Blog

  • UCL granted extra CAS numbers after exceeding allocation limit

    UCL granted extra CAS numbers after exceeding allocation limit

    Last week, The Guardian reported that hundreds of international students were contacted by UCL after the institution exceeded its allocation of Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) – an electronic document issued by the Home Office and required for student visa applications.

    Students were told they would have to defer their studies to 2026, with many students fearing they’d be left out of pocket, having already spent significant funds on travel and accommodation.

    At the time, the university attributed the issue to an “extraordinary surge in demand”. This week, however, it has apologised for the disruption and assured affected international students that they can now begin their studies at UCL, following the allocation of additional CAS numbers.

    “We wholeheartedly apologise to all those who have been impacted by the recent uncertainty and we are incredibly grateful for their patience. Our teams are now working quickly to contact students directly with updates and support,” said a spokesperson for the university.

    “We also thank the Home Office for working swiftly to assist us in obtaining the additional CAS numbers we requested.”

    The university has offered to pay GBP £1,000 for students to make applications through UK Visa and Immigration’s ‘super priority service’.

    Our teams are now working quickly to contact students directly with updates and support
    UCL spokesperson

    Last week, UCL said it experienced “significantly more applications and acceptances of offers than anticipated” leading to it exceeding the number of CAS allocated by the Home Office. The university’s planning is based on historical data and expected trends, which take account of attrition rates and other factors, a spokesperson told The Guardian.

    UCL has a significant international student body – in 2024/5, the university had a total of 51,793 students, of which 52% were from overseas.

    The institution is expected to be one of the hardest hit institutions by the UK government’s proposed levy on higher education, which could see universities taxed on the income they make from international student fees.

    According to recent analysis from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), the greatest financial losses are expected to fall on major metropolitan universities with high proportions of international students. UCL – which derives 79% of its tuition fee income from non-UK students – could face losses of up to £42 million.

     

    Source link

  • Notes on Research Policy, Here and Abroad

    Notes on Research Policy, Here and Abroad

    Hi all. I thought I would take some time to have a chat about how research policy is evolving in other countries, because I think there are some lessons we need to learn here in Canada.

    One piece of news that struck me this week came from Switzerland, where the federal government is slashing the budget of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) by 20%. If the Swiss, a technological powerhouse of a nation, with a broad left-right coalition in power and a more or less balanced budget, are cutting back on science like this, then we might all have to re-think the idea that being anti-Science is just a manifestation of right-wing populism. Higher education as a whole has some thinking to do.

    And right now, two countries are in fact re-thinking science quite a bit. In the UK, the new head of UK Research and Innovation (roughly, that country’s One Big Granting Council), has told institutions that they might need to start “doing fewer things but doing them well”, to which the President of Universities UK and vice-chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University Malcom-Press added that he was “hearing from government is that [they] don’t want to be investing in areas of research where we don’t have the quality and we don’t have the scale.” And, the kicker: “You can’t have hobbyist research that’s unfunded going on in institutions. We can’t afford it.”

    Over to Australia, where a few months ago the government set up a Strategic Examination of Research and Development, which released a discussion paper, held consultations and got feedback (which it published) and has now released six more “issue” papers for consultation which detail government thinking in many different and more detailed ways. If this sounds magical to you, it is because you are from Canada, where the standard practice for policymaking is to do everything behind closed doors and treat stakeholders like mushrooms (in the dark with only fecal matter for company) instead of a place where policy-making is treated as a serious endeavour in which public input and expert advice is welcomed. 

    For today’s purposes however, what matters is not process but policy. The review is seriously considering a number of fairly radical ideas, such as creating a few national “focus areas” for research funding, which would attract higher rates of overhead and requiring institutions to focus their efforts in one of these priority areas via mission-based compacts (which are sort of like Ontario’s Multi-Year Agreements, only they are meaningful) so as to build scale and specialization. 

    Whew.

