education but couldn’t afford the hefty tuition fees charged by the U.S. colleges offering those programs.

    So when, in 2011, NUS announced it would be opening a liberal arts college—the first of its kind in Singapore—in partnership with Yale University, Soh jumped at the chance to apply. He was part of the inaugural cohort of students enrolled at the college, graduating in 2017.

    Four years later, NUS suddenly declared that it would no longer be continuing the partnership, with plans to close the college once all existing students had graduated.

    While Yale-NUS College is not the only international partnership in Singapore that has come to an abrupt halt—having helped develop Singapore University of Technology and Design’s curriculum, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was shown the door in 2017—it is among the most talked about. This unexpected announcement drew just as much attention, if not more, as the opening of the college had, with rumors swirling about the reasons for the decision.

    Today, as the college enters its final semester before shutting its doors for good, can liberal arts live on in Singapore? And are international partnerships off the table in a country increasingly embroiled in debates about national identity?

    Singapore’s government first began discussing the prospect of a liberal arts college in 2008. Policymakers saw the establishment of one as having multiple benefits—reducing the number of local students going abroad, diversifying pathways within the country’s higher education system and contributing to Singapore’s ambition to become an international education hub.

    So when Yale-NUS College opened in 2013, it seemed like the perfect fit. Unfortunately, this synergy didn’t last.

    “The context changed,” said Jason Tan, associate professor at Nanyang Technological University’s National Institute of Education. “For one thing, there’s no longer any official talk about establishing Singapore as an international education hub.”

    Although Singapore launched the Global Schoolhouse Project in 2002, an initiative that aimed to recruit 150,000 international students by 2015, by the mid-2010s, the numbers remained far below targets and talk of the scheme quieted as public debates around immigration heated up.

    Writing in the academic journal Daedalus in 2024, Pericles Lewis, the founding president of the college, suggested that things had gone a step further: “Singapore has not been immune to the forces of populism and nationalism that have affected most parts of the world,” he wrote.

    For a college in which international students represented about 40 percent of the student population, this was a problem.

    Throughout the college’s life, the governing party “showed itself to be highly sensitive to complaints about benefits reaped by foreigners, and to concerns of middle-class Singaporeans about the accessibility of higher education,” Lewis wrote.

    The institution also became central to debates about academic freedom in Singapore, with the last-minute cancellation of a course focused on protest generating backlash. To some, the college was a site of rare political activism and freedom in Singapore, which was both welcomed and feared, depending on your point of view.

    However, Linda Lim, professor emerita at the University of Michigan, argued that the college had little impact on the state of academic freedom in Singapore more widely.

    “From the beginning it was understood and even explicitly acknowledged that Yale-NUS College would practice and experience academic freedom only within the college walls and premises,” she said.

    “Yale may have flattered itself, or argued to mollify dubious faculty in New Haven, that Yale-NUS College would help advance academic freedom in Singapore—a naïve and neo-colonialist attitude.”

    Moreover, Soh believed claims of heightened student activism at the college were exaggerated, with intense media attention fueling public ire towards the institution.

    “From the first year, the Singaporean public and the government were already pretty afraid that politically motivated actions on campus would pose a problem for Singapore,” he said. “And they kept a very close eye on the college activities, to the point where it felt like a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

    At times, small incidents on campus, such as disagreements over new course curricula, made national news, he said. This “reinforced the idea that the students were political or dangerous and all of that stuff, when, really, everything that happened in college felt, at least to me, incredibly mundane and incredibly small and silly.”

    NUS College, a U.S.-style undergraduate honors college for NUS students, was established in 2022 in place of Yale-NUS College. While this new institution offers a residential experience, small class sizes and some shared curricula, it is a far cry from a traditional liberal arts college.

    Today in Singapore, “there’s more focus on interdisciplinary learning,” said Tan. “Across all of our universities, in one form or another, there’s this concern about future economic needs.

    “The future problems will require all those buzzwords—critical thinkers and flexible, adaptable people and people who possess this interdisciplinary pool of knowledge and so on.

    “That trend has pretty much superseded the excitement over having a liberal arts education for our undergrads.”

