Category: innovation

  • The UK’s register of university spin-outs

    The UK’s register of university spin-outs

    It’s never been done before, anywhere in the world.

    HESA’s experimental data (collected via part C of the HE-BCI questionnaire) shows 2,269 companies founded or owned by UK higher education providers, stretching as far back as 1969 (excluding 22 operating in “stealth mode” for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

    It puts names and numbers on the phenomenon of the higher education provider spin-out – demonstrating a direct impact of research, development, and incubation activity.

    A starting point

    In itself, it is simply a list of company names, linked to provider names and showing foundation and incorporation dates (the former is the year when intellectual property was transferred to the spin-out, the later is the year it was registered with an appropriate authority like Companies House). It includes all spin-outs active during the 2023-24 academic year, plus spin-outs of any status since 1 August 2012. It will become more useful as more data is added year-by-year, and it is very much promoted as a starting point for data linking and further analysis. But even now, we can see the growth in numbers over time, and the way new spin-out numbers have declined since 2021.

    [Full screen]

    With this in mind, we’ve linked via company registration number to the main Companies House free data source. The majority of companies are registered here – you can generally read an absence of registration as an indication that a company is no longer active, but there are also some edge cases..

    Companies House data isn’t brilliant quality, but it allows us to unlock some additional information about each one. We can see an indication of status (confirmation that a spin-out is active, or details of what else – liquidation, administration – may be going on. We get an indication of the location of the spin-out, and the company type (is it a limited company?).

    What are they up to?

    Of particular interest to us was the activity of the company in terms of the industry it is involved in. Companies House uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes – on registration and annual confirmation you can supply up to a total of four. Again I should emphasise that the quality of data isn’t fantastic, but this does give you a sense of what all of these spinouts may be up to.

    By far the largest sphere of activity is biotechnology development, with the catch all “other research and development on natural sciences and engineering” in second place.

    [Full screen]

    Five providers have more than 100 spin-outs registered – Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Swansea, and Manchester (Imperial is at 97). It would perhaps be more surprising to many to see 72 spin outs from the Royal College of Art – these are not limited to arts-related activity although the majority will be design-led.

    [Full screen]

    In total

    DK has put together a master search, allowing you to view salient details of every spin-out on the register. Choose a provider of interest with the filter on the top, or narrow down by company activity using the free text (you can enter up to five terms, and it is a little bit experimental so it may not always produce the results you would expect – but do persist) box at the bottom – and he’s also added a filter for social enterprises.

    [Full screen]

    What have we learned?

    Policy watchers may be interested in whether the spin-out ecosystem is getting stronger, or looking healthy, or as many in the sector would say that spinning-out is fine but spinning-up is really difficult.

    Again, it’s hard to know without more data. Of the 2,269 companies on the register 526 are not currently registered with companies house, 67 are in liquidation, 30 have a “proposal to strike off”, and 8 are in administration. Another way to look at this of course is that 1,646 university spin-out companies stretching as far back as 1969 are, at least on paper, alive and well. This is in stark contrast to businesses more generally where only one-third of businesses started ten years ago are still in existence.

    Another interesting question is whether various interventions, reviews, templates on equity, or missives from the government have made developing spin-outs any easier or more lucrative. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the register is not the right place to look for this information. It is tempting to say that as university finances came under real strain from 2021 onwards spin-out creation velocity declined. Clearly, universities need cash to invest in spin-outs and when they have less cash it would seem likely there would be fewer spin-outs. However, we just don’t have enough information in this register to suggest with confidence why the spin-out ecosystem looks like it does, even if we can describe what is happening.

    Source link

  • The spending review is a critical moment for UK science and innovation

    The spending review is a critical moment for UK science and innovation

    A series of key government announcements over the coming weeks will set the direction of travel for research and innovation for years to come. Next week’s spending review will set the financial parameters for the remainder of this Parliament – and we shouldn’t expect this outcome to maintain the status quo, given this is the first zero-based review under a Labour government for 17 years.

    Accompanying this will be the industrial strategy white paper, which is likely to have a focus on driving innovation and increasing the diffusion and adoption of technologies across the economy – in which the UK’s universities will need to be key delivery partners. We can also expect more detail on the proposals in the immigration white paper, with implications for international student and staff flows to the UK.

    The outcome for higher education and research remains hard to call, but the government has sent early signals that it recognises the value of investment in R&D as crucial to transforming the UK’s economy. In a volatile fiscal environment, DSIT’s R&D budget saw a real-terms increase of 8.5 per cent for 2025–26 with protection for “core research” activity within this.

    Looking ahead to the spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the fiscal envelope set by the Chancellor for capital spending – which is how R&D is classified – at the spring statement is significantly frontloaded. There is scope for increases in the early years of the spending review period and then real-terms declines from 2027–28. With such significant constraints on the public finances, it’s more essential than ever that the UK’s R&D funding system maximises efficiency and impact, making the best possible use of available resources.

    International comparisons

    Last month, the Russell Group published a report commissioned from PwC and funded by Wellcome which considered the experiences of countries with very different R&D funding systems, to understand what the UK might learn from our competitors.

    Alongside the UK, the report examined four countries: Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea, scoring them across five assessment criteria associated with a strong R&D system: strategic alignment to government priorities; autonomy, stability and sustainability; efficiency; and leveraging external investment. It also scored the countries on two measures of output: research excellence and innovation excellence.

    The analysis can help to inform government decisions about how to strike a balance between these criteria. For example, on the face of it there’s a trade-off between prioritising institutional autonomy and ensuring strategic alignment to government priorities. But PwC found that providing universities with more freedom in how they allocate their research funding – for example, through flexible funding streams like Quality-Related (QR) funding – means they can also take strategic long-term decisions, which create advantage for the UK in key research fields for the future.

    Over the years, QR funding and its equivalents in the devolved nations have enabled universities to make investments which have led to innovations and discoveries such as graphene, genomics, opto-electronics, cosmology research, and new tests and treatments for everything from bowel disease to diabetes, dementia and cancer.

    Conversely, aligning too closely to changing political priorities can stifle impact and leave the system vulnerable. PwC found that, at its extreme, a disproportionate reliance on mission-led or priority-driven project grant funding inhibits the ability of institutions to invest outside of government’s immediate priority areas, resulting in less long-term strategic investment.

    With a stretching economic growth mission to deliver, policymakers will be reaching for interventions which encourage private investment into the economy. The PwC report found long-term, stable government incentives are crucial in leveraging industry investment in R&D, alongside supporting a culture of industry-university collaboration. This has worked well in Germany and South Korea with a mix of incentives including tax credits, grants and loans to strengthen innovation capabilities.

    Getting the balance right

    The UK currently lags behind global competitors on the proportion of R&D funded by the business sector, at just over 58 per cent compared to the OECD average of 65 per cent. However, when considering R&D financed by business but performed by higher education institutions, the UK performs fifth highest in the OECD – well above the average.

    This demonstrates the current system is successfully leveraging private sector collaboration and investment into higher education R&D. We should now be pursuing opportunities to bolster this even further. Schemes such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) deliver a proven return on investment: every £1 invested in HEIF yields £14.8 in economic return at the sector-level. PwC’s report noted that HEIF has helped develop “core knowledge exchange capabilities” within UK HEIs which are crucial to building successful partnerships with industry and spinning out new companies and technologies.

