Category: Featured

  • 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

  • Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    February 10–16 is the Trades Union Congress ‘“HeartUnions” week, a week dedicated to celebrating the good work that trade unions do.

    I love trade unions and higher education. Given that unions primarily receive media coverage when their members take industrial action, it’s easy to forget that, at their heart, they are solidarity movements, whose campaigns have driven social change.

    Trade unions fought for and won a minimum wage, maternity and paternity rights, pension provision, and holiday and sickness entitlements. These victories have benefited every British person. Equally, those external to the sector may overlook the social impact higher education has due to the question of whether university still represents value for money for students.

    The current picture

    Higher education staff knowledge of how trade unions democratically work and the positive impact that a collective movement can have varies. Anti-union legislation over the past 50 years, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (1992) and the Trade Union Act (2016), has led to fewer people being members of trade unions or understanding their purpose, compared to previous generations.

    My personal experience as a trade union representative has shown me that it has become increasingly important to explain what a trade union is to new staff entering careers in higher education, as there is a likelihood that they, or their parents, may not have been members of a union. Indeed, in 2021, only 14.1 per cent of trade union members in the UK were aged between 20 and 29 years. Furthermore, in a more interconnected and mobile world, assumptions about trade unions can be very different from stereotypes and experiences in other countries. Overall, there are a range of misconceptions about unions’ purpose and value.

    Despite legislative challenges, trade unions in UK higher education have reasons to be optimistic. Some UCU branches have seen membership numbers grow and an increased level of member activism. A core reason for this appears to be that staff are increasingly viewing unions as part of the solution to overcoming problems faced in the sector. This seems to be driven by the successes branches are having locally, and by the number of universities currently undertaking or preparing to implement cuts.

    Trade union branches and university management will never see eye to eye on every issue. Trade unions are there to protect their members, whereas university management is there to protect the organisation. As many reading this will know, differing objectives undoubtedly lead to disputes and industrial unrest. Withholding labour can sometimes be the best and/or only strategy unions have to win disputes. It should never be forgotten that many of the successes trade unions have had which we now often take for granted, such as the two day weekend, came through intense campaigning and struggle, including strike action.

    I love trade unions and higher education, and see both for their flaws, including missed opportunities to collaborate. University management and trade unions often have shared purposes. Unfortunately, these are not always understood, limiting the impact trade union branches have.

    New legislation

    The Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, promises greater protection for workers, including repealing much of the Trade Union Act (2016). As written, it would significantly empower workers to act collectively, though it’s worth noting that parts of the bill are currently out to consultation and the legislation is not expected to receive Royal Assent until next year.

    In essence, the bill encourages employers to work more closely with trade unions. It strengthens the rights of trade unions to access workplaces, simplifies trade union recognition processes, introduces new protections for trade union representatives (including equality representatives), and introduces a duty for employers to inform employees that they have a right to join a trade union.

    Drilling down into the details of the bill as it stands, it can be seen how it will be easier for trade unions to successfully gain industrial action mandates. This makes it more vital than ever for university stakeholders, such as UCEA, as well as individual university management teams, to collaborate with trade union colleagues, enhancing how a diverse range of staff voices influence university decisions. This is important as staff working in various capacities across higher education may be well-placed to propose innovative ways of overcoming significant challenges faced by the sector.

    Working in partnership

    Trade unions and university leaders ultimately want the sector to be successful, with excellent teaching, research, and student support, as well as financial stability.

    Personal experiences from working at various institutions have shown that trade unions are typically consultative mechanisms. While consultation must occur, in line with recognition agreements, in many cases it may have been more effective for trade union representatives to have worked in partnership with the university prior to reaching a consultative or approval stage. For example, policies relating to health and safety or sustainability.

    A starting point to building any partnership is understanding how objectives align. Awareness of how trade union representative positions correlate with university structures and committees is a good way of identifying when objectives are shared. Trade union branches often have a range of different representatives who can actively contribute to committees and task-and-finish groups. Trade union health and safety representatives are very capable of assisting in evaluating workload, inspecting environments, drafting new policies, and many other tasks in partnership with the university.

    Although partnership working between trade union branches and universities can be improved, there are good examples of it occurring in the sector. Universities such as Glasgow Caledonian have a “learning agreement” with their recognised trade unions. This agreement specifies how the trade unions will work in partnership on staff development activities.

    Stories from Northampton

    At the time of composing this article, the University of Northampton (UON) is completing a consultation process that has placed many staff at risk of redundancy.