    One thing that strikes me as odd about both the UK and Australian line of thinking is the idea that institutional specialization matters all that much. While lots of research is done at the level of the individual lab, most “big science” – the stuff people who dream about specialization have in mind when the talk about science – happens in teams which span many institutions, and more often than not across national borders as well. I get the sense that the phenomenon of institutional rankings have fried policy makers’ brains somewhat: they seem to think that the correct way to think about science is at the level of the institution, rather than labs or networks of laboratories. It’s kind of bananas. We can be glad that this kind of thinking has not infected Canadian policy too much because the network concept is more ingrained here.

    Which brings me to news here at home. 

    The rumour out of Ottawa is that in the next few months (still not clear if this is going to be fall 2025 or Spring 2026) there will be an announcement of a new envelope of money for research. But very definitely not inquiry-driven research. No, this is money which the feds intend to spend as part of the increase in “defence” spending which is supposed to rise to 2% of GDP by 2025-2026 and 5% by 2035. So, the kinds of things it will need to go to will be “security”, likely defined relatively generously. It will be for projects in space, protection of critical infrastructure, resiliency, maybe energy production, etc.  I don’t think this is going to be all about STEM and making widgets – there will be at least some room for social science in these areas and maybe humanities, too, though this seems to me a harder pitch to make. It is not clear from what I have heard if this is going to be one big pie or a series of smaller pies, divided up wither by mission or by existing granting council. But the money does seem to be on its way.

    Now before I go any further, I should point out that I have not heard anyone say that these new research envelopes are actually going to contain new money beyond what was spent in 2024-25.  As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, that would be hard to square with the government’s deficit-fighting commitments.

    In fact, if I had to guess right now, the best-case scenario would be that the Liberals will do this by taking some or all of the 88% of the Budget 2024 research commitment to the tri-councils and push it into these new envelopes (worst-case scenario: they nuke the 88% of the 2024 Budget commitment they haven’t yet spent and claw back money from existing commitments to make these new envelopes). 

    So, obviously no push here for institutional specialization, but where our debate echoes those of the UK and Australia is that all three governments seem to want to shift away from broad-based calls for inquiry driven research and toward more mission-based research in some vaguely defined areas of national priority.  I know this is going to irritate and anger many people, but genuinely I don’t see many politically practical alternatives right now. As I said back here: if defending existing inquiry-driven tri-council budgets is the hill the sector chooses to die on, we’re all going to be in big trouble. 

    No one will forcing individual researchers or institutions to be part of this shift to mission-driven research, but clearly that’s where the money is going to be. So, my advice to VPs Research is: get your ducks in a row on this now. Figure out who in your institution does anything that can even tangentially be referred to as “security-enhancing”. Figure out what kinds of pitches you might want to make.  Start testing your elevator pitches. There will be rewards to first movers in this area.

    Source link

  • A decade of giving teens the last word

    A decade of giving teens the last word

    They are important not only for the students writing these stories but for teens all over the world reading or listening to these stories. They see their own anxieties and concerns reflected.

    As managing director at News Decoder, Maria Krasinski has seen how empowering personal reflection stories are when published. 

    “These stories build students’ self-awareness, confidence and empathy,” Krasinski said. “Seeing their stories published is an empowering act that validates their lived experiences and tells them that their voices are worth being heard.”

    She said that what News Decoder does is ask students to pause, analyze and articulate what they learned from an experience. “That creative process strengthens not only their storytelling skills, but also their ability to make sense of the world and step into public conversation,” she said. 

    A decade of publishing student stories

    News Decoder has been doing this for 10 years. Some of the first stories we published were personal reflections sent in by students.

    Back in May 2016, a high school student studying for a year in France wrote a personal reflection article after having encountered a number of her peers from Turkey at a conference in Luxembourg. During the conference they learned that a suicide bomber had killed three people in Istanbul.

    “I can’t even begin to imagine the heartbreak and panic they felt when they found out,” she wrote. 

    She then explored the concept of senseless violence:

    “I’m afraid that I’m beginning to become desensitized to the tragedies that strike all around the world,” she wrote. “When I got home from the conference and brought up the topic of the Turkish bombings, my host mom asked me how that news was different from any other day’s news, and then asked me to pass the pepper.”