    In a time of global uncertainty, economic instability and rapid technological change, investments in R&D still play a key role in tackling our most complex challenges. In its forthcoming spending review – the Russell Group submission is available here – as well as in the industrial strategy white paper and in developing reforms to the visa system, the government will need to balance a number of competing but interrelated objectives. Coordination across government departments will be crucial to ensure all the incentives are pointing in the right direction and to enable sectors such as higher education to maximise the contribution they can make to delivering the government’s missions.

    Source link

  • The National Audit Office’s review of UKRI has lessons for the government

    The National Audit Office’s review of UKRI has lessons for the government

    It should come as little surprise – given the scale and complexity of the challenge – that the government sees investing in research and innovation (R&I), and the accompanying promise of new technologies and ideas, as key to achieving its complex policy goals of growing the economy, transitioning to clean power, and modernising the NHS.

    After all, history shows that state backing of R&I to overcome a range of problems – particularly in times of crisis – is hardly a novel idea. If the rapid technological advances witnessed in the 1940s to support the war effort are receding further into the past, then memories of the mass Covid-19 vaccine rollout at least remain fresh.

    With this in mind, the government’s commitment “to promote innovation and harness the full potential of the UK’s science base” through “protecting record funding for research and development” is merely the latest example of those in power acknowledging the vast capacity of R&I to transform society.

    This tradition at least partly explains the strong international reputation the UK has accumulated over the years in the field of R&I, with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) – the country’s largest single public funder of R&I – at the forefront.

    In 2023–24, UKRI assessed 28,866 applications for competitive grant funding, ultimately spending £6 billion on R&I grants. Its recently approved projects have included funding for very early-stage research in microbial fuel cells and hydrogen purification, and the development of bone stem cell and biomaterial technology to reduce infection rates and the cost of hip repairs.

    In short, UKRI plays a critical role in the country’s R&I ecosystem, supporting cutting-edge work that feeds not only into the government’s environmental and health policy ambitions, but in other areas too.

    And by looking at the effectiveness of UKRI’s grant support, the National Audit Office (NAO) has identified some lessons for government that can serve a very useful, and much broader, purpose when it comes to tackling the major challenges facing the country.

    Lessons learned

    First is the importance of taking a planned and coordinated approach to R&I, which involves using good quality information on funding and knowing how to build a base to innovate in each research area. Government departments should be aware of other organisations with related objectives, determine whether they are also putting funds or resources into trying to innovate in that area, and identify potential linkages with their own workstreams.

    This “portfolio” approach to innovation is a key component in well-managed risk taking, which brings us to our second lesson: the need to establish a clear and effective risk appetite, and put in place the organisational cultures and processes that can support bold decision-making. Innovation – the act or process of doing something that has not been done before – goes hand-in-hand with risk. Embracing it requires the knowledge and the confidence in accepting that things may not turn out quite as intended, or may even fail together.

    The head of the NAO said as much in his recent address in Parliament, where he called on the government to unlock the vast opportunities for boosting productivity and strengthening resilience in the public sector by adopting a fast-learning approach when investing in innovation: in other words, learning quickly what works and what does not, so that failed projects can be promptly scrapped in favour of redirecting energy and resources to more promising ideas.

    Ultimately, a coherent, comprehensive and clearly communicated risk appetite can help organisations reap substantial rewards, more than offsetting the disappointment of unsuccessful ventures.

    Third is the caveat that while a clear plan, coordination and risk appetite can lead to successes, the full benefits of innovation cannot be realised without effective monitoring and evaluation. As well as evaluating programmes on a macro level, organisations should regularly draw together learning by theme (such as in a specific research area), with the support of strong data systems. Doing so can ensure that they effectively capture cumulative learning and develop a well-rounded understanding of which innovations are working well, which ones are not, and why.

    Across the whole of government

    Arguably the most important lesson of all, however, is remembering that these insights cut across the whole of government and need not be strictly applied to the domain of R&I. The projects funded by UKRI may be operating on the frontier of scientific and technological research, but this does not mean that what we learn about their approaches to innovation cannot be applied to other government contexts.

    If government is to achieve its long-term policy goals, it must do more to identify the public spaces where innovation is lacking, and take measures to reverse this trend. This includes breaking down the barriers that are preventing some organisations from adopting the right culture to allow innovation to flourish. It would do well to start with taking on board some of the lessons learned from UKRI’s approach.

    Source link

  • Private international foundation courses, and what they say about university leadership

    Private international foundation courses, and what they say about university leadership

    by Morten Hansen

    My research on the history of private international pathway providers and their public alternatives shows how some universities have stopped believing in themselves. Reversing this trend requires investment in their capabilities and leadership.

    The idea that universities have stopped believing in themselves as institutions that can take on the challenges of the day and find solutions that are better than those developed by private rivals echoes a point recently revived by Mariana Mazzucato. Mazzucato explains how private firms often are portrayed like lions. Bold animals that make things happen. The public sector and third-sector organisations, on the contrary, are too often seen as gerbils. Timid animals that are no good at developing new and innovative solutions.

    Skilled salesmen convinced some universities that private companies are better than universities at teaching and recruiting for university preparatory programmes. The inbuilt premise of this pitch is that universities are gerbils and private providers are lions. One university staff member explained what it felt like meeting such salesmen:

    “The thing that sticks most in my mind is the dress. And how these people sat differently, looked differently, spoke differently, and we felt parochial. We felt like a bunch of country bumpkins against some big suits.” (University staff)

    The lion-gerbil pitch worked in institutions across England because universities were stifled by three interlocking practices of inaction: outsourcing capability development; taking ambiguous stands on international tuition fees; and refusing to cooperate with other universities.

    Outsourcing capability

    Universities are increasingly outsourcing core aspects of their operations, such as recruiting international students. While university leadership is often characterised as conservative, my research suggest that this trope misses something critical about contemporary university leadership in English higher education. The problem with the term ‘conservative’ is that it implies that leadership is risk-averse, and comfortable projecting past power structures, practices and norms into the future. This does not correspond to historical developments and practices in the sector for international pathways.

    The University of Exeter, for example, submitted incorporation documents for their limited liability partnership with INTO University Partnerships only six years after the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 was passed, which marked the first time in England’s history that this legal setup was possible. They took a big leap of faith in the private sector’s ability to recruit students for them, and after doing so invested time and resources helping INTO to further develop its capability. They even invited them onto their campuses. It is hard to overstate how much these actions diverged from historical practice and thus ‘conservative’ leadership.

    What was once a highly unusual thing to do, has over the last two decades thoroughly normalised—to the extent that partnering with pathways now seems unavoidable. One respondent from the private sector explained this change in the following way:

    “In 2006, ‘07, ‘08, ‘09, ‘10, the pathway providers were, if you like, the unwelcome tenants in the stately home of the university. We had to be suffered because we did something for them. Now, the relationship has totally moved. It’s almost as if they roll out the red carpet for the pathway providers” (C-suite)

    The far more conservative strategy would have been to lean into the university’s core capabilities – teaching and admissions – and scale this up over time. Yet that is precisely what my respondents said ‘conservative’ university leaders were unwilling to do: they did not believe the university could manage overseas recruitment by themselves. As argued by former Warwick VC Nigel Thrift, this timidity is not unique to the recruitment of international students, but also extends to their engagement with government agencies. University management by and large “has done as it has been told. It hasn’t exactly rolled over and played dead, but sometimes it can feel as though it is dangerously close to Stockholm Syndrome” (Thrift, 2025, p3).

