Category: Student Experience

  • Rethinking metrics, rethinking narratives: why widening access at elite universities requires more than procedural fairness

    Rethinking metrics, rethinking narratives: why widening access at elite universities requires more than procedural fairness

    by Kate Ayres

    For many years, the fair access agenda in UK HE has emphasised more transparent and consistent admissions processes that are underpinned by clearer criteria and targeted support. As a qualified accountant and training in Lean Six Sigma, I’ve always been drawn to efficiency, clarity, and measurable improvement – principles that shaped much of my work in HE. However, as I moved into more senior roles and worked more closely with institutional decision-makers, I started to ask a different kind of question: why do some reforms, even when implemented well, seem to make little real difference?

    That question sits at the centre of my doctoral research. Despite significant reforms the social composition of Durham University’s student body has felt largely unchanged. From within the institution, it was evident that fairer offer-making was not translating into meaningful shifts in the home-student entrant profile. This revealed an uncomfortable truth: so far, no amount of investment or policy reform can, by itself, reshape the social forces that determine who sees a Durham degree as desirable.

    To understand why, we need to stop looking only at what universities do, and start looking at how students behave, and how the wider customer base, or audience, signals who belongs where.

    Why aren’t internal reforms enough?

    The limited shift in Durham’s home-student body prompts a key question: are our current metrics assuming universities can control demand, when in fact they can only affect the choices of applicants already in their pool?

    My research used fourteen years of UCAS admissions data for Durham University to analyse how applicant characteristics, predicted attainment, school type, and socio-economic background intersect with admissions decisions and outcomes. Using multivariate logistic regression and Difference-in-Differences (DiD) analysis, I examined the impact of Durham’s 2019 move from decentralised to centralised admissions.

    Results

    Since the centralisation of admissions in 2019:

    • Contextual students are now 72% more likely to receive an offer, reflecting a major shift in offer-making behaviour.
    • Contextual applicants to selecting departments remain 40% less likely to get offers than those applying to recruiting ones.
    • No improvement is seen in firm-acceptance rates, suggesting culture or fit still shape applicant choices.
    • Insurance-acceptance has risen 21%, showing Durham is increasingly seen as a backup option for these students.
    • Contextual students are now 2% less likely to enrol after receiving an offer, raising concerns about deeper barriers to entry.

    Trend Analysis

    The findings were initially encouraging with Contextual applicants became more likely to receive an offer after centralisation. However, the increased offer rate had very limited effect on who actually enrolled. Contextual applicants were increasingly likely to accept alternative universities before Durham. Meanwhile, the proportion of entrants from higher parental SES groups increased, and independent-school students (already overrepresented) continued to make up around one-third of Durham’s home undergraduate intake in 2023.

    Who is in control of demand?

    While Durham has a history of taking affirmative action for contextual students, these findings illustrate that the OfS-set POLAR4 ratios will never be achievable for somewhere like Durham because these measures assume that universities themselves control demand. Drawing on Organisational Ecology, I argue that this assumption is flawed.

    To understand why improved offer-making did not shift entrant composition, we need to look beyond institutional behaviour and examine the ecosystem dynamics that shape demand. Just as ecosystems rely on diversity, so does HE. No institution can appeal to every audience, nor should it. Organisations operate within ecosystems shaped by social, economic, and political forces, and crucially by their audiences, who ultimately determine demand. Therefore, it is the audience that defines an organisation’s niche. In HE, applicants gravitate toward universities that align with their social tastes, expectations, and sense of belonging. Therefore, the most powerful forces shaping demand are the social networks and information transmissions within and these influence applicants long before they apply: what they hear at school, family expectations, and what peers believe “people like us” do—and where “people like us” go.

    Currently, wider systemic shifts are reinforcing and entrenching Durham’s niche, especially among white independent-school applicants:

    1.  As Oxbridge intensifies its widening participation initiatives, applicants who traditionally succeed (predominantly white students from independent schools) are increasingly less likely to secure offers.
    2. These applicants seek the closest alternative to the Oxbridge experience, with Durham emerging as a preferred option.
    3. Durham is increasingly accepted as a firm choice because of its perceived “fit” with these applicants’ identity and expectations (as seen in this research).
    4. These applicants typically achieve their predicted grades, making entry more likely.
    5. Their growing presence reinforces existing social narratives about Durham’s student profile.
    6. Consequently, the entrant composition remains socially narrow, and these dynamics may intensify.
    7. The narrative of Durham as a socially exclusive institution persists.
    8. Applicants from non-traditional backgrounds thus perceive a lack of belonging.
    9. As a result, these applicants are less likely to select Durham as their firm choice.

    While these dynamics may prompt questions about whether Durham could or should shift away from its position as an “almost-Oxbridge” institution, the evidence suggests that only limited movement is structurally possible. Organisational Ecology predicts that Durham’s niche will remain relatively stable over time and there are many benefits of sticking with a niche approach. The university may be able to broaden its appeal slightly at the margins, drawing in more students from POLAR4 Q3 and Q4 backgrounds, but POLAR4 Q1 and Q2 students are likely to remain outliers. The real question is therefore not whether Durham can radically transform its appeal, but whether it can create the conditions in which those who do apply feel they can belong and thrive. This is where the OfS should take action because, rather than holding universities accountable for applicant pools (which they do not control), it should focus on the areas where institutional agency is strongest. Improving the lived experience of contextual students, strengthening narrative and cultural inclusion, and raising offer-to-acceptance conversion rates are all within Durham’s sphere of influence. Current patterns, particularly the relatively low acceptance and entry rates among contextual applicants, suggest that cultural barriers remain. Regulators should therefore attend less to the composition of the total entrant pool and more to how effectively institutions support, retain, and attract those who already see themselves as potential members of the community.