    Although the consultation process has been challenging for the UON UCU branch and the UON leadership team – as can be expected in these situations – UON UCU has continued to improve partnership working across the university, while simultaneously fighting hard to protect the jobs of all members at risk of redundancy.

    The branch has been involved in interview selection processes, work relating to building an improved sense of staff belonging, and a new Race Equality Charter. The branch’s approach of being able to traverse between challenging management on some issues, while simultaneously working in partnership with them on others, has advanced the interests of our members and saved jobs.

    It is also evident that UON UCU will come out of the consultation with enhanced credibility from UON management. Management has expressed willingness to work with recognised trade unions on issues such as workload stress risk assessments and its new learning development policy. It is also highly pleasing to note that membership and activism in the branch have increased. As part of HeartUnions week, activists are completing a live brief with fine art students. The students will be learning about trade unions while using skills developed in their programme to create a large UCU banner.

    HeartUnions

    If you like me love trade unions and higher education, and want them to be their best version going forward, now seems the perfect time to consider how we make their relationship work at every university.

    Yes, like most relationships, there will be times when disagreement occurs. However, equally, there will be opportunities to work together, which will benefit the sector.

    If this article or other activities that occurred as part of HeartUnions week have inspired you to join a trade union, a good starting point is to visit the TUC website. It’s worth checking out staff intranet pages too to learn what trade union agreements are in place at your university.

    Source link

  • The secret life of university applicants

    The secret life of university applicants

    In Spring 2023, 150 students from humanities and social sciences at our university stepped up to share something deeply personal -their reasons for pursuing higher education.

    Through brief, heartfelt recorded monologues, they opened a window into what university truly means to them.

    We ended up with nearly 160 pages of raw, unfiltered transcripts. Inspired by the power of verbatim theatre, where authentic dialogue bridges the gap between characters and audience, we have curated a collection of student voices.

    These firsthand accounts cut through the cliches narratives often associated with university life. Instead, they reveal the real stories, struggles, and aspirations driving students forward in today’s complex world of higher education. This is their voice, their truth, shared directly with you.

    Going to university was the scariest and the best thing

    From “screaming at the back of the car” and “crying tears of joy” to “relief” and “apprehension”, we got a glimpse into the rollercoaster of emotions students felt when they got their university acceptance letters.

    For most, it was the first big decision of their adult lives, and it was not an easy one. One student said:

    …going to university was the scariest and the best thing, the best decision, that I’ve made so far in my 19 years of existence.

    Another felt the decision to enter higher education was made:

    …not with trepidation as a reasonable person [but] with courage and self-assuredness that only ignorance and youth can bestow in such abundance.

    Dealing with such conflicting emotions is rarely simple. So, it is not a surprise that some of the surveyed students thought about dropping out, especially in their first year. They found their degrees “boring” or “very difficult” or wondered “was the amount of work something I was prepared for?”

    I’d rather pursue a passion… than end up working a job

    A recurring thread in many students’ reflections during this study was the dilemma between entering the workforce immediately or pursuing higher education. No doubt pursuing higher education is largely viewed as the “only option towards a better paying career” and a “comfortable job without a lot of physical demands”.

    While some of them questioned whether university “is worth all the debt”, most agreed that the skills acquired through higher education are crucial for getting “further in life” and earning “more than the minimum wage”.

    But their testimonies revealed other considerations that go beyond material gains and jobs prospects.

    In our survey, students made it loud and clear – it is also about the love and passion for what they do. “Studying what I truly love”, “something I’d enjoy studying every single day of my life”, and chasing that “passion and interest to grow as a person” often took priority, leaving material gains or “just getting into a certain job” in the background.

    Just working a job for working sake didn’t feel like a good use of my time.

    Students, while contemplating their future, felt that:

    …university does feel like a good safety net to hop into… [the] perfect avenue to give myself more options to explore different careers.

    We also saw several students entering higher education determined to “dig, dig, dig [to find out their] passions”.

    More than rankings

    For some students, university felt like a “clear, logical” move toward their career goals. For others, it was more than a decision – they felt it was “compulsory” or even a personal “duty”.

    There were also students who approached their university pursuits with less conviction.

    I didn’t have anything else to do, so I ended up going to university.

    I was not ready for the 9 to 5 life.

    When else in my life would I be able to just decide to move away [from home] and receive funding from the government to help me?

    Some expected higher education to create for them “a pathway towards finding some meaning in my life”. Others choose their university because its name was the same “as my great grandmother’s”.