    Ambiguous stands on international fees have deepened the current crises

    There is no law in England that compels universities to charge high international students fees. By setting them as high as possible and rapidly increasing the intake of international students, universities de facto offset and thus obfuscated the havoc that changing funding regimes wreaked on university finances. This has contributed to what Kings’ Vice Chancellor Shitij Kapur calls the ‘triangle of sadness’ between domestic students, universities, and the government.

    Had universities chosen to stand in solidarity with their international students by aligning their fees more closely to the fees of home students, then the subsequent crises in funding would have forced universities to either spend less money, or make it clearer to the wider public that more funding was needed, before building up the dependencies and subsequent vulnerabilities to intake fluctuations that are currently on full display. These vulnerabilities were exacerbated by overoptimistic growth plans, and university leadership not always fully understanding the added costs that came with such growth. In an example of this delayed realisation, one Pro-Vice-Chancellor explained to me what it felt like to partner with a private foundation pathway:

    “At the time you are signing up for these things, there is euphoria around because they are going to deliver against this business plan, which is showing hundreds of students coming in. International student is very buoyant, you sign up for a 35-year deal. So, everything is rosy. If you then just take a step back and think ‘so what am I exposing the university to?’  …  because in year seven, eight, ten, fifteen whatever, it can all go pear-shaped, and you are left then with the legacy building.” (Pro-Vice-Chancellor)

    By seeing fee setting as a practice, that is, something universities do to their own students rather than something that is inflicted by external (market or government) powers, we make visible its ideological nature and implications. The longer history of international fees in Brittan was thus an important site of ideological co-option; it was a critical juncture at which universities could have related in a more solidaric manner towards their students.

    Unwillingness to cooperate on increased student acquisition costs

    You might, at this stage, be wondering: what was the alternative? The answer is in recognising the structure of the market for what it is: efficiently recruiting and training a large number of international students requires some degree of cooperation between universities. My research, however, suggests that universities have often been unwilling to cooperate because they see each other chiefly as competitors. This competition is highly unequal given the advantage conferred to prestigious universities located in internationally well-known cities.

    The irony is that many universities nevertheless end up – perhaps unwittingly – cooperating by partnering with one of the few private companies that offer international foundation programmes. These private providers can only reach economies of scale because they partner with multiple universities at the same time. One executive explains how carrying a portfolio of universities for agents to offer their clients is precisely what gives them a competitive advantage:

    “The importance of the pathways to the agents is that they carry a portfolio of universities, and the ambition is that you have some which are very well-ranked and academically quite difficult to get into. And, you try and have a bottom-feeder or two, which is relatively easy to get into academically. The agent is then able to talk to its clients and say, look, I can get offers into these universities. Some of them are at the very top. If you are not good enough there, then you might get one in the middle and I’ve always got my insurance offer for you. […] what the pathways do is that they provide a portfolio that makes that easier.” (Private Executive)

    A public consortium with pooled resources and that isn’t shy about strategically coordinating student flows would have functioned just as well, and the Northern Consortium is living proof of this. The consortium in fact inspired Study Group to get into the pathway business themselves. The limited growth of the Consortium, relative to its private rivals, is equally proof of missed chances and wasted opportunities.

    Could the gerbil eat the lion?

    Private providers can use and have used these practices of inaction to pit universities against each other, over time resulting in lower entry requirements and higher recruitment costs. In this climate, public alternatives such as in-house programmes struggle to survive. Once invited in, pathway companies are also well positioned to expand their business with their partner universities in other ways, deepening their dependence. As one senior executive told me:

    “Our aspiration is to say that the heart of what we are is a good partner to universities. They trust us. […] for some of our core partners, we bring in a lot of revenue. And, that then puts us in a really good position to think about the other services that we can add of value.” (Private Executive)

    The economic downside of relying on these ‘good’ partners is the expensive and volatile market dynamics that follow. As long as universities are trapped by the notion that they are chiefly competitors best served by outsourcing capabilities to sales-oriented firms and leaving international students to pick up the bill, there is limited hope for any genuine inter-university collaboration and innovation. This limits the public potential for scaling an economically viable and resilient market in the long-run.  As a sector, HE has the know-how, experience, capital, and repute to do this. It’s just about getting on with it!

    Morten Hansen is a Lecturer in Digital Economy and Innovation Education at the Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Otus Wins Gold Stevie® Award for Customer Service Department of the Year

    Otus Wins Gold Stevie® Award for Customer Service Department of the Year

    CHICAGO, IL (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Otus, a leading provider of K-12 student data and assessment solutions, has been awarded a prestigious Gold Stevie® Award in the category of Customer Service Department of the Year at the 2025 American Business Awards®. This recognition celebrates the company’s unwavering commitment to supporting educators, students, and families through exceptional service and innovation.

    In addition to the Gold award, Otus also earned two Silver Stevie® Awards: one for Company of the Year – Computer Software – Medium Size, and another honoring Co-founder and President Chris Hull as Technology Executive of the Year.

    “It is an incredible honor to be recognized, but the real win is knowing our work is making a difference for educators and students,” said Hull. “As a former teacher, I know how difficult it can be to juggle everything that is asked of you. At Otus, we focus on building tools that save time, surface meaningful insights, and make student data easier to use—so teachers can focus on what matters most: helping kids grow.”

    The American Business Awards®, now in their 23rd year, are the premier business awards program in the United States, honoring outstanding performances in the workplace across a wide range of industries. The competition receives more than 12,000 nominations every year. Judges selected Otus for its outstanding 98.7% customer satisfaction with chat interactions, and exceptional 89% gross retention in 2024. They also praised the company’s unique blend of technology and human touch, noting its strong focus on educator-led support, onboarding, data-driven product evolution, and professional development.

    “We believe great support starts with understanding the realities educators face every day. Our Client Success team is largely made up of former teachers and school leaders, so we speak the same language. Whether it’s during onboarding, training, or day-to-day communication, we’re here to help districts feel confident and supported. This recognition is a reflection of how seriously we take that responsibility and energizes us to keep raising the bar,” said Phil Collins, Ed.D., Chief Customer Officer at Otus.

    Otus continues to make significant strides in simplifying teaching and learning by offering a unified platform that integrates assessment, data, and instruction—all in one place. Otus has supported over 1 million students nationwide by helping educators make data-informed decisions, monitor progress, and personalize learning. These honors reflect the company’s growth, innovation, and steadfast commitment to helping school communities succeed.

    About Otus

    Otus, an award-winning edtech company, empowers educators to maximize student performance with a comprehensive K-12 assessment, data, and insights solution. Committed to student achievement and educational equity, Otus combines student data with powerful tools that provide educators, administrators, and families with the insights they need to make a difference. Built by teachers for teachers, Otus creates efficiencies in data management, assessment, and progress monitoring to help educators focus on what matters most—student success. Today, Otus partners with school districts nationwide to create informed, data-driven learning environments. Learn more at Otus.com.