    For Lim, the closure of Yale-NUS College was a “cautionary tale” for international higher education institutions “who think they can be a beacon of light in authoritarian countries by collaborating with autocratic governments.”

    The college’s chief legacy, she continued, “is the quality of the students it educated and graduated.”

    Soh is currently undertaking a Ph.D. in the U.S. and credited the college and his professors for inspiring him to do so.

    “I hope to teach in the future as a professor,” he said. “I want my students to be able to treat education as not a stepping-stone to grades or to credentials, but as a way to reformulate how we think about and relate to this crazy world that we live in today.

    “I think the legacy lives on in me, but I can’t say that it lives on in Singapore or in NUS for sure. But I hope it does.”

    Source link

  • Few students protest Trump’s executive orders on campus

    Few students protest Trump’s executive orders on campus

    As President Donald Trump churned out more than 80 executive orders over the past three weeks, sending the higher education community into a panic, some students were surprised to see a lack of campus protests—even at institutions traditionally rife with activism.

    “I haven’t seen a whole lot, which is kind of uncharacteristic of our campus,” said Alana Parker, a student at American University in Washington, D.C. Though she’s heard of certain student political groups protesting on Capitol Hill, things have been quiet on campus.

    “I don’t really know why that is, because, in my opinion, there should be more of an outcry. But from my perspective, I think people feel really disenfranchised and like there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

    It’s a stark contrast from two semesters ago, when AU was one of dozens of campuses that made national news after pro-Palestinian students set up encampments in opposition to their universities’ investments in companies with ties to Israel.

    Students and faculty at AU—and on campuses across the nation—also protested in 2017 after Trump prohibited individuals from seven majority-Muslim nations from entering the United States, according to a news report from the time.

    Angus Johnston, a historian of student protest movements and a professor at Hostos Community College, said that he’s not entirely surprised that campuses seem relatively calm. Over the past 20 years, institutions have grown less and less permissive of student protests, culminating in a harsh crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests in spring 2024—in some cases involving police arrests. Since then, many campuses have introduced new—or enforced existing—rules restricting when, where and how students can demonstrate.

    Aron Ali-McClory, a national co-chair of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, said that universities’ restrictions on free speech are “100 percent a factor” in why there aren’t many protests happening on campuses right now.

    But they noted that the YDSA is mobilizing, just in different ways. Many campus chapters are currently focused on campaigning for their institutions to become “sanctuary campuses,” in the vein of sanctuary cities, municipalities that do not comply with federal immigration laws. Ali-McClory said the chapters involved in that movement are currently distributing petitions, informing their peers about the movement and handing out “know your rights” materials that aim to inform immigrants of how to handle conversations and interactions with immigration officers.

    “Looking at what our YDSA chapters are doing across the country, we’re seeing people pivoting to meet the moment on their campus. A lot of that looks less like, ‘Let’s go out and do a protest’ and more, ‘How do we make material gains when the cards are stacked against us?’” they said.

    Parker, the AU student, has also chosen to make her voice heard in a different way. An editor of the student newspaper, The Eagle, she and her colleagues penned a staff editorial calling on the university to speak out against Trump’s executive orders, particularly those targeting immigrants and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. She said the article seemed to be effective: A few days after its publication, the institution sent an email to the campus community, signed by President Jonathan Alger, outlining resources available for immigrant students and employees.

    Alger also addressed DEI, writing, “As we continue fostering an inclusive and welcoming community, we are working with teams across campus to determine the impacts on our inclusive excellence strategy and programs.”

    ‘A Powerful Force’

    A handful of campuses have seen protests, primarily in response to their institutions taking steps to comply with Trump’s executive orders by shuttering DEI offices or removing DEI-related language and resources from webpages, for example.

    At Missouri State University, students staged a protest after administrators announced they would close the Office of Inclusive Engagement and end other DEI programs “in response to changes nationwide and anticipated actions regarding DEI at the state level.”

    According to the student newspaper, The Standard, 50 students gathered outside the main administrative building on Jan. 31 to call for the removal of the university’s president and to advocate for the passage of two bills that would require Missouri schools to teach about Black history and “the dehumanization of marginalized groups.”

    At Stanford University, a group of about 15 students participated in a chalking event, writing messages of dissent, like “DEI makes Stanford Stanford,” on bike paths around White Plaza, a central outdoor area on campus.