    Students reach profound conclusions.

    In the article, she worked through her complicated thoughts and feelings and came to this conclusion: 

    “If we allow ourselves to be desensitized to all the bad, the good will stop motivating us as well.”

    Back in 2017, News Decoder’s founder Nelson Graves wrote that students make use of the News Decoder platform to make their voices heard. 

    “News-Decoder offers students a chance to put their best foot forward, to push the envelope, to confront different viewpoints and to work with professional correspondents,” he said. 

    For 10 years News Decoder has used storytelling to engage students in the process of learning. Through our educational programs, students are encouraged to ask big questions, identify problems they see around them and talk to people to get their questions answered — classmates, neighbours, family and experts.

    All the while, we ask students to compare their lived experiences and the problems they see around them, with what is happening elsewhere in the world. If they see inequities in their communities, how does that manifest in other countries? In doing this, they find out how connected they are to all the people seeing and experiencing these same problems. 

    Seeing the world through a global lens

    Amina McCauley is program manager for News Decoder’s EYES project — Empowering Youth Through Environmental Storytelling. She said that the global connection is important.

    “I think that young people rarely get the chance to articulate their values in a global context,” McCauley said. “Writing a personal reflection allows them to understand themselves better through this different lens.”

    The empowerment comes when they master the art of communicating what they learn to the wider world. 

    We want News Decoder students, and anyone we work with, to be able to respond when they hear or see something they think is wrong, but to be able to do so not just quickly but thoughtfully. 

    We’d like you to join our network and help us do that. If you are a teacher or school administrator, explore our school programs and consider bringing us into your schools. If you are a journalist consider donating articles and time to engage with students across the world. And if you have the means, consider donating funds to our nonprofit. 

    Why should ignorant people and bullies have the last word? 

    Source link

  • Week In Review: Mental health grants return and FCC rolls back E-rate expansion

    Week In Review: Mental health grants return and FCC rolls back E-rate expansion

    We’re rounding up last week’s news, from the government shutdown’s impact on schools to differentiated teacher compensation.

    Source link

  • Tapping Alumni to Be Career Mentors for Students

    Tapping Alumni to Be Career Mentors for Students

    For students at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, alumni mentors are becoming embedded in their experience. A recently launched mentorship program pairs each rising junior with a graduate from the college to provide advice and encouragement as they finish their last two years of college.

    The initiative, part of Gettysburg’s reimagining of career development, helps students build a professional network before they leave college and hopefully eases the transition into life after graduation, said Billy Ferrell, director of external relations in Gettysburg’s Center for Career Engagement.

    What’s the need: Professional mentors can be an asset for early-career professionals, offering insights into navigating the workforce and their specific industry, as well as personal support and encouragement. But a majority of Americans say they don’t have a mentor, according to a 2023 survey by the University of Phoenix, and one-third of respondents said a lack of mentorship has held them back in their careers.

    Within higher education, many students are asking their institutions for assistance in identifying role models.

    A spring 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found that 29 percent of students believe their college or university should focus more on connecting students to alumni and other potential mentors. And a 2023 student survey found that 45 percent of students think their career center should help them find a professional mentor.

    However, only a fraction of students have participated in a formal mentoring program, either through their college or outside the institution, according to a 2021 survey by Inside Higher Ed.

    How it works: Gettysburg’s Alumni Mentoring Program launched this fall with the Class of 2027, who coincidentally were the first class to participate in the college’s guided co-curricular pathways, Ferrell said.

    Students could opt to add an alumni mentor to their advising team, which already includes a faculty adviser, career adviser and co-curricular adviser, who coaches students on their pathway. Alumni advising is focused on the student’s career but could include job exploration, the postcollege transition, networking and industry-specific trends, Ferrell said.

    The goal is for students to learn “real world” skills to navigate life after college, according to the college’s website.

    Students will meet with their mentor at least once a month starting in October and conclude in March, Ferrell said.