    Stay connected with Otus on LinkedIn, Facebook, X, and Instagram.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)



    Source link

  • Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    One of the biggest, but least remarked upon trends in European higher education in recent years is the growth of private for-profit, higher education. Even in countries where tuition is free, there are hundreds of thousands of students who now prefer to take courses at private for-profit institutions.

    To me, the question is, why? What sort of institutions are these anyway? Interestingly, the answer to that second question is one which might confuse my mostly North American audience. Turns out a lot of these private institutions are relatively small, bespoke institutions with very narrow academic specializations. And yet they’re owned by a few very large international conglomerate universities. That’s very different from North America, where institutions tend to be either small and bespoke, or part of a large corporation, but not both.

    Today my guest is Nicolas Badré. He’s the Chief Operating Officer of the Galileo Group, which operates a number of universities across Europe. I met him a few months ago at an OECD event in Jakarta. When I heard about some of Galileo’s initiatives, I knew I’d have to have him on the show. 

    There are three things which I think are most important about this interview. First is the discussion about Galileo’s business model and how it achieves economies of scale across such different types of institutions. Second, there’s how the network goes about collectively learning across all its various institutions. And third, specifically how it’s choosing to experiment with AI across a number of institutions and apply the lessons more globally. 

    Overall, it’s a fascinating chat. I hope you enjoy it too. But now, let’s turn things over to Nicolas.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.27 | Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Nicolas, Galileo Global Education has grown significantly over the years. I think the group is, if I’m not mistaken, 13 or 14 years old now. Some of the universities it owns might be a bit older, but can you walk us through the origins of the group? How did you grow to be as big as you are? I think you’ve got dozens of institutions in dozens of countries—how did that growth happen so quickly?

    Nicolas Badré (NB): Thank you, Alex, for the question. It’s an interesting story. And yes, to your point, the group was created 13 and a half years ago, with an investment by Providence Equity Partners into Istituto Marangoni, a fashion school in Italy. That dates back to 2011. Since then, we’ve made 30 acquisitions.

    The growth started primarily in Europe, especially in France and Germany. Then, in 2014, we took our first steps outside of Europe with the acquisition of IEU in Mexico. Significant moves followed in 2018 and 2019, particularly into the online learning space with Studi in France and AKAD in Germany.

    There’s been a very rapid acceleration over the past five years. For context, I joined the group at the end of 2019. At that time, Galileo had 67,000 students across nine countries. Today, we have 300,000 students in 20 countries.

    Back then, the group was primarily focused on arts and creative schools, as well as business and management schools. Now, we’ve expanded into tech and health, and even into some professional training areas—like truck driving, for instance.

    What does this reflect? Two things. First, very strong organic growth from our existing schools and brands. Take ESG in France as an example. It’s been around for 40 years and is a well-known entry-level business school. Over the past five years, it’s diversified considerably creating ESG Luxury, ESG Tourism, you name it. It’s also expanded its physical presence from just a few cities to now being in 15 or 16 cities across France.

    So it’s really been a combination of strong organic growth and selective acquisitions that have helped us more than quadruple our student numbers in just five years.

    AU: It’s interesting— I think a lot of our listeners and viewers might be surprised to hear about such a strong for-profit institution coming out of France. When you think of French higher education, you think of the Grandes Écoles, you think of free education. So why would so many people choose to pay for education when they don’t have to? It’s a pretty strong trend in France now. I think over 26% of all students in France are in some form of private higher education. What do you offer that makes people willing to give up “free”?

    NB: It’s a good question, and you’re right—it’s not just about France. In many places across Europe, including Germany, the Nordics, and others, you see similar dynamics.

    That said, yes, in France in particular, there’s been a growing share of private players in higher education over the past few years. That probably reflects the private sector’s greater ability to adapt to new environments.

    I’d highlight three main factors that help explain why we’ve been successful in this space.

    First, we’re obsessed with employability and skills-based education. And that’s true across all levels and backgrounds. When we worked on our group mission statement, everyone agreed that our mission is to “unleash the potential of everyone for better employability.” 

    Because of that focus, we maintain very strong ties with industry. That gives us the ability to adapt, create, and update our programs very quickly in response to emerging demands. We know competencies become obsolete faster now, so staying aligned with job market needs is critical. That’s probably the strongest unifying driver across all of Galileo.

    Beyond that, we also offer very unique programs. Take Noroff, for example—a tech school in Norway, which is even more tuition-free than France. It’s one of the very few fee-paying institutions in the country. But the program is so strong that students are willing to pay around 15,000 euros a year because they know they’ll get a top-tier, hands-on experience—something that might be slower to evolve in the public system.

    So that’s the first point: employability and unique, high-impact programs.

    Second, we put a strong emphasis on the student experience. How do we transform their education beyond just delivering content? That’s an area we continue to invest in—never enough, but always pushing. We’re focused on hybridizing disciplines, geographies, and pedagogical approaches.

    And we’ve systematized student feedback—not just asking for opinions, but making sure we translate that feedback into tangible improvements in the student experience.

    And third, I’d say there’s a values-based dimension to all of this. We focus heavily on innovation, entrepreneurship, and high standards. Those are the core values that we’re driven by. You could say they’re our obsessions—and I think that kind of vision and energy resonates with our students. Those are the three main things I’d point to.

    AU: I have a question about how you make things work across such a diverse set of institutions. I mean, you’ve got design schools, drama schools, law schools, medical schools. When people think about private education, there’s often an assumption that there’s some kind of economies of scale in terms of curriculum. The idea that you can reuse curriculum across different places. But my impression is that you can’t do that very much. It seems like you’re managing all these different institutions, each of them like their own boutique operation, with their own specific costs. How do you make it work across a system as large and diverse as yours? Where are the economies of scale?

    NB: Well, that’s also a very good point—and you’re absolutely right. We have a very diverse network of schools. We have a culinary arts school in Bordeaux, France, with maybe 400 students, and we have universities with more than 10,000 students, whether in medical or business education.

    So yes, you might wonder: why put these institutions together?

    The answer is that we really built the group’s development around the entrepreneurial DNA of our school directors. They’re responsible for their own development—for their growth, diversification, and how they respond to the job market.

    We’re not obsessed with economies of scale. What we really value is the network itself. What we focus on is shared methodology—in areas like sales and marketing, finance, HR, and student experience.

    There are also some opportunities for synergies in systems. In some cases, for instance, yes—we use a similar CRM across several countries. But I think the real value of the network lies in its ability to share experiences and experiment with innovation throughout, and then scale up those innovations appropriately across the other schools.

    So I’d say it’s more about shared practices than about forcing economies of scale across borders—because that doesn’t always make sense.

    AU: Am I correct in thinking that you don’t necessarily present yourself as a chain of institutions to students? That each institution actually has a pretty strong identity in and of itself—is that right? Is there a fair bit of autonomy and ability to adapt things locally at each of your schools?

    NB: Yes, I think that’s true. In terms of branding, we believe that each of our schools generally has a stronger brand than Galileo itself. And that’s how it should be, because each school has its own experience, its own DNA, its own momentum and development.

    So, we see ourselves more as a platform that supports the development of all these schools, rather than a chain imposing the same standards and practices across the board.