    “Here at Stanford, the important thing to me was that my leaders at my school knew that there would be people who would resist anything that they did to cave to Trump,” said freshman Turner Van Slyke, who organized the demonstration. “I think those leaders just knowing that there’s going to be resistance can be a powerful force for maintaining decency against Trump.”

    Various other student news sources have reported that students at their institutions have joined outside groups in protesting at their state capitols, hoping to register their objections to Trump’s orders with governors and state representatives.

    Johnston noted that more protests may erupt elsewhere as students begin to see the ways that the executive orders are impacting their campuses more directly.

    “There’s a lot of stuff that is happening now that is essentially a hand grenade or a time bomb that’s going to explode in days or weeks or months,” he said. “To a large extent, I think this stuff is not having direct impact on a lot of [students] as of yet. Some stuff may be beginning to percolate down to the campus level. But a lot of this is real stuff that is happening, but the effects of it are not being felt directly by students just yet.”

    Source link

  • A California community college begins to heal: The Key

    A California community college begins to heal: The Key

    The No. 1 lesson about disaster relief Ryan Cornner would give college presidents is: do scenario training. 

    The president of Glendale Community College said he and his team were working on emergency preparedness training with new managers when the L.A. wildfires started. 

    “We were actually planning a tabletop exercise for spring, and boy, did we get a tabletop exercise. It was just real,” Cornner said in the latest episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast. 

    GCC serves 24,000 students from its campus about five miles from where the Eaton fire burned. Dozens of the college’s students and employees lost their homes, and many more were displaced for more than a week. GCC has expanded its efforts to provide access to basic needs for its students and has recognized that its part-time adjunct faculty need the most support. 

    While providing food and housing support or giving students laptops has been a general principle of the community college system, Cornner says a new need in this emergency is coming from employees. 

    “As an employer, we think that the real focus is making sure that the workplace has what it needs and making sure people feel supported in their work. But when someone has just lost their home, it brings an added element of ‘what should we do as a community?’”

    Inside Higher Ed reported on GCC’s immediate emergency response in January and wanted to reach out to the institution again to check in on its recovery. 

    Cornner said institutions can support their communities by investing in the future workforce of first responders and by providing a safe campus for secondary school students whose schools were destroyed in the fires.

    Listen to this episode of The Key here, and click here to find out more about The Key.

    Source link

  • How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    • By Professor Katy Mason, PVC Dean at the University of Salford’s Business School.

    We’re at a crucial moment in our fight to address climate change, with limited time to end the irreversible damage to our planet. However, higher education institutions (HEIs) could play a more pivotal role on the road to net zero.

    Climate-related challenges are considerable and require both technological innovation and the reorganisation of our society and economy. Universities are in a strong position to drive these transitions, but because of the required pace of change, they need to do so in collaboration with government. For example, universities are well positioned to mobilise the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) and technical expertise required to evolve the way energy is generated, stored and distributed, as well as the SHAPE and social practice expertise to support the social transitions required to transform energy production and consumption. This broad range of expertise, uniquely perhaps, sits under one organisational umbrella: the HEI.

    Reducing carbon footprint with research

    HEIs have been working, increasingly over recent years, to structure and support multi, inter and transdisciplinary research, in ways that will ultimately support the reduction of our carbon footprint to deliver net zero.

    The formation of UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) has supported many of these initiatives. In April 2018, UKRI brought together the UK’s seven research councils, Innovate UK, and Research England, into a single organisation to support the distribution of government funding for impactful, interdisciplinary research.

    Accelerating a green growth economy through collaboration

    Climate change mitigation and building the UK’s resilience to climate change impacts has been a central tenant of UKRI’s attention, with funding calls driving collaboration between academics, industry and government. But interdisciplinary research, on its own, is not enough. HEIs and government will have to find new ways of collaborating if we are to accelerate a green growth economy.

    There are examples of successful collaboration. The Government’s Open Innovation Team is a platform that supports academic-policy collaboration, curating academic expertise to support and inform policy initiatives. Similarly, the United Nations PRME (Principles of Responsible Management Education) platform supports and accelerates the sustainability of current and future business leaders in Business and Management education. However, at present, its take-up is piecemeal and patchy.  Much more collaboration is needed if we are to make a difference to climate change. 