    Taken together, the wider systemic effects detailed above reinforce, rather than shift, Durham’s niche. Only a proportion of applicants will ever feel an affinity with the institution, which is entirely natural in a diverse HE ecosystem where students gravitate toward environments that resonate with their identities and expectations.

    These systemic forces lie largely outside Durham’s control, and changing the feedback loop requires more than procedural reform. It demands narrative change within the social networks where ideas of belonging are first formed, and a commitment to ensuring that the lived experiences of contextual students at Durham are positive and affirming. Building stronger partnerships with schools can help shift these early perceptions, while amplifying the stories and experiences of students from diverse backgrounds can offer powerful, alternative points of identification. Applicants make decisions based not just on information, but on a deep, intuitive sense of whether a place feels like it’s for “people like us”. This cannot be achieved through admissions policy, strategy, or marketing alone. Institutions can also look to examples such as the University of Bristol, which has reshaped its entrant pool through doing exactly this. Their efforts have influenced not only who feels able to apply, but who can genuinely imagine themselves thriving within the institution, resulting in a gradual shift in their niche.

    Proposal for new metrics

    If we evaluate universities on metrics that assume they control demand, we will misread both the problem and the solution. In the short term, universities cannot determine who chooses to apply, but they can influence who feels confident enough to accept an offer, which may, as seen with Bristol, create gradual shifts in the entrant pool over time. Universities can and should work to broaden their niches, yet Organisational Ecology reminds us that institutions rarely move far from their point of peak appeal, meaning Durham’s niche is likely to remain relatively stable and only widen at the margins. Expecting rapid transformation would be like assuming a population adapted to the Arctic could swiftly relocate to the Caribbean. That’s not saying it’s not possible, but it is not fast. Any substantial change in who feels an affinity with Durham will likewise unfold slowly, as cultural experiences and social narratives evolve. In the meantime, improving the lived experience of contextual students, and seeing this reflected in rising conversion rates, is the most realistic and meaningful early sign of movement within the niche. This stability also means that proportion-based performance measures will continue to make the University appear as though it is underperforming, even when it is behaving exactly as expected within its ecological position. Durham has added complexities in that it will always occupy a relatively small share of the HE market because the physical constraints of Durham City limit expansion. This adds presents further broadening of the niche simply because they can’t change by admitting more students.

    Therefore, metrics focused solely on broad institutional demand will never fully capture the dynamics of access or institutional “progress”. However, rising conversions – from offer to firm acceptance or offer to entry – among contextual students would signal a growing sense of fit, belonging, or affinity. And even if these students never form a majority, improving conversion is a meaningful and realistic way to measure widening participation progress, because it focuses on what an institution can actually influence, the student experience.

    To take these social forces seriously, and to acknowledge that a healthy HE system depends on a diversity of institutions meeting the diverse needs of students, we need metrics that reflect audience attraction and demand dynamics. Current proportion-based measures, fail to capture these realities. Instead, I propose:

    • Because Russell Group institutions occupy a similar position in the Blau Space (they attract applicants with comparable social, cultural, and educational characteristics), organisational ecology theory suggests they compete in neighbouring overlapping niches. This means that isolated widening participation initiatives at a single institution may simply redistribute socially advantaged applicants across the group rather than increase diversity overall. Coordinated widening participation strategies across the Russell Group would therefore reduce competitive displacement and support genuine, sector-wide broadening of access.
    • Introduce regulatory metrics that reward successful conversion, for example offer-to-firm-acceptance rates for underrepresented groups, rather than focusing solely on offers or entrant proportions. This would bring cultural belonging into WP evaluation by capturing the fact that where these students accept an offer and enter, there is likely be a greater sense of affinity, a place where they feel they can “fit”, belong, and succeed.
    • Measure and report the impact of cross-institution outreach among universities with similar audience profiles, recognising that widening participation is driven by sector-level dynamics rather than isolated institutional efforts.
    • Track behavioural demand patterns (such as firm-choice decisions) across groups of institutions to reveal how social signalling influences applicant preferences.

    The future of access lies in changing what we measure—and what we tell ourselves

    Universities often feel they are held solely accountable for widening access, yet my research demonstrates that applicant perceptions, social networks, and systemic hierarchies play an equally powerful role. The most important conclusion of this research is that access outcomes are co-produced. Universities are not solely responsible for entrant composition; applicants are active agents whose perceptions and choices shape institutional realities. To make meaningful change, we need approaches that reflect this distributed responsibility. To make real progress, we must rethink both the metrics we prioritise and the narratives we reproduce.

    Fair admissions processes matter – but without addressing the social dynamics shaping applicant behaviour, procedural fairness alone will never deliver equitable outcomes. By shifting the sector’s focus to behavioural metrics and narrative change, we can begin to challenge the feedback loops that sustain exclusivity and move toward a system where access is genuinely a collaborative effort.

    Durham University may never appeal to more than a small share of the applicant pool, but perhaps the real measure of success is ensuring that those who do not fit the perceived mould feel confident enough to accept and enter. Ecosystems flourish through diversity, and so does HE; no single institution can – or should – meet every need. Our responsibility is to keep access fair, to reshape the narratives that limit choice, and to support those who want to join us to feel that they truly belong. In focusing on this conversion (from offer to entrant) we move toward a more honest and sustainable understanding of what widening participation success looks like. We cannot control the applicant pool, but we can influence the student experience, the narratives that spread through their networks, and their confidence in imagining themselves belonging here.