    As we see when it comes to university studies, students bring a whole mix of ambitions to the table. So, it is no surprise that choosing a subject or a university is a deeply personal issue influenced by several factors.

    Among these, university rankings often emerged as a decisive factor. Many students associated high rankings with better career prospects, with one stating:

    …it is a lot more important where the university stands in ranking over what degree you’re doing.

    Another shared:

    I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself if I hadn’t at least tried [to enter an Oxbridge institution]

    …highlighting the importance for them of the prestige tied to certain universities. This sentiment was echoed by another student who observed:

    …people were looked down on if they didn’t apply to Oxford and Cambridge.

    However, it is worth noting that some students in our sample cautioned against making decisions based solely on rankings. They acknowledged that prioritising rankings over programme suitability can lead to dissatisfaction.

    I realised that I can’t force myself to like a subject or excel in a subject that I don’t enjoy.

    …one student reflected, emphasising the importance of choosing a programme aligned with personal interests and strengths. Others recognised that decisions “purely because of rankings,” without considering the nature of the programme, may result in regret, as students risk enrolling in courses they ultimately dislike.

    Reading through the transcripts, it became clear that students do not make their choices in a vacuum. Instead, they are influenced by a network of factors, including family, friends, mentors, and the vast array of information available online. These influences collectively shape the way students see their future and guide their decisions.

    Family, as expected, is a primary source of influence and will be discussed in detail in a separate section. Friends, however, also play a significant role. As one student shared:

    …it feels like you are doing something big with your friends [from which you] didn’t want to be left out.

    Mentors were another important factor. One student explained:

    …before coming to university, I spoke to people who were in the positions that I wanted to be in,”

    …highlighting the impact of role models on their decisions. Additionally, many students turned to platforms like YouTube for guidance. One student described their process, saying:

    I watched so many videos… YouTube videos on people’s experiences in different towns from Manchester to London to Liverpool, to Bristol to Birmingham.

    This underscores the significant role of online content in shaping their choices.

    Surveyed students also highlighted factors such as facilities, location and the associated lifestyle as significant influences on their university decisions. One student remarked that it was more important studying in London than having a good university ranking.

    Since all students surveyed for this project were studying at a London institution, their comments frequently referenced the “dynamic lifestyle” of London, described as “the place to be” where “everything is happening”.

    For many, being in London was about more than academics. It was about the opportunity to “see new things […] and explore different cultures”, “take part in so many events”, live in a place which is “buzzing 24/7” where they can “randomly, spontaneously […] see Wicked”, reflecting the unique cultural vibrancy that London offers.

    Prospective students were looking for everything that matters to them, and this highlights the importance of providing students with proper guidance to navigate wisely the labyrinth of educational choices.

    Several students commented on the importance of universities’ open days. Initially perceived as an “excuse to have a day off school”, one student recounted that it was during an open day that university became a “real option” for them.

    Surveyed students express enthusiasm for these events, describing them as the “first actual experience” and an opportunity to “envision my new life”. During these visits, they engaged with current students and staff, feeling “the passion within the department”.

    More importantly, they feel heard. As one student remarked:

    [I got the opportunity] to talk about things that interested me with someone that was interested in hearing my perspective.

    University has given me the space to explore who I am as a person.

    To these students, university was the bridge to adulthood. It was for them the place to find “freedom” and “independence” – two words frequently encountered in the transcripts of their recordings.

    They leave home with some apprehension, that is true, but they embrace it. And they “love that element of university”, are “really excited for the independence that university promised”, and “do not regret it”. Many viewed university as the opportunity to “learn how to live life without living with your parents”. It is striking to see so many young people eager to learn

    …important life skills such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping.

    University has given me the space to explore who I am as a person.

    Expressions such as “get out of my shell”, “without hiding in the closet”, and “without feeling scrutinised by my parents” frequently appeared in the monologues. Moving away to study at university provided a unique opportunity to embrace independence.

    As one student put it, university offered the chance to “do what I wanted to do, how I wanted to do it, exactly when I wanted to do it”. Several of the students in this study deliberately chose universities far from home, often making these decisions “without telling my parents”.

    For the young individuals in this study, university is seen as more than just an academic journey. It represents a transformative space for personal growth. It is described as a place to “grow as a person in terms of independence, but also experiences”.

    Students also view university as a setting that provides the “freedom and encouragement to be myself, fully and unapologetically, both personally, professionally, and creatively”.