    Recognition of the advantages afforded by collaboration is long-standing. As far back as 2000, Vangen and Huxman were developing a theory of collaborative advantage, arguing that goals, trust, culture and leadership had to be aligned enough – despite differences and tensions – if advantages were to be gained.[i] In this regard, collaboration is often inconsistent, with inherent contradictions and mutually exclusive elements caused by inevitable differences between partners. While it is these differences that often generate advantage, they require time and investment in understanding. This is perhaps why we have not invested sufficiently in making such partnerships work.

    Breaking down barriers to collaboration

    The contrasting cultures of academics and policymakers may certainty make collaboration difficult: the epistemologies-in-use (how knowledge, evidence and rigour are framed) are different; the production and use of knowledge objectives is different; and the rules of identity and belonging to the home-culture are different.

    However, as Beech et al. argue, we can take advantage of these significant cultural differences if HEIs develop a new kind of platform that acts as a learning zone in which key cultural rules of academics and policymakers are suspended (not ‘solved’).[ii] This will enable different groups to contribute and extract learning insights as if they were collaborating with shared understanding, when this may only partially be the case.

    In pursuit of creating a new kind of learning platform, HEIs, particularly those leading knowledge exchange and engagement initiatives, might usefully adopt this set of design principles:

    • Valuing difference and not seeking to resolve it;
    • Having the purpose of supporting others’ endeavors in their home-culture by providing knowledge resources;
    • Be willing to aggregate and disaggregate ideas and evidence in novel ways; and
    • Be willing to suspend judgement of the other and the self to encourage people to step outside their normal modes of interaction

    These design principles will likely help knowledge exchange leads catalyse innovation and accelerate the adoption of cutting-edge practice by bringing local, regional and national policymakers together with academics to advance solutions to overcome climate change obstacles.

    ‘Making Britain a clean energy superpower’

    Academics and policymakers are explicit in their ambition to tackle climate change. The UK Government states one of its key missions as ‘making Britain a clean energy superpower’ by ‘creating jobs, cutting bills and boosting energy security with zero-carbon electricity by 2030.’

    Driven by government monies directed towards UKRI for this purpose and by researchers’ concerns, passions, and expertise, some universities have built up significant industrial and third-sector networks to support the development and transformation of our greening economy.

    For example, researchers at Lancaster, Swansea, Imperial, and Salford have been studying the farming sector and its potential transformation through agrivoltaics. Agrivoltaics co-locate high-quality food and green energy production on the same land while simultaneously aiming to secure biodiversity net gain. This is a complex and ambitious agenda that will contribute to more than the ‘clean energy’ challenge.

    Agrivoltaics requires expertise in physics to understand solar panel efficiency, reliability and maintenance, while plant science knowledge is essential to understand food nutrition and biodiversity complexities. In addition, social science expertise is required to understand the design and transformation of the farming sector, the development of a circular economy for solar panels, and how the proliferation of markets might reconnect across the entire food and energy production and consumption systems to ensure sustainability.

    To uncover ‘what works’ will ultimately require us to collaborate with those seeking to use agrivoltaics and all those involved in solar panel production and management upstream and downstream of the supply network.

    My involvement in this project has been exciting, frustrating and demanding. I suspect that we could have significantly accelerated our impact if we had not lacked access to a platform that systematically supported policy-academic engagement. In line with our research that shows the desire and difficulty for policymakers to engage with researchers, it seems there is much more we can do, as HEIs to support this.

    [i] Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.

    [ii] Beech, N., Mason, K. J., MacIntosh, R., & Beech, D. (2022). Learning from each other: Why and how business schools need to create a “paradox box” for academic–policy impact. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3), 487-502

    Source link

  • The Power of Students’ Stories – Faculty Focus

    The Power of Students’ Stories – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The Power of Students’ Stories – Faculty Focus

    The Power of Students’ Stories – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Ohio Senate passes bill to ban DEI and faculty strikes at public colleges

    Ohio Senate passes bill to ban DEI and faculty strikes at public colleges

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

    The Ohio Senate on Wednesday passed a far-reaching higher education bill that would ban the state’s public institutions from having diversity, equity and inclusion offices or taking positions on “controversial” topics.