    Of course, we do have certain methodologies—for example, how to run a commercial campaign. We provide guidance, but it’s ultimately up to each school to manage that process and use the methodology in a way that works best for their own development.

    That doesn’t mean there’s no value in having the Galileo name—there is. But the value is in being a platform that supports the schools, rather than overshadowing them.

    AU: Nicolas, I know Galileo is testing a lot of AI-driven approaches across its various institutions. What I found interesting in a discussion we had offline a few weeks ago is that you’re experimenting with AI in different parts of the institution—some of it around curriculum, some around administration, and some around student services. Can you give us an overview? What exactly are you testing, and what are the goals of these experiments?

    NB: I think we first need to frame how we’re using AI, and it’s important to look at our strategy globally. We believe there are three major trends shaping higher education.

    First, student expectations are evolving quickly—they’re demanding more flexibility and personalization. Second, there’s a rapid emergence of new competencies, which challenges our ability to adapt and update programs quickly. And third, we need to go beyond boundaries and be agile in how we approach topics, address new skills, and serve diverse learners. These are the three starting points we see as opportunities for Galileo to differentiate itself. Now, we’re not trying to become a leading AI company. Our goal remains to be a recognized leader in education—improving employability and lives. That’s our benchmark.

    With that in mind, our AI vision is focused on four areas:

    1. How do we deliver a unique experience to our students?
    2. How do we connect educators globally who are trained in and comfortable with AI?
    3. How do we develop content that can be adapted, localized, translated, and personalized?
    4. And how do we improve operational productivity?

    AI is clearly a powerful tool in all four areas. Let me walk through some of the things we’re doing. 

    The first area we call AI for Content. We’re using AI to more quickly identify the competencies required by the job market. We use tools that give us a more immediate connection to the market to understand what skills are in demand. Based on that, we design programs that better align with those needs.

    Then the next step is about course and content creation. Once we’ve defined the competencies, how do we design the courses, the pedagogical materials? How do we make it easier to localize and adapt that content?

    Take Studi, an online university in France with 67,000 students and around 150 different programs. A year ago, it would take them about four months to design a bachelor’s or master’s program. Now, it takes one to two months, depending on the specifics. The cost has been cut in half, and development speed has increased by a factor of two, three, even four in some cases. This also opens up opportunities to make programs more personalized because we can update them much faster. 

    The second area is AI for Experience. How do we use AI to enhance the student experience?

    We’ve embedded AI features in our LMS to personalize quizzes, generate mind maps, and create interactive sessions during classes. We’ve also adapted assessments. For example, in Germany, for the past two years, our online university AKAD has let students choose their own exam dates. That’s based on an AI approach that generates personalized assessments while staying within the requirements of German accreditation bodies. This wouldn’t be possible without AI. The result is higher engagement, faster feedback, and a more personalized learning experience.

    Lastly, beyond content and experience, we’re seeing real gains in AI for Operations. In sales and marketing, for example, we now use bots in Italy and Latin America to re-engage “dead” leads—contacting them again, setting up meetings, and redirecting them through the admissions funnel. It’s proven quite efficient, and we’re looking to expand that approach to other schools.

    We’re also seeing strong results in tutoring. Take Corndel, a large UK-based school focused on apprenticeships. They’re using AI tools extensively to improve student tracking, tutoring, and weekly progress monitoring.

    So, we’re seeing a lot of momentum across all these dimensions—and it’s really picked up speed over the last 18 months.

    AU: So, you’ve got a network of institutions, which gives you a lot of little laboratories to experiment with—to try different things. How do you identify best practices? And then how do you scale them across your network?

    NB: Well, first of all, we have lots of different pilots. As you’ve understood, we’re quite decentralized, so we don’t have a central innovation team of 50 people imposing innovations across all our schools.

    It’s more about scouting and sharing experiences from one school to another. It’s a combination of networks where people share what they’re learning.

    Just to name a few, we have a Digital Learning Community—that’s made up of all the people involved in LMS design across our schools. They exchange a lot of insights and experiences.

    We also hold regular touchpoints to present what’s happening in AI for content, AI for experience, and AI for operations. We’ve created some shared training paths for schools as well. So there are a lot of initiatives aimed at maximizing sharing, rather than imposing anything top-down. Again, as you pointed out, the schools are extremely diverse—in terms of regulations, size, content, and disciplines. So there’s no universal recipe.

    That said, in some cases it’s more about developing a methodology. For example, how do you design and implement a pedagogical chatbot? The experiments we’re running now are very promising for future scale-up, because we’re learning a lot from these developments.

    AU: I know that, in a sense, you’ve institutionalized the notion of innovation within the system. I think you’ve recently launched a new master’s program specifically focused on this question—on how to innovate in education systems. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

    NB: Yeah, I’m super excited to talk about this, because it’s where I’m focusing most of my energy these days.

    We’ve been working on this project for a year with four Galileo institutions. It’s called Copernia, and the name, like Galileo, is intentional—these are people who changed perspectives. That’s exactly what we want to do: change the perspective on education and truly put the student at the center.

    Copernia started the initiative, Galileo confirmed it, and it’s no coincidence we’re focusing on this.

    The first program we’re launching under Copernia is a Master of Innovation and Technology for Education. The idea is to bring together and leverage expertise from several fields: neurocognitive science, tech, AI and data, educational sciences, innovation, design, and management. The goal is to offer students a unique experience where they not only learn about innovation—but also learn to develop and apply it.

    One of the major assets we want to leverage is the Galileo network. With over 120 campuses, we can offer students real, hands-on opportunities to experiment and innovate. So the value proposition is: if you want to design and test educational innovation, we’ll give you the tools, the foundational knowledge, and, most importantly, the chance to apply that in practice—within our network, with our partners, and with other institutions.

    The goal is to help the whole ecosystem benefit—not just from Galileo’s environment, but also from the contributions of tech partners, academic collaborators, and business partners around the world. I’m convinced this will be a major tool to develop, share, and scale practical, applied innovation.

    And importantly, this isn’t meant to be just an internal initiative for Galileo. It’s designed to be open. We want to train people who can help transform education—not only in higher education, but also in K–12 and lifelong learning. Because we believe this kind of cross-disciplinary expertise and hands-on innovation experience is valuable across the entire education sector.

    AU: I’m really impressed with the scale and speed at which you’re able to experiment. But it did make me wonder—why can’t public higher education systems do the same? I mean, if I think about French universities, there are 70 or 80 in the public system—though it’s hard to keep track because they keep merging. But theoretically, they could do this too, couldn’t they? It’s a moderately centralized system, and there’s no reason institutions couldn’t collaborate in ways that let them identify useful innovations—rolling them out at different speeds in different areas, depending on what works. Why can’t the public sector innovate like that?

    NB: First of all, I wouldn’t make a sweeping judgment on this. I think there is innovation happening everywhere—including within public institutions. So I wouldn’t describe it in black-and-white terms.

    That said, it’s true that as a private organization, we face a certain kind of pressure. We need to prove that we operate a sustainable model—and we need to prove that every month. In other words, we rely on ourselves to develop, to test, and to optimize how we grow. 

    The second is that we have an asset in being able to test and learn in very different environments. Take the example I mentioned earlier, about Germany and the anytime online assessments. We were able to implement that model there because it was online and because the regulatory environment allowed it.