    Dr Kate Ayres is a Chartered Management Accountant (CIMA) with a DBA from Durham University, where her research explored market niches and widening participation in UK HE through organisational ecology using quantitative methods. She has worked across finance, academic, and project management roles in UK Higher Education, including positions at Durham University and the University of Oxford. Kate currently serves as an Academic Mentor on the Senior Leaders Apprenticeship at Durham University Business School. Her work brings together analytical insight, organisational experience, and a commitment to improving HE culture. She also co-manages and sings with the Durham University Staff Chamber Choir, which she founded.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Direct entrant students can no longer remain invisible

    Direct entrant students can no longer remain invisible

    The sector regularly discusses first-year pedagogy as a way of supporting the whole student body, but direct entrants who transition into later years are largely overlooked in policy and practice.

    The recent post-16 education and skills white paper brings attention to the need for more flexible learning and progression routes to create a more integrated tertiary system, where students between different levels of study can progress more easily without rigid barriers.

    As someone who joined university directly into the second year, I felt a mix of imposter syndrome and disorientation. I remember the quiet confusion of arriving on a campus that seemed to have already moved on without me. My peers already seemed to have established their routines, connected with peers, and form a sense of identity within the institution.

    While the institution welcomed me, its systems did not seem to notice I had arrived. That experience stayed with me, revealing how much of university life, from induction to academic support, is designed for students who all start together in first year, leaving little space for those who join later.

    Higher education has mapped the journey and experience of many student groups. When it comes to direct entrant students, they remain absent from the map – a ghost town in literature and practice. If you happen to find research, it tends to label them as “top-up” or “advanced entry”, yet official statistics still categorise them as “continuing students”, never highlighting when they actually began their degree. This invisibility is particularly striking given the white paper’s push for diverse entry routes, modular learning, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.

    These reforms are meant to widen access, yet direct entrants often slip through the cracks in registry systems, appearing only as “continuing”, unknown to academics. If we can’t even see them on the map, how can universities hope to guide or support them?

    Behind from day one

    Direct entrant students are those who join a degree at a later point (typically level 5 or 6). They will often have completed a foundation degree or Higher National Diploma (HND) at a partner college, or transferred from another university straight into their second or third year.

    While universities have built entire transition strategies around first year students, the challenges faced by direct entrants are often similar – yet intensified by the social and institutional disorientation of joining an established cohort partway through their studies. I remember sitting in my first lecture and realising that everyone already knew the academic language, the course structure, and even the referenced to earlier modules. It wasn’t just a gap in content for me, it was a gap in belonging.

    The human side of higher education comes first for many students, whether that is finding friends, feeling confident, or above all feeling part of their course and institution, and this is the essential starting point for academic success, as shown in a recent systematic review. Belonging is not just a buzzword. It shapes how students engage, stay motivated and ultimately succeed. Its role is especially significant in a sector where learners’ backgrounds and pathways are increasingly diverse. If belonging is a prerequisite for success, then direct entrant students begin their journey at a clear disadvantage.

    The data illustrates this: in 2015–16, only 48 per cent of direct entrants achieved a good honours degree, compared with 61 per cent of those who started from the beginning, a 13 per cent gap that rarely receives the same attention as other attainment gaps, according to research by Sarah Cuthbert. The absence of more recent data highlights that direct entrants remain largely overlooked in research. Recognising these challenges points to a clear question: what can universities do to ensure direct entrants are seen, supported and set up to succeed?

    What needs to change

    To better support direct entrant students, universities need targeted interventions that recognise their distinct journey.

    Early identification in registry systems (simple direct entrant tick box/field at enrolment ensuring they are flagged from day one), paired with intentional support from personal academic tutors would make these students visible and allow their progress to be tracked. Providing direct entrants with pre-term communications, including module options, progression pathways, and summaries of previous year’s content can help them feel prepared and settle into their studies more smoothly.

    Building on this, tailored inductions that acknowledge the unique needs of these students could build confidence, social connections, and a sense of belonging from day one. Peer mentoring schemes, where current direct entrants support newcomers, offer practical advice and reassurance, helping to reduce isolation and bridge cultural gaps between FE and HE. Such interventions align with the white paper’s recommendations for smoother progression routes and closer collaboration between colleges and universities.

    Despite ongoing financial pressures universities are facing, these interventions are cost-effective and achievable. They build on systems universities already have and simply require adaption to ensure direct entrant students are recognised and supported. By adjusting structures, communication, and support to fit the students, rather than expecting students to adapt to rigid systems, universities can improve outcomes, retention, and overall experience for a cohort too often unseen.

    With application numbers falling across many institutions, universities have every incentive to recognise and strengthen all routes into university. Lower than expected recruitment is already widely forecast to leave many providers facing deficits. This makes it even more urgent to ensure that direct entrants are visible and well supported. There is a clear need to reduce barriers between courses and levels, and in doing so strengthen non-traditional pathways while enhancing attainment, continuation and overall student experience, especially at a time when these metrics are under such close scrutiny.

    A test of our priorities

    Universities often say they want to support all students to succeed, but direct entrants put that promise to the test. They represent the diversity of routes into higher education, and as policymakers push universities to show real improvement in outcomes and participation, their experiences highlight whether commitments to inclusion are actually being delivered in practice. When I started my career in student engagement, I noticed the same gaps in practice. These gaps were not the result of the institution trying to be exclusive, but rather blind spots built into processes designed for first year students.

    Recent work from Student Minds highlights the need for institutions to adapt to their students, rather than expecting students to assimilate into complex, inflexible structures. To achieve true inclusion, universities must reconsider their practices, ensuring every student, regardless of entry point, can transition smoothly into both learning community.