    The bill, known as SB 1, would also establish post-tenure reviews, ban strikes by full-time faculty, and require colleges to publish a syllabus with the instructor’s professional qualifications and contact information for every class.

    Colleges that fail to comply could lose or see reduced state funding.

    The state Senate advanced the legislation in a 21-11 vote largely along party lines — all nine Democrats opposed it, as did two Republicans. The vote came just a day after hundreds of critics spoke out against the proposal during an hourslong hearing Tuesday.

    The second life of SB 83

    Ohio is one of several conservative-controlled states looking to more tightly control their public colleges. But SB 1 is notable for how much it would overhaul the state’s public higher education, including aspects that have traditionally been left to college leaders’ discretion.  

    For example, colleges would be unable to make institutional statements on any topic the bill deems politically controversial, such as “climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”

    The bill would create a mandatory U.S. history college course with prescribed readings, like the U.S. Constitution and at least five essays from the Federalist Papers.

    The state Senate advanced a similar 2023 bill, SB 83, from the same lawmaker,  Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino. Even though Republicans controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion in Ohio, the legislation never made it to a vote in the House.

    But times have changed. Matt Huffman, the previous Senate president and a strong supporter of the bill, is now the speaker of the House. Gov. Mike DeWine told local news outlets he was likely to sign the bill, pending a final review, should it make it to his desk.

    SB 1 also goes further than its predecessor. The new bill would ban DEI offices and scholarships altogether, while the previous version only sought to prohibit mandatory DEI trainings and offered exemptions. And SB 1 includes a ban on full-time faculty strikes — a provision that was removed from SB 83 in an effort to assuage labor unions and win House approval.

    Faculty reactions

    Faculty groups and free speech advocates have opposed SB 1 just as they did SB 83. They argue it would chill free speech, hurt recruitment and retention of both students and faculty, and interfere with academic freedom.

    The bill calls for colleges to “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity” on campus and cultivate divergent and varied perspectives on public policy issues, including during classroom discussion.

    “Nothing in this section prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members allow students to express intellectual diversity,” the bill says.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio lambasted the “intellectual diversity” requirements in a statement Tuesday.

    “At best, this language is the micromanaging of individual courses and instructors by the General Assembly,” said Gary Daniels, the group’s chief lobbyist. At worst, he said, it will require all sides of every issue to be evenly presented by instructors, “ignoring their First Amendment right to academic freedom.”

    Cirino sought to cut off some of those criticisms when he reintroduced the bill as the first measure of Ohio’s new legislative session, which started Jan. 6. 

    Source link

  • OfS is starting to better understand the student interest

    OfS is starting to better understand the student interest

    Part of the point of having a regulator focused on students, rather than – say – a funding council or a department, was always about acting in “the student interest” rather than, say, the “provider” interest.

    But ever since HEFCE started talking about “the student interest” back when it made the Quality Assurance Agency bid to become its quality assurance agency, there’s always been a vague sense that “the student interest” is only ever really definable by reference to what it isn’t, rather than what it is.

    Can you define “a seminar”? Maybe not. Is 150 people in a room “a seminar?” Nope. And so on.

    In theory, once you know what “the student interest” actually is, you can then embed it into regulatory priority setting, regulatory design and regulatory activity.

    It’s a laudable principle, but as the idea hit reality it turned out that the sheer diversity and complementarity of student interests are not easily understood or quickly realised.

    As the Office for Students (OfS) has dealt with “monster of the week” framings of freedom of speech and grammar in assessment, a common criticism has been that student interest has been “ventriloquised” to back (sometimes questionable) ministerial priorities.

    And in areas where the body it has been using to define the student interest has gone against the views of ministers – for example on decolonisation and inclusive curricula – there appears to have been a concerning tendency to silence competing voices.

    Have students historically been able to trust OfS to advocate for their interests? It’s not entirely clear. The publication of new research into student priorities is therefore supposed to centre aspects of the authentic student voice within regulation and policy.