    Now, when we approach accreditation bodies in other countries, we can say: “Look, it works. It’s already accepted elsewhere. Why not consider it here?” That ability to move between different contexts—academic and professional, vocational and executive—is really valuable. It allows us to promote solutions that cross traditional boundaries.

    That’s not something all public universities can do—and frankly, not something all universities can do, period. But it’s an advantage we’ve built over the past several years by creating this large field for experimentation.

    AU: Nicolas, thank you so much for being with us today.

    NB: Alex, thank you very much. It’s been a pleasure.

    AU: It just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions about today’s podcast, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. And don’t forget—never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education Podcast. Head over to YouTube and subscribe to our channel. Join us next week when our guest will be Noel Baldwin, CEO of the Future Skills Centre here in Canada. He’ll be joining us to talk about the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. See you then.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • 5 AI tools for classroom creativity

    5 AI tools for classroom creativity

    Key points:

    • AI tools enhance K-12 creativity and innovation through interactive projects
    • A new era for teachers as AI disrupts instruction
    • Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals
    • For more news on AI and creativity, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub

    As AI becomes more commonplace in classrooms, it gives students access to creative tools that enhance learning, exploration, and innovation. K-12 students can use AI tools in various ways to boost creativity through art, storytelling, music, coding, and more.

    More News from eSchool News

    HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.

    Data shows growing GenAI adoption in K-12

    Almost 3 in 5 K-12 educators (55 percent) have positive perceptions about GenAI, despite concerns and perceived risks in its adoption, according to updated data from Cengage Group’s “AI in Education” research series.

    Unlocking potential: The power of online courses in our school

    Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.

    Strategies to help girls stay engaged in STEM learning

    Ensuring that girls feel supported and empowered in STEM from an early age can lead to more balanced workplaces, economic growth, and groundbreaking discoveries.

    5 vocabulary strategies powered by technology

    In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.

    The power of goal setting: A skill for lifelong success

    For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.

    The importance of teacher-student relationships

    Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.

    Virtual art meets language learning: A tech-enhanced ESL experience

    Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.

    Leadership is key to protecting student data privacy in 2025

    In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.

    Ethical PD: Doing right by the teachers who do right by the world

    Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.

    Want to share a great resource? Let us know at [email protected].

    Source link

  • Strategies to help girls stay engaged in STEM learning

    Strategies to help girls stay engaged in STEM learning

    Key points:

    • When girls participate in STEM learning, the future is more inclusive
    • 5 practical ways to integrate AI into high school science
    • Linking STEM lessons to real-world applications
    • For more news on STEM learning, visit eSN’s STEM & STEAM hub

    Encouraging girls to engage in STEM is vital for fostering diversity, innovation, and equal opportunities in these fields. Women remain underrepresented in STEM degrees and in careers, often due to societal stereotypes, lack of representation, and limited access to resources.

    More News from eSchool News

    HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.

    Data shows growing GenAI adoption in K-12

    Almost 3 in 5 K-12 educators (55 percent) have positive perceptions about GenAI, despite concerns and perceived risks in its adoption, according to updated data from Cengage Group’s “AI in Education” research series.

    Unlocking potential: The power of online courses in our school

    Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.

    5 AI tools for classroom creativity

    When it comes to visual creativity, AI tools let students design posters, presentations, and digital artwork effortlessly. Students can turn their ideas into professional-quality visuals, sparking creativity and innovation.

    5 vocabulary strategies powered by technology

    In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.

    The power of goal setting: A skill for lifelong success

    For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.

    The importance of teacher-student relationships

    Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.

    Virtual art meets language learning: A tech-enhanced ESL experience

    Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.

    Leadership is key to protecting student data privacy in 2025

    In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.

    Ethical PD: Doing right by the teachers who do right by the world

    Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.

    Want to share a great resource? Let us know at [email protected].

    Source link

  • The politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending

    The politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending

    Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement had little in it for the sector to celebrate.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility,(who provide independent analysis of the country’s finances), downgraded 2025 growth forecasts from two per cent to one per cent.

    For all the flurry of pro-growth activity since the election, the growth outlook to 2029 is basically unchanged. Economic growth and the much desired fiscal headroom (which gives the Government capacity for extra spending) still seem unlikely to materialise.

    For universities who are hoping for a crumb of additional funding at some point in the future, there was nothing to settle their nerves about the increasingly difficult financial position the Government finds itself in.

    Winners and losers

    It’s safe to say that some sectors are doing better than others. Defence is clearly one of the winners. Starmer’s commitment to increase defense spending (made before the Spring Statement) to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April 2027 was a significant one. The measures taken to generate the fiscal headroom to pay for it- particularly cutting overseas development aid, and slashing welfare budgets – were not particularly popular ones. This is not an era of win-win policy choices – but boosting defence spending is a critical part of what Starmer’s government sees as a core responsibility: to position Britain as a steady hand in an unstable world.

    The continuation of the war in Ukraine, renewed conflict in the middle east, and a second Trump presidency, renewed trade wars and global volatility all point towards this being the difficult but correct choice to make.

    A significant uplift to its budget is the sort of things the higher education sector can only dream of. The increase to defence spending is not only massive, it’s also moderately popular. In a new Public First/Stonehaven poll, which looked at the trade offs the Government will need to make in the current era of hard choices, we found it which has moderate public support: 57 per cent back the uplift.

    There is an opportunity for the higher education sector here that they may be reluctant to take. Universities are a relatively silent partner in the UK’s defense capabilities, despite the fact this is a clear area of opportunity. Defense companies are increasingly avoiding campuses for graduate recruitment after a rising wave of student protests – the Times reported that 20 companies have been advised against attending on campus events because of security fears.

    Who will defend the defenders?

    Many universities are trying to balance their industrial R&D and skills partnerships with the defense sector with a growing generational divide in attitudes towards the defense industry. Negative perceptions of the defense sector are particularly entrenched among Gen Z. Just under a fifth (17 per cent) of the general population say that they would be ashamed to work for the defense industry – but this rises to 31 per cent of 18-24 year olds. Nearly a third of 18-34 year olds say their friends would judge them if they worked in the defense industry. Going too hard on defence and being seen to be doing too much may risk a knock-on impact on student recruitment.

    The increased investment in defense and security isn’t just about more soldiers and sailors and more ships and planes. It includes commitments on research and skills, and a ringfenced post of 10 per cent of the uplift for “novel technologies”. Increasingly, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will become a major strategic procurer and funder in advanced research and development across the UK, which presents an increasingly rare and hard won opportunity for UK universities – and one where the public opinion is more balanced.

    Talking about the role for university led R&D which boosts national security is a reputation win for the sector as a whole. In our large-scale research with the Campaign for Science and Engineering, which explored what the UK public think and feel about R&D, we found a strong preference for investment in new defensive technologies over more military personnel – a view broadly shared across all ages, and across the political spectrum

    When we asked what the highest priority should be to improve national security, investment in R&D was the joint second most popular option, behind tackling cyber attacks and misinformation.