    If universities fail to do so, the white paper’s vision of flexible, module pathways and integrated tertiary provision risks remaining theoretical rather than practical. If we are serious about building systems that work for all students, direct entrant students can no longer remain invisible.

    Source link

  • Widely used but barely trusted: understanding student perceptions on the use of generative AI in higher education

    Widely used but barely trusted: understanding student perceptions on the use of generative AI in higher education

    by Carmen Cabrera and Ruth Neville

    Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools are rapidly transforming how university students learn, create and engage with knowledge. Powered by techniques such as neural network algorithms, these tools generate new content, including text, tables, computer code, images, audio and video, by learning patterns from existing data. The outputs are usually characterised by their close resemblance to human-generated content. While GAI shows great promise to improve the learning experience in various disciplines, its growing uptake also raises concerns about misuse, over-reliance and more generally, its impact on the learning process. In response, multiple UK HE institutions have issued guidance outlining acceptable use and warning against breaches of academic integrity. However, discussions about the role of GAI in the HE learning process have been led mostly by educators and institutions, and less attention has been given to how students perceive and use GAI.

    Our recent study, published in Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, helps to address this gap by bringing student perspectives into the discussion. Drawing on a survey conducted in early 2024 with 132 undergraduate students from six UK universities, the study reveals an impactful paradox. Students are using GAI tools widely, and expect their use to increase, yet fewer than 25% regard its outputs as reliable. High levels of use therefore coexist with low levels of trust.

    Using GAI without trusting it

    At first glance, the widespread use of GAI among students might be taken as a sign of growing confidence in these tools. Yet, when students are asked about their perceptions on the reliability of GAI outputs, many express disagreement when asked if GAI could be considered a reliable source of knowledge. This apparent contradiction raises the question of why are students still using tools they do not fully trust? The answer lies in the convenience of GAI. Students are not necessarily using GAI because they believe it is accurate. They are using it because it is fast, accessible and can help them get started or work more efficiently. Our study suggests that perceived usefulness may be outweighing the students’ scepticism towards the reliability of outputs, as this scepticism does not seem to be slowing adoption. Nearly all student groups surveyed reported that they expect to continue using generative AI in the future, indicating that low levels of trust are unlikely to deter ongoing or increased use.

    Not all perceptions are equal

    While the “high use – low trust” paradox is evident across student groups, the study also reveals systematic differences in the adoption and perceptions of GAI by gender and by domicile status (UK v international students). Male and international students tend to report higher levels of both past and anticipated future use of GAI tools, and more permissive attitudes towards AI-assisted learning compared to female and UK-domiciled students. These differences should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that some students are more ethical, critical or technologically literate than others. What we are likely seeing are responses to different pressures and contexts shaping how students engage with these tools. Particularly for international students, GAI can help navigate language barriers or unfamiliar academic conventions. In those circumstances, GAI may work as a form of academic support rather than a shortcut. Meanwhile, differences in attitudes by gender reflect wider patterns often observed on academic integrity and risk-taking, where female students often report greater concern about following rules and avoiding sanctions. These findings suggest that students’ engagement with GAI is influenced by their positionality within Higher Education, and not just by their individual attitudes.

    Different interpretations of institutional guidance

    Discrepancies by gender and domicile status go beyond patterns of use and trust, extending to how students interpret institutional guidance on generative AI. Most UK universities now publish policies outlining acceptable and unacceptable uses of GAI in relation to assessment and academic integrity, and typically present these rules as applying uniformly to all students. In practice, as evidenced by our study, students interpret these guidelines differently. UK-domiciled students, especially women, tend to adopt more cautious readings, sometimes treating permitted uses, such as using GAI for initial research or topic overviews, as potential misconduct. International students, by contrast, are more likely to express permissive or uncertain views, even in relation to practices that are more clearly prohibited. Shared rules do not guarantee shared understanding, especially if guidance is ambiguous or unevenly communicated. GAI is evolving faster than University policy, so addressing this unevenness in understanding is an urgent challenge for higher education.

    Where does the ‘problem’ lie?

    Students are navigating rapidly evolving technologies within assessment frameworks that were not designed with GAI in mind. At the same time, they are responding to institutional guidance that is frequently high-level, unevenly communicated and difficult to translate into everyday academic practice. Yet there is a tendency to treat GAI misuse as a problem stemming from individual student behaviour. Our findings point instead to structural and systemic issues shaping how students engage with these tools. From this perspective, variation in student behaviour could reflect the uneven inclusivity of current institutional guidelines. Even when policies are identical for all, the evidence indicates that they are not experienced in the same way across student groups, calling for a need to promote fairness and reduce differential risk at the institutional level.

    These findings also have clear implications for assessment and teaching. Since students are already using GAI widely, assessment design needs to avoid reactive attempts to exclude GAI. A more effective and equitable approach may involve acknowledging GAI use where appropriate, supporting students to engage with it critically and designing learning activities that continue to cultivate critical thinking, judgement and communication skills. In some cases, this may also mean emphasising in-person, discussion-based or applied forms of assessment where GAI offers limited advantage. Equally, digital literacy initiatives need to go beyond technical competence. Students require clearer and more concrete examples of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable use of GAI in specific assessment contexts, as well as opportunities to discuss why these boundaries exist. Without this, institutions risk creating environments in which some students become too cautious in using GAI, while others cross lines they do not fully understand.