    Gettysburg recruited mentors through email campaigns, social media posts and the alumni magazine, Ferrell said. Interested alumni signed up through connectGettysburg, the college’s career networking platform, and completed a short intake survey. Students completed a similar questionnaire and a computer algorithm made the mentor match, Ferrell said.

    Mentors participated in an online training module to prepare them to take on an advising role. Additionally, the college established a handbook for mentor pairs to outline expectations for the relationship and offer topical sessions for students to choose from to guide conversations with mentors.

    These resources can address a common barrier to mentorship for students: a lack of awareness of what the relationship entails. A 2021 survey by Inside Higher Ed found that among students who lacked a mentor, 45 percent didn’t know what they would ask a mentor and 27 percent didn’t know what they would do with one.

    What’s next: Eighty-one juniors and alumni are participating in the initial program, and Gettysburg will survey students and alumni throughout the term to gauge the effectiveness of the initiative and ensure students are getting the kind of support they’re looking for, Ferrell said.

    Next year, Gettysburg will expand the program to junior and senior-level students.

    Source link

  • ED Pushes Workforce Readiness as a Priority

    ED Pushes Workforce Readiness as a Priority

    The U.S. Department of Education is doubling down on its emphasis on workforce development. Education Secretary Linda McMahon recently proposed adding career pathways and workforce readiness to her list of priorities for discretionary grant funding, possibly guiding how the department spends billions of dollars.

    “After four years of the Biden Administration pedaling [sic] divisive ideology and racial preferencing, the Trump Administration will prioritize discretionary grants to education programs that actually improve student outcomes by using evidence-based strategies for instruction and creating pathways to high-demand fields,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement late last month. “The department looks forward to empowering states to close achievement gaps and align education with the evolving needs of the workforce.”

    McMahon’s plan would channel federal funds toward efforts to align workforce-development programs with state economic priorities. The department proposed supporting projects dedicated to identifying and promoting strong industry-recognized credentials, building tools for students to compare costs and earnings of different educational pathways and growing work-based learning opportunities, like apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships. It also encouraged support for skilled trades and the development of talent marketplaces, digital platforms run by states to connect job seekers and potential employers based on skills.

    “For decades, the dominant ‘college for all’ narrative has led to a narrow focus that often leaves students with degrees and debt but limited job prospects,” the grant priority proposal reads. “By expanding the range of options so that a broader array of education providers can access existing funding in a manner that aligns outcomes with the demands of today’s workforce, the government can foster both economic mobility for students and sustained competitiveness for the nation.”

    McMahon has named other grant priorities since becoming secretary as well, including mathematics education, evidence-based literacy education, education choice, patriotic education and returning education to the states. The Education Department takes its priorities into account and can give them extra weight when approving discretionary grant awards.

    The department’s workforce-readiness proposal mirrors other plans from the Trump administration to put workforce development center stage. An April executive order, for example, charged federal officials with better addressing the nation’s workforce needs, including by reaching, and surpassing, one million new active apprenticeships. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July, established workforce Pell, allowing Pell Grants, starting next year, to flow to low-income students in short-term programs.

    The Department of Labor also came out with a report outlining “America’s talent strategy” in August and is moving forward with a controversial interagency agreement with the Department of Education for a more “coordinated federal education and workforce system.” (The agreement would move administration of career and technical education programs to the DOL.)

    Education and workforce advocates say the new grant priority—open for public comment until Oct. 27—is a welcome win for causes they’ve long championed, but their celebration is tempered by some questions and concerns. Some argue ED’s workforce goals could be disrupted by other Trump administration policies. Others worry the department’s focus on nondegree pathways could lead to an underinvestment in traditional higher ed. And while some are cautiously optimistic about the proposed plan, they’re waiting to see how it works in practice.

    “When we look at this functionally, in theory, all of this looks like things that we like,” said Jennifer Stiddard, senior director of government affairs for Jobs for the Future, an organization focused on the intersection between education and the workforce. “Career-connected learning … creating better pathways for students, creating better opportunities to learn about careers—these are all things that are included in here. Where we always have pause is understanding how all of this is going to be applied.”