    Hard choices

    The defense sector as a whole might be an unpopular thing to talk about on campus. But there is a significant government investment being made in defense spending, and a clear moral and social argument that we live in a time when increasing the capacity and capability of our national security systems is the right thing to do. We know there is broad public support for this investment going towards research and development, and that there are significant skills gaps across our defense sector, impacting our broader defense and security offering.

    In a time when politicians are making hard choices, university leaders need to be doing the same.

    The modern armed services need highly skilled graduates in a range of roles – not just as professional soldiers, sailors or pilots but also in a myriad of supporting roles such as cyber security, communications, quantum technology, logistics, engineering, advanced manufacturing, foreign languages, and diplomacy. And equally too, the government will need academics and university research labs to step up, in partnership with businesses, to help design and roll out technologies that will support this expanded defence effort. This is both an economic case and a moral case – and one that universities should seize.

    And if this is an opportunity which universities shy away from, they may be waiting a long time for the next economic windfall to come their way.

    Source link

  • “Anything Can Be Done With Anything”: Innovative Universities with Dara Melnyk

    “Anything Can Be Done With Anything”: Innovative Universities with Dara Melnyk

    There’s an old joke about innovation in higher education.  It goes like this:  How many universities does it take to screw in a lightbulb.  Change? 

    Maybe that’s a bit unfair, but it’s unquestionable that the sector isn’t famed for welcoming change, in particular radical change.  One particular aspect is what is called isomorphism – the tendency of all institutions to look the same because they are copying some “ideal” model university (think Harvard or Oxford); indeed, that institutions which don’t copy the model followed by “prestige” universities must ipso facto lack “quality”. 

    But innovation does happen.  It’s just not always widely noticed or celebrated.  But there is one regular webinar that is trying to change that, and that’s the Innovative Universities Global Webinar Series.  Based at Constructor University in Germany, it’s co-hosted by two fantastic higher education researchers.  One is Isak Frumin, who joined our podcast last year to talk about post-Soviet universities, and the other is today’s guest, Dara Melnyk.

    We invited Dara onto the show today to discuss what she and Isak have discovered about innovative universities over the course of their webinar series.  What are the catalysts for innovation in higher education?  What kinds of structures or leadership are required to sustain innovation?  Does the innovation process look different in different parts of the world?  I found this an absolutely delightful conversation, mainly because Dana’s job allows her to delve deeply int topics that I wish I could spend more time on myself, and this was a chance for me to live that life vicariously.  I hope you find her as insightful as I did.  And so without futher ado: over to Dara.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.26 | “Anything Can Be Done With Anything”: Innovative Universities with Dara Melnyk 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Dara, how did the Innovative Universities Global Webinar come about? What was the motivation to create a platform specifically focused on institutional innovation in higher education?

    Dara Melnyk (DM): So, there were practical reasons—I’d say three of them—and one completely impractical reason.

    The first practical reason is that we truly believe innovative universities are important. They’re useful because they test new approaches, and when those approaches are successful, other universities adopt them. That’s how you upgrade higher education systems. It’s, I think, one of the most powerful—and also most ethical—mechanisms for institutional change, as compared to implementing strict policies.

    The second practical reason is tied to my work. I’ve been consulting and advising universities for the past decade, and it’s simply easier to talk about universities when you can use extreme cases. These cases make for good examples, and innovative universities really have to get that one thing at the core of their distinction exactly right. They can typically articulate what they do very clearly, which makes it efficient to learn from them. For example, a lot of universities practice PBL, but if you want to really understand how it works, it makes sense to go to the core—to McMaster University, Maastricht University, whichever you prefer.

    The last practical reason is that innovative universities often have to fight private battles with regulators. They’re constantly trying to bridge the gap between their vision and the realities of everyday practice, and that can get pretty isolating. So we thought it would be helpful to create a gallery of cases, where university leaders could speak about their ideas and challenges—and where others could learn from those stories and feel a bit better about their own practice.

    And finally, the impractical reason—I promised you one of those! Isak, my co-host, and I have this acute curiosity about higher education. Innovative universities intrigue us. They surprise us. They’re hopeful. And most importantly, they make us question what we believe about higher education.

    AU: How do you go about selecting cases? What is it that makes a university truly innovative? Is it technology, governance, pedagogy? And how long do you have to wait to know if it’s an innovation worth copying?

    DM: Okay, so there are two questions here. First, about selecting cases—I’d love to tell you that we have a long, strict list of criteria, that we run them through models or maybe Excel files or something like that. But truly, we just follow our gut feeling. If something gives us pause, it might do the same for the audience. That’s how we choose. Someone tells us about an institution, and we think, “Okay, this is interesting—how do they do it?” And that’s when we decide to feature it.

    Now, in terms of what makes a university innovative, we mostly focus on innovations that are constitutive, not auxiliary—meaning they’re absolutely necessary for that specific university model to function. We do also like looking into innovations in the operational model. But typically, we concentrate on innovations in the core—so, in teaching and learning—because that seems to be the very essence of the idea of the university.

    AU: In your experience, I’m wondering to what extent institutions innovate for—how can I put this—internal reasons, as opposed to external challenges. What kinds of external challenges or changes in the environment, I guess, force institutions to rethink their model? And how often is it those external forces that are decisive in making institutions take that turn toward innovation?

    DM: I feel it’s not that cut and dried. While universities do sometimes respond to external forces or challenges, they also just as often stand idly by—disallowing what’s happening. Not in the sense of ignoring it, but rather acknowledging it, addressing it, and then denying any responsibility for taking action. That happens just as frequently.

    What I think triggers innovation more reliably is what I would call inflection points—periods in history when norms start shifting, and people begin to question what they believe in and what is right. And while that’s happening, you can sneak in something truly unusual.

    The largest and longest inflection period we’ve seen was probably in the 1960s and 1970s, when a lot of things were changing. Gender norms and generational roles were being questioned, there was widespread discontent with U.S. foreign policy and levels of inequality, and in Europe there was a kind of religious rebellion. That’s how we ended up with, I think, almost half of the cases in our collection.

    And possibly, we are living through an inflection period now as well. We’re seeing technological shifts, a new political order—or, as The Economist recently and aptly put it, “disorder”—emerging, as well as climate wars. Institutions are responding to all of that, but they’re also enabled to respond, because no one is quite sure what the correct university model is right now. For a time, that uncertainty creates room to innovate. I think at some point, it will settle again—and innovating will become difficult.

    AU: It seems to me that innovations require a pretty careful mix of institutional structures, leadership styles, funding mechanisms—these could be internal or external. Is there any configuration that you think is more likely to support long-term change?

    DM: First of all, anything can be done with anything. We’ve seen the most fascinating cases of innovation happen under really severe constraints. But at the same time, there are factors that significantly contribute to innovation. I’d classify them as stories, leaders, and policy.

    Starting with stories: if a university community believes it must innovate—for whatever reason, whether to be a pathfinder, to show other universities the way, or to solve problems because it has a vision it’s trying to implement—then it keeps solving issues in order to make that vision real.

    When it comes to leaders, personal drive matters. And you actually need several people with that drive, because they’ll argue, they’ll compete, they’ll collaborate—and ultimately, they’ll move the university forward. No university leader is an island, to paraphrase John Donne. No team, no vision, no innovation, ultimately.