    Research findings

    OfS has worked with polling companies and conducted its own surveys and focus groups to gather information. Sources include:

    • Polling conducted by Savanta (1,761 students and graduates)
    • Two online focus groups conducted by YouGov
    • A YouGov online survey (750 responses) with prospective students, current students and graduates
    • An online focus group with students from small and specialist providers, arranged with the support of GuildHE
    • The Office for Students Student Panel

    Though this is a fair amount of evidence, OfS is clear that what is presented is a snapshot – the interests and priorities of students will evolve in future. The outputs from this exercise have helped to shape the recent OfS strategy – future strategic thinking would need to be shaped by more recent examples of this kind of engagement.

    The research is presented in four themes, covering student experiences and expectations, the idea of students as consumers, student interests in the long and short term, and the relationship between the student interest and the public interest.

    As presented, each section offers headline findings and key results from polling followed by a range of illustrative quotes from individual students.

    Students expect a high quality education that “reflects their financial investment and the promise that was made to them” – this includes opportunities to engage in social and extra-curricular activities. Academic and personal needs should be supported, and students also expect opportunities that will help their future careers.

    Yougov polling found that 79 per cent of undergraduates believed that university had either met or exceeded their expectations – 91 per cent felt they would end up with a credible qualification, 90 per cent felt they would leave with credible knowledge of their subject area.

    In contrast students do not feel they have received sufficient one-on-one support from staff, and have experienced disruption from the Covid-19 restrictions on activity and industrial action. More widely, the cost of living has had an impact on studies (60 per cent of students polled by Savanta agreed) – students were clear there is insufficient financial support available. And there is a persistent feeling that tuition fees are too high – 60 per cent felt their degree represented value for money.

    Specific issues have included difficulties in finding suitable and affordable accommodation, and a lack of mental health support for those who need it. Savanta polling suggested that 28 per cent of undergraduates felt contact hours had been insufficient to support their learning, 32 per cent of undergraduates had issues with the way their course has been taught, and 40 per cent said that one of the three biggest influences on their success was financial support.

    I was promised x amount of hours in person and I wasn’t able to due to strikes/Covid. Online lectures/seminars were not fruitful at all. (Male, 23, graduate, YouGov focus group)

    You can’t do anything without your health and with the stress that can come with the intense study and financial restraints of university life it is particularly important that the university supports students so they can maintain good wellbeing. (Male, 20, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    Lots of different things can influence student interests. Cultural differences can mean some students might need varying levels of support to properly enjoy university life. Socioeconomic backgrounds for example can require that students will have an interest in needing either more financial support or the ability to balance part time work with studies.’ (Female, 23, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    As signalled over the summer, students as a whole do not like the term “consumer”, feeling that the term implied education could be bought rather than acquired through personal effort. That said, there was an identification with the idea of “student rights” – both in terms of promises being met and access to refunds.

    And the idea of students as “investors” in their education was not viewed favourably either – students don’t consider their financial contribution as a choice, preferring to think about how they invest their time and effort.

    Students are not really given consumers rights, as seen by Covid year students who want money back. If you are given a false promise … there should be a way to complain … but [there] is not really. (Female, 18, further education student, YouGov focus group)

    It is much more difficult to complain, and essentially impossible to claim a refund. (Female, 20, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    I have a right to get what I was expecting when I signed up for the degree… This means having teaching provision in line with what was advertised. (Female, 20, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    There is a slight preference (60 to 40 per cent) for a provider focus on long-term rather than short-term student interests.

    By “short term”, students mean their day-to-day experiences – so stuff like academic support, progression and success, costs of living, and mental well being. “Long term” interests extend beyond graduation, revolving around career preparation and progression, skills for employment, and networking.

    I think in the short-term, academic and pastoral support with exams and coursework deadlines is most important, as well as general support with aspects of student life such as managing finances, finding accommodation etc. (Female, 20, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    For me long-term encompasses the whole of the time I spend at university and then the years after where my degree affects my career progression etc. (Female, 23, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    You’ll have spotted that there’s less information in these sections as we go on – the last one gives another inconclusive split – according to students, providers should focus on delivering student benefits (66 per cent) rather than public benefits (36 per cent).

    There were “a number of perceived conflicts” between student and public interest – these were “related” to tuition fees and accommodation, but we are not told what they are precisely.