    More broadly, policymakers and institutional leaders should avoid assuming a single student response to GAI. As this study shows, engagement with these tools is shaped by gender, educational background, language and structural pressures. Treating the student body as homogeneous risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than addressing them. Public debate about GAI in HE frequently swings between optimism and alarm. This research points to a more grounded reality where students are not blindly trusting AI, but their use of it is increasing, sometimes pragmatically, sometimes under pressure. As GAI systems continue evolving, understanding how students navigate these tools in practice is essential to developing policies, assessments and teaching approaches that are both effective and fair.

    You can find more information in our full research paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13603108.2025.2595453

    Dr Carmen Cabrera is a Lecturer in Geographic Data Science at the Geographic Data Science Lab, within the University of Liverpool’s Department of Geography and Planning. Her areas of expertise are geographic data science, human mobility, network analysis and mathematical modelling. Carmen’s research focuses on developing quantitative frameworks to model and predict human mobility patterns across spatiotemporal scales and population groups, ranging from intraurban commutes to migratory movements. She is particularly interested in establishing methodologies to facilitate the efficient and reliable use of new forms of digital trace data in the study of human movement. Prior to her position as a Lecturer, Carmen completed a BSc and MSc in Physics and Applied Mathematics, specialising in Network Analysis. She then did a PhD at University College London (UCL), focussing on the development of mathematical models of social behaviours in urban areas, against the theoretical backdrop of agglomeration economies. After graduating from her PhD in 2021, she was a Research Fellow in Urban Mobility at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), at UCL, where she currently holds a honorary position.

    Dr Ruth Neville is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), UCL, working at the intersection of Spatial Data Science, Population Geography and Demography. Her PhD research considers the driving forces behind international student mobility into the UK, the susceptibility of student applications to external shocks, and forecasting future trends in applications using machine learning. Ruth has also worked on projects related to human mobility in Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between internal displacement and climate change in the East and Horn of Africa, and displacement of Ukrainian refugees. She has a background in Political Science, Economics and Philosophy, with a particular interest in electoral behaviour.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Emirates Aviation University graduates to feed directly into aviation industry

    Emirates Aviation University graduates to feed directly into aviation industry

    The graduates were conferred by His Highness Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, chairman and chief executive of Emirates Airline and Group, and chancellor of EAU. Addressing the ceremony, he highlighted the growing importance of digitally skilled professionals as the sector undergoes rapid transformation.

    Held at the EAU campus in Dubai, the latest cohort brings the university’s total number of graduates to more than 26,500 – with the institution reporting a 94% employability rate, underlining its role in supporting the aviation industry’s evolving talent pipeline.

    “As the industry enters a new era driven by digital transformation and innovation, the next generation of talent will play a defining role in charting its course,” said Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum.

    “The graduates of EAU embody this momentum in the industry. They are equipped with the insight, resilience, and ambition needed to navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. Their achievements reflect our commitment to supporting an industry that remains vital to the world’s progress and prosperity. We extend our warmest congratulations to this exceptional cohort as they begin their journey into the future of aviation.”

    The ceremony was attended by senior Emirates Group executives, EAU leadership and faculty, alongside graduates’ families and guests, as graduating students celebrated their completion of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees across aviation management, aeronautical engineering, aircraft maintenance engineering, logistics and supply chain management, aviation safety and security, and other key disciplines that support the aviation ecosystem.

    The graduates of EAU embody this momentum in the industry. They are equipped with the insight, resilience, and ambition needed to navigate an increasingly complex global landscape
    His Highness Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Emirates Airline and Group

    “This year’s graduating class reflects the depth of talent nurtured at EAU,” stated Professor Ahmad Al Ali, vice chancellor of EAU.

    “Our programs are developed in close alignment with the evolving needs of the aviation and technology sectors, ensuring our students graduate with industry‑relevant expertise and a forward‑looking mindset,” he added.

    In addition, as part of the Emirates Group, EAU integrates industry exposure into its academic model. In 2025 alone, the Group trained 130 EAU interns, while more than 3,000 students have completed placements at Emirates and dnata over the years, gaining practical industry experience alongside their studies.

    Of the 379 graduates, 296 completed bachelor’s degrees and 83 completed postgraduate qualifications. The cohort included 121 UAE nationalists, with 28 engineering students fully sponsored by Emirates Engineering. 20 students were recognised for outstanding academic performance across disciplines.

    EAU also highlighted its emphasis on experiential learning, with students presenting engineering and artificial intelligence projects through the NextGen Leaders Program and Dubai Airshow 2025, offering exposure at one of the world’s leading aerospace events.

    Founded in 1991, EAU is the education arm of the Emirates Group. It has established itself as the leading university for aviation studies in the region.

    The university offers a comprehensive range of undergraduate, postgraduate, and research programmes in aeronautical engineering, aviation management, logistics and supply management, AI & data science, aviation safety, and aviation security studies. EAU also provides a one-semester internship programme with the Emirates Group for undergraduate students.

    Source link

  • Alterni-TEF, 2026 | Wonkhe

    Alterni-TEF, 2026 | Wonkhe

    The proposal that the Office for Students put out for consultation was that the teaching excellence framework (TEF) will become a rolling, annual, event.

    Every year would see an arbitrary number of providers undergo the rigours (and hefty administration load) of a teaching excellence framework submission – with results released to general joy/despair at some point in the autumn.

    The bad news for fans of medal-based higher education provider assessments is that – pending the outcome of the recent ask-the-sector exercise and another one coming in the summer – we won’t get the first crop of awards until 2028. And even then it’ll just be England.

    No need to wait

    Happily, a little-noticed release of data just before Christmas means that I can run my own UK Alterni-TEF. Despite the absence of TEF for the next two years, OfS still releases the underlying data each year – ostensibly to facilitate the update of the inevitable dashboard (though this year, the revised dashboard is still to come).