    You have to go to university… it’s what we expect you to do

    While friends, mentors, and lifestyle factors shape many aspects of students’ choices, family remains a key part of the narrative. From these monologues, we see its role as both inspiring and constraining.

    Constraining in that students appear to enter higher education out of guilt or obligation to their families.

    One student mentioned pursuing higher education studies due to “the cultural aspect and expectation within my family”, another to make “the family proud and happy despite not sharing the sentiment”, and another simply because it is “what my family wanted me to do anyway, so… I just end up doing it”.

    The desire to enter higher education was coerced by a feeling that otherwise they would have “wasted everything that my parents have done for me”, and “disappoint them”, and that “would have been the worst thing”.

    Prior academic attainment of family members was also sometimes perceived as limiting students’ choices. In terms of degree choice, students mentioned that families with a background in certain fields “wouldn’t agree with me exploring [other] degrees” and “I feel like my parents just don’t understand that there are opportunities outside of this field”.

    Other students whose families had completed higher education claimed that their decision to join university was so that they would not be the “odd one out” or to prove that ”they are not dumb”, and that their intellectual ability reflects “somehow that of my family’s or my post-code’s”.

    My mum always wanted me to have a lot more. More choice in my life and so university really allows me that.”

    Family can also serve as a source of power and inspiration, fueling students’ academic journeys. Many said their family’s academic achievements and backgrounds inspired them to join university and choose specific subjects.

    One student cited the “admiration” for their grandfather’s life and job as “primarily the reason” to choose their subject. Another passionately spoke of wanting to “follow my parents’ first steps”. Another enthusiastically praised their parent’s commitment “to spend whatever they have saved in their lives to afford what they think is important” for their children.

    It was been fascinating to see what university meant for students whose family did not attend university. To them university was the opportunity to “take advantage of opportunities many of the members of my family didn’t have”, as “it was just seen as something unattainable for us of this economic class, race and learning difficulties”.

    The dialogues shared within families hold immense power. In these intimate moments, life altering decisions often take shape. A student recalled their mother’s wisdom:

    …university is not just about getting that qualification […] It’s personal worth. And once you have that education, no one can take it away from you.

    Another reflected on the life-story of their mother, her unfinished studies, and the aspirations that span generations:

    Oh child, you know when you graduate, it’s going to be like I’m graduating as well […] which I guess is true because the amount of support that I had from my mum and my family has been like insane.

    I can go to university so I can get one step closer to my dreams.

    For some of the students surveyed, university was more than a path to knowledge – it was a journey for recognition, a way to overcome societal barriers, and to “fulfil [their] dreams in life”.

    One student said their studies will help them reach “the standing in society” they think they deserve, and will allow them “to be taken more seriously”. A student with a disability told us it is a means to “overcome low expectations that people in the society have for people like me”.

    For this student, it is their “liberation mechanism” to “escape the oppression that I felt I was facing and move my life towards a more success-oriented trajectory”.

    In their testimonies, students expressed dreams of becoming Supreme Court judges, CEOs, working in politics or international organisations. They acknowledged that without university education, as one student said,

    …I just didn’t have the confidence to dream big

    …I do feel proud when I say hey, I’m a [. . . ] student. It’s kind of nice when people are like, wow!

    Reading the transcripts felt like tuning into the unfiltered thoughts of students standing at the crossroads of their academic and professional lives. Their stories form a vivid tapestry of dreams, ambitions, and doubts about joining university each one unique, each one unfiltered.

    Our aim was not to evaluate their motivations or rank the importance of the influences they shared with us. Instead, we gave space for their voices to be heard. Because listening to these stories matters.

    It reveals the beautiful complexity behind their decisions and helps us understand them better. And perhaps, it will inspire us to create a learning environment that truly supports them, one that meets them where they are and helps them get where they are going.

    We would like to thank Lyubomir Vasilev for valuable research assistance and helpful comments and discussion. Financial support for this project was provided by the Queen Mary University of London’s Westfield Fund for Enhancing the Student Experience. Authors: Dr. Emmanouil Noikokyris, Reader in Economics and Finance Education, School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary University of London; Emanuela Nova, Strategic Project Manager, School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary University of London

    Source link

  • Podcast: REF people and culture, spending review, apprenticeships

    Podcast: REF people and culture, spending review, apprenticeships

    This week on the podcast universities failing to promote diversity will face funding cuts – so said The Times. We chat through the controversy building around the REF.