    From the focus group quotes we can deduce that there is a public interest in developing graduates. The public interest may be to minimise student debt, while individual students might benefit by not paying off loans – the public might not like student accommodation blocks in city centres, while students do.

    That these hang off a mere handful of focus group quotes is frustrating and limits the usefulness of the insights. That “provider interest” is missing is also frustrating – plenty of students will argue with themselves and each other about the extent to which their personal interests can conflict with those of “the university”.

    I think a long-term interest of developing inquisitive, interested graduates who want to continue to learn about and critically analyse the world around them is an incredibly important part of a robust society. (Female, 33, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    Student debt is a clear conflict of interest between students and the public interest. It is in the public interest to minimise student debt as a lot of it is not paid off by the students, however an individual student is benefiting by not paying off their student loans. (Female, 20, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    Student accommodation is another example. Generally, members of the public don’t like having large student accommodation blocks built in city centres, however many students would like to live close to university and of course, in a cheaper accommodation. (Female, 20, higher education student, YouGov focus group)

    Also frustrating is the extent to which the findings seem to assume that students can’t or won’t consider their community or collective interests – understanding the extent to which, for example, student A is prepared to cross-subsidise student B’s mental health support or more expensive teaching probably matters much more than knowing who’s thinking short-term or longer-term, when surely pretty much everyone has both rattling around in their head.

    So what?

    For anyone who works with students, or has met students, none of these findings will come as a huge surprise. There are many formal and informal surveys of students and graduates, and this new research largely acts as a way of reinforcing what is already known.

    For critics, not being able to see the underpinning polling data raises all sorts of questions – like what was asked, who was asked, when were they asked it, what the differences were by characteristic or provider type, and how the results were weighted – partly because one way for a regulator to prioritise is by focussing in on those most at risk, or most unhappy, and so on.

    It’s also possible to raise an eyebrow at some of the conclusions that OfS Director for Fair Access and Participation John Blake draws from the research. When he says, for example, that he has “discovered” that students have two categories of expectation – one relating to their experiences of higher education (what studying feels like) and the other relating to what it gets them in the future – you are left thinking “well what else would they have expectations about” if not “good job the whole of your quality improvement medals scheme, a review of which involved a shed ton of research with students, also framed things in terms of experience and outcomes”.

    It’s possible to have expectations that are too high given OfS’ form, legal remit and the realities of day to day expectations. Jim often notes that while students’ unions will carry out plenty of research into “the student interest”, they’re still going to run a freshers fair, a course rep system and elect some full-time sabbatical officers in March – just as for all the research that providers do on their strategies, they pretty much all still vow to deliver excellent teaching, groundbreaking research, something something knowledge exchange and civic, and something something buildings HR and finance. For all the high blown rhetoric about change on inception, OfS is still a cruise ship not a speedboat.

    One thing that does still feel missing is not so much the recognition that diverse students have different priorities and interests – that does come out vividly in Blake’s blog – but that when you have a fixed remit and limited resources, you do have to prioritise. Add in that sometimes diverse interests are opposed, and you then have to set out how and who makes the calls, and then demonstrate that that has impacted what you do and how you do it. You do get the sense that there are passionate people in there who recognise that – but that there’s still a way to go in delivering the old “whole provider strategy” thing inside OfS.

    There’s also the partner question. Perhaps the newly souped-up interest board will get to do some of this, but if you take that two-thirds/one-thirds split on student v public interest, the point about student as partner is that they are seen both as capable of holding both thoughts in their head at once, and capable of contributing to a discussion about how you find a way through what can feel like a contradiction. It’s true on freedom of speech v freedom from harm , it’s true on “high academic standards” v “supporting students to succeed”, and true on the often contested balance between student feedback and academic authority. Education is always co-produced, even if one side is young and paying for it and the other “provides” it.

    Nevertheless, while eight years in is a bit late to be properly considering how the “student interest” is defined strategically, this is a good start. Over the coming year it says it will share further student insight based on polls and engagement that it has done – that might be on a topic with direct links back into its regulation, or something of regulatory interest to OfS but where it’s not yet planning direct regulation, or unable to act directly. The theory of change is that that sort of information can suggest areas of focus for providers (and while it doesn’t say so, for ministers) and support informed choice by students.