    To be clear, this exercise is only tangentially related to what will emerge from the Office for Student’s latest consultation. I’ve very much drawn from the full history of TEF, along similar lines to my previous releases.

    This version of the TEF is (of course) purely data driven. Here’s how it works.

    • I stole the “flags” concept from the original TEF – one standard deviation above the benchmark on each indicator is a single flag[+], two would be a double flag[++] (below the benchmark gives me a single[-] or double[- -] negative flag). I turned these into flag scores for each sub award: [++] is 2, [- -] is minus 2 and so on. This part of the process was made much more enjoyable by the OfS decision to stop publishing standard deviations – I had to calculate them myself from the supplied (at 95%) confidence intervals.
    • If there’s no data for a split metric at a provider, even for just one flag, I threw it out of that competition. If you can’t find your subject at your provider, this is why.
    • For the Student Outcomes sub-award (covering continuation, completion, and progression) three or more positive flags ( or the flag score equivalent of [+++] or above) gives you a gold, three or more negative flags or equivalent gives you a bronze. Otherwise you’re on silver (there’s no “Needs Improvement” in this game, and a happy absence of regulatory consequences)
    • For the Student Experience sub-award, the flag score equivalent of seven or more positive flags lands you a gold, seven or more negative gets you a bronze.
    • Overall, if you get at least one gold (for either Outcomes of Experience) you are gold overall, but if you get at least one bronze you are bronze overall. Otherwise (or if you get one bronze and one gold) you get a silver.
    • There’s different awards for full-time, part-time, and apprenticeship provision. In the old days you’d get your “dominant mode”, here you get a choice (though as above, if there’s no data on even one indicator, you don’t get an award).

    There are multiple overall awards, one for each split metric. To be frank, though I have included overall awards to put in your prospectus (please do not put these awards into your prospectus) the split metrics awards are much more useful given the way in which people in providers actually use TEF to drive internal quality enhancement.

    Because that’s kind of the point of doing this. I’ve said this before, but every time I’ve shown plots like this to people in a higher education provider the response is something along the lines of “ah, I know why that is”. There’s always a story of a particular cohort or group that had a bad time, and this is followed by an explanation as to how things are being (or most often, have been) put right.

    Doing the splits

    In previous years I’ve just done subject TEF, but there’s no reason not to expand what is available to cover the full range of split metrics that turn up in the data. Coverage includes:

    • Overall
    • Subject area (a variant on CAH level 2)
    • ABCs quintile (the association between characteristics OfS dataset)
    • Deprivation quintile (using the relevant variant of IMD)
    • Sex
    • Ethnicity
    • Disability indicator
    • Age on course commencement (in three buckets)
    • Graduate outcomes quintile
    • Level of study (first degree, other undergraduate, UG with PG components)
    • Partnership type (taught in house, or subcontracted out)

    The data as released also purports to contain data on domicile (I couldn’t get this working with my rules above) and “year” which refers to a year of data in each metric. To avoid confusion I haven’t shown these.

    In each case there is different data (and thus different awards) for full time, part time, and apprenticeship provision. It’s worth noting that where there is no data, even for a single indicator, I have not shown that institution as having provision referring to that split. So if you are standing in your department of mathematics wondering why I am suggesting it doesn’t exist the answer is more than likely that there is missing data for one of your indicators.

    Here, then, is a version that lets you compare groups of students within a single institution.

    [Full screen]

    And a version that lets you look at a particular student subgroup for all providers.

    [Full screen]

    For each, if you mouse over an entry in the list at the top, it shows a breakdown by indicator (continuation, completion, progression for student outcomes; six cuts of National Student Survey question group data for student experience) at the bottom. This allows you both to see how the indicator compares against the benchmark, view flag scores (the colours) by indicator, and see how many data points are used in each indicator (the grey bar, showing the denominator).

    More detail

    The Office for Students did briefly consider the idea of a “quality risk register” before it was scrapped in the latest round of changes. In essence, it would have pointed out particular groups of students where an indicator was lower than what was considered normal. To be honest, I didn’t think it would work at a sector level as well as at the level of the individual institution – and I liked the idea of including NSS-derived measures alongside the outcomes (B3) indicators.

    So here’s an alternative view of the same data that allows you to view the underlying TEF indicators for every group (split) we get data for. There’s a filter for split type if you are interested in the differing experience of students across different deprivation quintiles, ethnicities, subjects, or whatever else – but the default view lets you view all sub-groups: a quality risk register of your very own.

    [Full screen]

    Here the size of the blobs show the number of students whose data is included in each group, while the colour shows the TEF flag as a quick way for you to grasp the significance and direction of each finding.

    Understanding the student experience in 2026

    Data like this is the starting point for a series of difficult institutional conversations, made all the harder by two kinds of financial pressure: that faced by students themselves (and affecting the way they are able to engage with higher education) and that faced by providers (a lack of resources, and often staff, to provide supportive interventions).

    There’s no easy way of squaring this circle – if there was, everyone would be doing it. The answers (if there are answers) are likely to be very localised and very individual, so the wide range of splits from institutional data available here will help focus efforts where they are most needed. Larger providers will likely be able to supplement this data with near-realtime learner analytics – for smaller and less established providers releases like this may well be the best available tool for the job.

    More than ever, the sector needs to be supplementing this evidence with ideas and innovations developed by peers. While a great deal of public funding has historically been put into efforts to support the sharing of practice, in recent years (and with a renewed emphasis on competition under the Office for Students in England) the networks and collaborations that used to facilitate this have begun to atrophy.