    Plus we look at what the sector is asking for in the spending review, and consider the government’s push for lower-level, shorter apprenticeships.

    With Shitij Kapur, Vice Chancellor and President at King’s College London, Jess Lister, Director (Education) at Public First, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Read more:

    Universities UK submits to spending review

    The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Societies that are humane are thoughtful about promoting equality, diversity and inclusion

    Predictably bad education

     

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Churchill College, Cambridge

    Higher education postcard: Churchill College, Cambridge

    It’s 31 March 1949, and Winston Churchill, now Leader of the Opposition, was visiting the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    He was impressed by what he saw, and thought that the UK should have its own version, a postgraduate university focusing on science and technology. Fast forward six years, and Churchill had retired after his second spell as Prime Minister. His private secretary, John Colville, sought to progress the idea, but could not make as much progress as he had hoped.

    Parallel with, and unconnected to, Churchill’s idea, Shell Petroleum had since the early 1950s been hosting meetings at which leading British industrialists identified a need for a specialist institute to train people for the science and engineering industries. Again, this came to nothing.

    But then in 1957 the two schemes were revivified and brought together. Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, worked with Carl Gilbert, chairman of Gillette and sometime US trade representative, to make the case for a Cambridge college which would focus on science and technology. And one which would stand as a memorial to Churchill. And so in 1958 an appeal for funds was made (as can be seen from the Scotsman of 21 May 1958, no public funds would be available at first), with some £3.5 million being raised to finance the college and its initial activities.

    The money was raised, with contributions from industry and also from the Transport and General Workers Union (which all confirms L P Hartley’s motto in The Go-Between: “the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there”). And it was a period of industrial largesse to higher education: in researching this piece I came across a wonderful article – in the Brechin Advertiser (29 July 1958) but no doubt syndicated more generally – by Richard Martin, on the donations to Churchill College, St Catherine’s Oxford, and for new buildings fore engineering at UCL. “The universities have been given the financial tools, and they will not fail to finish the job.”

    Very deliberately, although the college was intended to focus on science and technology, it would not exclude the humanities. This was the period of C P Snow versus F R Leavis, two cultures versus one. Snow – scientist, civil servant, novelist – argued in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution that the problems of society were exacerbated by the failure of many who would be considered well educated (ie in the humanities and classics) to know anything about science:

    A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: ‘Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?’

    (To avoid embarrassment at this point, I will remind you that the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy or disorder of a closed system is always increasing. Which you already knew.)

    Snow’s view was attacked (there is no better word) by critic F R Leavis in 1962: Snow was a philistine; his vision soulless technocratic utilitarianism. Viewed as an attack which played the man not the ball (but note here a defence of Leavis from 2013), the row did not do much to damage Snow’s view.

    The founders of Churchill College clearly thought there was merit in Snow’s views; hence the requirement that only 70 per cent of the entry be for students of science and technology.

    The college was given a Royal Charter in 1960, and admitted a few postgraduate students in that year. The first undergraduates arrived the following year. By 1966 Churchill had been admitted as a full college of the university and by 1968 all of the original buildings had been completed and opened.

    Churchill College was amongst the first of Cambridge’s all-male colleges to admit women (in 1972). Its senior tutor – Dick Tizard – sought to broaden admissions to focus on grammar school and comprehensive school students, not focusing on the public schools. He also worked to achieve the admission of students to membership of the college governing body, in 1969.

    In 1970 the Churchill College JCR, along with the University of Bristol Students’ Union, persuaded the NUS to take up an appeal by two students – Julian Fox of Bristol, and Hugh Nelson Ricketts of Churchill – against decisions of the local returning officers to disbar them from the electoral register because they were not permanently resident at their term time addresses. The Court of Appeal – with Lords Denning, Widgery and Karminski – on 12 May 1970 granted the students appeal. The OfS now requires universities to assist students in registering to vote: quite some distance has been travelled in this matter!

    Winston Churchill is not without controversy. In 2020 the college announced a working party which would organise a year-long programme – on Churchill, race and empire. The university archives hold some recordings from this. Not, perhaps, surprisingly, this attracted a considerable amount of media attention and criticism: Churchill is a revered figure for some in Britain. The college cancelled the series of events in June 2021.

    There’s a very readable history of the college on its website (click on “the college’s first decade” in the fuchsia box), by the way, from which I’ve drawn fairly heavily in this account.

    And here’s your jigsaw of this week’s card – enjoy!

    Source link