    And finally, policy. I think you’d agree there needs to be sufficient autonomy to experiment. It sounds like a basic statement—like something you hear in every second university president’s speech—but universities are often quite limited by licensing and accreditation regulations. And also by something I’d call self-arrest, borrowing from Antony Giddens: playing it safe just in case, keeping still, not rocking the boat.

    So autonomy is really important. I love the title of the book by Bartlett Giamatti about universities—The Free and Ordered Space. I’ve been obsessed with that phrase. It seems incredibly relevant to universities, because, well—there is no order if you don’t have freedom. Freedom is the basis of order for universities.

    AU: Dara, your series features universities from all over the world. I’ve been so impressed by the way you’ve been able to go to various corners of the globe. What’s your impression about how the approach to innovation differs regionally? So, is there a North American path to institutional innovation that’s different from what you see in Europe or Asia? Is it about philosophy? Is it about traditions? I mean, what are the differences you see globally?

    DM: I think it’s about problem fields. A problem field is a cluster of issues you have to navigate and somehow address—quote in your design—for sponsors to even consider investing, for students to consider coming, and so on.

    If I were to walk you through the regions—this is a really rough typology at the moment, but still—
    For Africa, the problem field is the trifecta of affordability, quality, and regional relevance. That last part is sometimes interpreted as decolonization, but I think it’s more than that.

    Asia is incredibly diverse, both economically and culturally. I’d say China seems especially concerned with identifying its own way and positioning universities as economic drivers—meaning actual partnerships between higher education institutions and industry. And in developing countries, I think it’s mostly about securing social mobility for students.

    Now, traveling to North America—we’ve only looked at the U.S. so far; Canada is pending—it’s also very much centered on affordability. But with the University of Austin—not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin—we’re seeing a return to thinking about and experimenting with what a university should be in the first place. That sounds a bit like the 1960s to me. So, we’ll see what happens there.

    And finally, Europe is all about Europe—Europeanness. Its largest innovation, the European University Networks, is centered on that. And apart from this sense of Europeanness, there’s a lot of attention to innovative and experimental pedagogies, partly in response to demographic changes.

    AU: About a year ago, we had a guest on the show, Brian Rosenberg—you’ve probably read his book, Whatever It Is, I’m Against It. He painted a picture of American institutions as being very resistant to innovation, basically because there are too many points of veto within the institution. What are the biggest obstacles you see preventing universities from adopting innovative practices? Are you as pessimistic as Brian? How do you get around that tendency toward inertia?

    DM: I am definitely not as pessimistic as Brian—maybe because I don’t live in the U.S. I hope the land down below Canada won’t be offended by that!

    Now, talking about obstacles, there are both external and internal ones. Externally, they’re quite plentiful, but I think it boils down to a conflict between open and closed systems. A higher education system is either welcoming—in narrative and policy—to innovation, or it’s not. And the way to overcome that barrier usually involves promotion, and often lobbying, for the importance of innovative universities.

    According to our observations, successful, innovative universities are typically led by talented lobbyists. You have to be able to fight back—to be an actor, not just an agent, in the national conversation.

    Now, for internal obstacles, the biggest one is a lack of critical discussion about the organization. If people can’t voice issues or share ideas—because, for example, they’re afraid to—then nothing changes, and nothing will change. So, step one is to create a platform for that discussion. And step two is not just to invite people to share their opinions—or embolden them, if you can—but to actually carry the conversation through to real projects. Try something out. It may or may not work, but at least you’ve tried. And then you can try again. That’s how you become an innovative institution.

    AU: What’s the most innovative institution you’ve seen? I know you’ve done dozens of these around the world. What’s the one that really affected you the most—one that you thought was the most interesting to think about or to look at?

    DM: It doesn’t really work like that. We tend to get excited about every single institution we look at. The more attention you pay to one, the more fascinated you get. For me, it’s typically the last case—either the one we just covered or the one we’re about to cover.

    So, the case we just covered is Roskilde University in Denmark, which is a cousin of McMaster University. They’re just wonderful. They have their own proprietary methodology—problem-oriented project learning—and they keep introducing new innovations. If you look at the news page on their website, it’s not just updates about research outcomes and student results. It’s also things like, “We’re going to introduce this,” or “We’re thinking about that.”

    And the case we’re going to cover very soon, in a couple of days, is Tidelines Institute. It’s a micro-college. There’s a proper definition for that, but I like to define micro-colleges as institutions where everybody knows everybody.

    Tidelines is located in the Alaskan wilderness and sees itself almost as complementary to traditional higher education institutions. It’s not a disruptive institution—it’s a complement. It’s an addition. It offers experiential learning through short-term projects for students. They can come for six months or even just a couple of weeks and learn something amazing by doing.

    AU: So, based on all these conversations you’ve had, what are the big themes that you think might affect—for lack of a better word—the university of the future? Obviously, there’s not one university of the future; there are lots of different possibilities and roles for individual institutions to play. But are there specific themes emerging from your research that you think might become a more hegemonic—or dominant—blueprint for higher education in the coming decades?

    DM: Some things are clear. First, affordable university models will keep appearing—because everyone wants them to. For that, you might look at NewU University in Washington, DC. It’s a really brave and persistent case that I admire deeply. Or the African Leadership University, which Brian Rosenberg—whom you mentioned—is an advisor to.

    Second, universities will implement more technology. We all know it; everybody talks about it. I’d recommend looking at MEF, a Turkish university, to see what they’re doing. They’re quite systematic in implementing new technological solutions.

    Third—and almost as a mirror to that technological implementation—universities will also have to compete with online platforms. They have to offer something no one else does. I really like the idea of Forward College, which is an itinerant college in Europe. Students study in Lisbon for their first year, Paris for their second, and Berlin for their third. Forward College believes that relational pedagogy should lie at the core of education—the relationship between teacher and student as the driver for learning. I think that has its place, maybe even a central place, in universities. These are the spaces where generations meet, and that should be used and leveraged.

    That said, I want to make a slightly extended comment about innovation. I’m not sure if Isak would agree, but even though I research innovative universities, talk about them, and write about them, I don’t truly believe in innovations in higher education. I don’t think they’re possible.

    Lately, I’ve been reading and listening to things about ancient Greece and ancient Greek education—and also listening to Bastille, because for me, that’s connected. There’s a line in their song Pompeii: “But if you close your eyes, does it almost feel like nothing changed at all?” The more I learn about innovative higher education, the more I believe in two things: first, nothing will fundamentally change; and second, nothing should.

    On that first point—about the lack of fundamental change—most innovations are reimaginings. We keep reimagining ideas that have already been discussed, that have already been tried, throughout the couple of thousand years of higher education history.

    And on the second point—maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Maybe it’s something universities should retain. They are organizations that manage knowledge. They gain knowledge through research, they transmit it through education, and they apply it through technology transfer. The formats might change, but at their core, universities should remain the one type of organization responsible for the complete knowledge cycle. Everything else seems secondary to me.

    AU: Dara Melnyk , thanks so much for joining us today. And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek—and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us today. If you have any questions or concerns about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at [email protected]. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube channel. Subscribe to it so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education. Join us next week when I’ll be joined by Nicolas Badré, the Chief Operating Officer of the Galileo Global Education Group. We’ll be talking about the rise of private higher education in Europe and the Galileo Group’s fascinating experiments with artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link