    Given that this is 2026, there will be a lot of interest in using large language models and similar AI-related technologies to support learning – and it is possible that there are areas of practice where interventions like this might be at use. As with any new technology the hype can often run ahead of the evidence – I’d suggest that Wonkhe’s own Secret Life of Students event (17 March, London) would be a great place to learn from peers and explore what is becoming the state of the art, in ways that do not endanger the benefits of learning and living at a human scale.

    Meanwhile it is ironic that an approach developed as an inarguable data-driven way of spotting “poor quality provision” has data outputs that are so useful in driving enhancement but are completely inadequate for their stated purpose. Whatever comes out of this latest round of changes to the regulation of quality in England we have to hope that data like this continues to be made available to support the reflection that all providers need to be doing.

    Source link

  • UK, Australia and Russia top Indian student deportations: MEA data

    UK, Australia and Russia top Indian student deportations: MEA data

    As per government data, the UK recorded the highest number of Indian student deportations over the past five years, with 170 cases, followed by Australia (114), Russia (82), the US (45), Georgia (17), Ukraine (13), Finland (5), China (4), Egypt (2) and Austria (1).

    In a written response in the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house of parliament, Singh outlined several factors behind immigration authorities’ decisions across countries, most of which related to “violations of visa norms and non-compliance with host country regulations by Indian students”.

    “Entry of Indian students had been denied by foreign immigration authorities on account of their carrying incomplete or inappropriate admission documents of their universities, failing to complete the administrative procedures required for enrolment in the universities, or for being unable to answer basic questions about their chosen field of study in foreign academic institutions,” Singh said, adding that common grounds for deportation included breaches of student visa conditions, such as unauthorised work, illegal business activities, or violations of host-country laws and regulations.

    “Students have also faced deportation by foreign governments for failing to maintain the requisite financial bank balance in countries where they had been studying, for not paying university fees or for being unable to demonstrate adequate financial capacity to support their stay and studies, for having insufficient attendance in classes or for complete withdrawal from the registered academic programs or universities, etc.”

    The data also showed two countries denying entry to Indian students, with the US turning away 62 students over the past year and Kyrgyzstan denying entry to 11 during the same period.

    Embassy officials also visit universities and educational institutions in their jurisdictions to interact with Indian students and student associations and to assess any issue concerning the credibility or quality of courses being pursued
    Kirti Vardhan Singh, MEA

    Just this year, the US revoked visas and terminated the legal status of thousands of international students, with two high-profile deportation cases involving Indian students over their alleged pro-Palestinian advocacy amid the Israel–Gaza war also making headlines. Moreover, between January and May 2025, nearly 1,100 Indians were deported from the North American country due to their “illegal status”.

    While the UK has stepped up action against international students breaching visa rules, with the Home Office now directly warning students via text and email about overstaying, Canada has long faced issues with Indian students entering on fraudulent documents, with dozens investigated for using fake college acceptance letters in 2023.

    High numbers frrom Australia also indicate the impact of the country’s crackdown on cases of fraud and agent misuse, especially from certain states in India, with countries like Russia seeing their universities expel Indian students after “failing to meet curriculum requirements”.

    When asked in parliament about steps to protect Indian students from misleading foreign courses and avoid deportations, Singh said the government gives the issue “high priority” and maintains regular contact with students abroad.

    “Embassy officials also visit universities and educational institutions in their jurisdictions to interact with Indian students and student associations and to assess any issue concerning the credibility or quality of courses being pursued.

    “Several Indian missions also issue formal advisories for Indian students under their jurisdiction aimed towards protecting their interests, welfare and safety in foreign lands,” stated Singh.

    While over 1.8 million Indian students are studying abroad in 2025, MEA data shows that 1.254 million are pursuing higher education and a drop in university-level enrolments abroad from India after three years of growth.

    The US and Canada still remain the countries with the largest number of Indian students, followed by the UK, Australia, Germany, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia.

    Source link

  • Wales stands firm against international fee levy, minister says

    Wales stands firm against international fee levy, minister says

    During a a visit to the University of South Wales’s (USW) Pontypridd campus, Wales’s minister for further an higher education Vikki Howells reaffirmed that the country will not introduce the levy – details of which were set out in last week’s Autumn Budget.

    Instead, Howells reiterated that international students coming to Wales would find a warm welcome. “We want to send a clear message that Wales is open, inclusive, and committed to providing an outstanding student experience,” she said after the visit.

    “International students are an integral part of our higher education community. They not only boost our economy but also bring cultural diversity and global outlooks that benefit all of us. Wales is proud to be a place where students from around the world feel welcome and supported,” said Howells.

    We want to send a clear message that Wales is open, inclusive, and committed to providing an outstanding student experience
    Vikki Howells, member of the Senedd

    Louise Bright, USW’s pro vice-chancellor for enterprise engagement and partnership, added: “Our international students contribute enormously to the life of our universities and of Wales. Their skills, insights and experiences help us create a stronger, more outward-looking and connected nation.”

    Universities Wales said the move underscored the Welsh government’s commitment to supporting international education in Wales.

    It comes just a weeks after Howells recorded a video for international students assuring them that they would find “a place where you’ll truly belong” if they chose Wales as a study destination. The country has been positioning itself as a regional hub for international education – with interest in studying in Wales rising most sharply in Indian and American students.

    According to HESA data, Wales was home to some 27,795 international students in the 2023/24 academic year, with most of those coming from non-EU countries.

    The University of South Wales had the most, with 6,635 international students, followed by Cardiff University with 6,480 and Swansea University with 4,780.