    If nothing else, it should allow students and their representatives to test whether the issues they’ve spoken on – on accommodation, on support, on their rights, and on value for money – will be acted on meaningfully by a regulator that is starting to realise just how important keeping promises to students is.

    Source link

  • Educational Attainment and the Presidential Elections

    Educational Attainment and the Presidential Elections

    I’ve been fascinated for a while by the connection between political leanings and education: The correlation is so strong that I once suggested that perhaps Republicans were so anti-education because, in general, places with a higher percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients were more likely to vote for Democrats.

    The 2024 presidential election puzzled a lot of us in higher education, and perhaps these charts will show you why: We work and probably hang around mostly people with college degrees (or higher).  Our perception is limited.

    With the 2024 election data just out, I thought I’d take a look at the last three elections and see if the pattern I noticed in 2016 and 2020 held.  Spoiler: It did, mostly.

    Before you dive into this, a couple of tips: Alaska’s data is always reported in a funky way, so just ignore it here.  It’s a small state (in population, that is) and it’s very red.  It doesn’t change the overall trends even if I could figure out how to connect the data to maps.  Hawaii’s data is fine, but I don’t put it on the map because it takes a lot of work to get it to fit so that you can read the other states.  It’s a blue state, but also small.  So they balance out.

    Some definitions: Bachelor’s degree attainment is the percentage of people in the county who have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher using 2020 data.  If a county has 100,000 people and 27,500 have a BA, that’s an attainment rate of 27.5.  Nationally, the rate is about 38%.  
    Median income is the Census Bureau statistic showing median earnings in the past twelve months for people who have earnings. 

    The statistic “Percent Democrat” is the percentage of voters who voted for Democrats, among those who voted Democrat or Republican.  In other words, it excludes third-party voters.  The Democrats and Republicans are the only parties with a candidate on every state’s ballot, so it’s the only fair comparison, I think. If you want to count people who throw away their vote, be my guest.

    Simpson’s Diversity Index is a way to talk about diversity that’s a little different than you might think. It is not the percentage of people of color.  Simpson’s Diversity essentially calculates the probability of selecting at random two different categories from a population.  So, if 95% percent of a county is White, it’s not very diverse.  Same as one that’s 80% Black or African-American, or 65% Hispanic.  Higher numbers on Simpson’s means more diversity of the group.  A group with one Hispanic person, one White person, one Black person, and one Asian person would be perfectly diverse, as you’d always pick two people from different groups in a random sample.

    Final tips: It’s important to interact here by using the sliders and/or filters, and/or highlighters.  You can’t break anything; you can always reset the view using the little arrow at lower right. 

    There are seven views here, accessible via the tabs across the top.  

    National View shows all the data from all the counties rolled up to a year.  You can see Democrat and Republican votes on the bars.  Use the sliders to only include counties with certain levels of income, diversity or educational attainment, nationally or in a single state.  You’ll probably quickly see the great American divide.

    Ed Attainment Splits is the same data, but divided.  Each group of bars shows increasing attainment, from left to right.  So at the far left is the aggregation of all counties with lower attainment, and as you move to the right within a year, you see higher levels of bachelor’s degree attainment. The three tallest blue bars tell the story of 2024 in a way no political scientist can.

    The next three views show scatter plots, with Percent Voting Democrat on the y-axis (vertical).  The three different views just swap out three different values: Bachelor’s degree attainment, Median Income, and Simpson’s Diversity.  These three things largely covary, so the similar patterns should not surprise.  The bubbles are sized by the number of voters, and you can hover over any bubble for details.  Use the Highlight Tool at top to focus only on Blue, Purple, or Red counties.

    The cleverly named view titled “Map” shows every county colored by its political lean.  You can choose a year at top left, and only show certain counties using the various filters at top. Again, you can’t break anything by interacting, and a reset is a click away.

    And finally, because there is one in every group who points to the preponderance of red on the map and thinks it’s meaningful, the final view shows Land Doesn’t Vote. Los Angeles County (in yellow) has more people by itself than all the blue states plus Hawaii combined. And it has more people than all the orange states combined, too.  

    I hope you find this as interesting as I did.  

    Source link