    The international student levy – which will come into force in England in 2028 – has been controversial, with stakeholders warning that it could severely impact international enrolments.

    Large metropolitan universities stand to lose the most money from the policy, which will see a £925-per-student flat fee for all institutions in England with more than 220 international students. The cash raised will be used to fund domestic maintenance grants.

    According to the latest available HESA data, University College London would have to pay the most money – over £25 million – followed by the University of Manchester and the University of Hertfordshire.

    Source link

  • International students missing out under US Early Decision system

    International students missing out under US Early Decision system

    Stakeholders are worried about the Early Decision (ED) system – where students apply early to their first-choice institution and, if admitted, are required to commit to attending. Although admission is not guaranteed, the common practice is that students must ‘lock in’ once accepted and withdraw all other applications, even in different countries.

    But with rising visa denials in Donald Trump’s United States, fears are rising that international students could be at an unfair disadvantage.

    Education consultant Elisabeth Marksteiner, pointed out that even if a student applies for a visa as soon as they have been accepted by an institution, they could be denied in late August, with the semester due to start in early September

    “Suddenly the student has no live applications anywhere in the entire world. There is no plan B – the whole point about ED is it takes out all insurance, effectively,” she told The PIE News.

    “There are some countries where we know it can be 11 months to get a visa appointment… there is no way that you are going to make it.”

    Advice from the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) on ED was updated in August to make it more specific and transparent for parents and school counselors alike.

    “The updates aim to ensure applicants, parents/guardians, and counselors fully understand the implications of an ED commitment under various possible scenarios,” it said.

    The practice has become a popular way for institutions to gauge their enrolment numbers ahead of time. And according to Marksteiner, enforcing binding ED agreements is a low-stakes approach for elite institutions – even if it means some international students won’t be able to take up their place.

    “The people who are most using ED are the ones at the top of the pile. They will always be able to fill their class,” she said.

    The people who are most using ED are the ones at the top of the pile. They will always be able to fill their class
    Elisabeth Marksteiner, education consultant

    ED offers often use complicated wording and “legalese” that, according to Marksteiner, can leave parents and high schoolers feeling uneasy.

    “It seems to me that we have lost effectively our moral compass in holding ED agreements in the way that we do,” she explained.

    In September, Tulane made headlines after it slapped Colorado Academy with a one-year ban on ED applications after one of its students allegedly pulled out of an offer.

    However, some institutions are changing their policies to make sure than non-US applicants do not have to withdraw their applications from other parts of the world.

    Visa delays have been a persistent problem for US higher education institutions under the second Trump administration – part of an “escalating cascade” of attacks on international students, according to an address by Presidents’ Alliance CEO Miriam Feldblum at this week’s PIE Live North America conference in Chicago.

    Since taking office for the second time, President Trump has imposed a travel ban on 19 countries, enforced an immigration crackdown that has affected thousands of international students and suspended visa interviews across the world for several weeks – a move whose effects are still being felt.

    Source link

  • England’s international fee levy under fire after details revealed

    England’s international fee levy under fire after details revealed

    Critics of the policy – now subject to consultation – say the levy will only heap more pressure onto an already creaking higher education network. At present, only England’s universities will be subject to the charge, as the Office for Students, which will manage the charge, only regulates English institutions.

    Official modelling predicts that the change, set to come in from August 2025, will cost universities an annual £330 million. However, under the proposals, each provider will receive an annual allowance to cover their first 220 international students – a move that’s made smaller and specialist institutions breathe a sigh of relief.

    But for larger universities with high numbers of international students, the picture isn’t so rosy.

    Gary Davies, pro vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, told The PIE News the levy would have a detrimental effect on his institution despite being brought in as a flat fee.

    “For us the levy means a cut in funding for the very students the levy proposes to support. It will impact what we can offer in relation to student hardship, careers advice, scholarships for underrepresented students,” he said.

    Diana Beech, director of the Finsbury Institute at City St George’s, said the details of the policy had been “buried in the Treasury’s Red Book” – largely dodging coverage by the mainstream media.

    “This begs the question: why undermine one of the UK’s strongest export sectors without even gaining political credit for it – whether that’s by framing the levy as a tough stance on immigration or as a much-needed boost for disadvantaged students,” she asked.

    “By going about this policy in such a hush-hush way, the levy will simply tax legitimate, highly skilled migration under the radar and heap further pressure on universities already in financial distress. Worse still, fixing it as a flat £925 fee per student risks hitting those institutions least able to absorb the cost, given the lack of price elasticity outside the elite end of the sector.”

    Why undermine one of the UK’s strongest export sectors without even gaining political credit for it?
    Diana Beech, City St George’s

    University Alliance CEO Vanessa Wilson warned the levy risked “denting [the] success story” of UK international education – even if the cash raised would go towards a goo cause like domestic maintenance grants.”

    Wilson said the move would hit universities hard, and pressed for a full assessment of the levy’s effects on higher education institutions before its proposed implementation in 2028.

    “Alongside this, the government must explore further ways to soften the blow for professional and technical universities, such as cutting costly regulation and reviewing their participation in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, which some universities are legally obliged to offer at increasingly expensive contribution rates,” she added. 

    Malcolm Press, president of Universities UK, pointed out that the UK’s international fees are already high. As a result of the proposed levy, he predicted, English universities would either have to reduce cross-subsidies that support teaching and research, or raise international fees further – which could drive down international student numbers and therefore force institutions to reduce domestic places.

    The irony of the levy – which will be used to fund maintenance grants for disadvantaged British students – actually reducing places for home students has been raised before. An analysis by the think tank Public First predicted the levy could shrink domestic places by 135,000.

    Source link