    Hopes and Worries

    The proposal has sparked hope for workforce development wonks, as some of their long-held goals are becoming national priorities.

    Erica Cuevas, director of education policy at Jobs for the Future, said she’s still reviewing the grant priority language, but she’s heartened to see the administration using its “bully pulpit and its discretionary grant authority to promote career-connected learning within the broader K–12 educational ecosystem,” beyond career and technical education programs, which reach a limited number of students.

    Katie Spiker, chief of federal affairs for the National Skills Coalition, a research and advocacy organization focused on workforce training, said it’s clear the Education Department is focused on aligning education offerings with workforce needs, fostering industry partnerships and expanding work-based learning opportunities. She also applauded the department for its focus on forging connections between high school programs, apprenticeships and other workforce development programs, which “really reflects how the work is done on the ground,” as a “holistic effort across education and workforce.”

    But she also worries that the Trump administration is simultaneously pushing policies that don’t serve these goals. For example, the president’s budget for fiscal year 2026 proposed zeroing out funding for adult education, which she views as critical for training adults in basic skills so they can fill workforce gaps.

    “The funding conversations and the massive shifts and reductions in investments that we’ve seen both from the House appropriations process and from the president’s budget request are really incongruent with these important priorities that they’re setting out in this document,” Spiker said.

    She also emphasized that the proposed grant priority doesn’t put any focus on “reaching and engaging with communities that have not traditionally had access” to certain high-demand jobs, including women, communities of color and workers with disabilities. She believes filling workforce shortages will require actively recruiting, and building up supports for, workers underrepresented in industries with workforce gaps.

    Businesses “are scrambling to try and build broader pipelines of folks, both because of job openings that they have today, as well as those that they are projecting for next year, five years from now and into the future,” Spiker said.

    In a similar vein, Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said she found it “frustrating” that McMahon’s announcement of the grant priority described workforce readiness and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as at odds.

    “We know that employers are insisting that their employees be able to speak across differences, work in diverse teams and engage in cross-cultural understanding,” based on surveys AAC&U conducts with employers, Pasquerella said.

    She supports aligning education programs with workforce needs and offering students more experiential learning opportunities. But she believes liberal arts education is also a part of training students for the workforce and fears such offerings could be sidelined in the department’s vision for supporting workforce readiness.

    “The risk is always that if we focus too narrowly on career preparation—without recognizing that career preparation must involve skills, competencies and dispositions central to a liberal education—that we will have a group of students who are narrowly technically trained without the capacity to grapple with the grand challenges that will confront us in the future,” she said. “We shouldn’t create a false dichotomy between career preparation and liberal education.”

    John Colborn, executive director of Apprenticeships for America, believes the proposed grant priority is over all a “positive development” for learners.

    “I think it brings some more balance to the educational enterprise, which has been overwhelmingly focused on getting everyone into college,” he said. “I think we’ve realized the limitations of that particular approach.”

    But while he favors exposing K–12 students to a broader range of career pathways, including apprenticeships, he also wants to make sure career-focused programs prepare students for both careers and college. He said one of the problems with vocational training in high schools in the past was that students too often were “constrained into a particular pathway.”

    “We don’t want to go down that road or repeat some of those mistakes,” he said.

    He noted that the partnership between the Education Department and the Department of Labor raises these types of concerns, because the DOL has less of an academic focus. But he believes stronger ties between the agencies is a net positive.

    The long-term effects of the proposal, and other workforce-development plans, “is really going to turn on whether or not that nuance can be represented in the grant making and priority setting for the department,” Colborn said.

    Source link

  • Colleges Must Pursue All Legal Paths for Diversity (opinion)

    Colleges Must Pursue All Legal Paths for Diversity (opinion)

    Two years ago, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to opportunity in America when it gutted access to higher education for underrepresented groups. That decision was not only legally misguided but also turned a blind eye to the deep inequities that have long shaped our education system. Our colleges and universities scrambled to find lawful tools to ensure that their student bodies still reflected the breadth of talent and promise in this country.

    One of those tools was Landscape, a program recently canceled by the College Board that gave admissions officers data about a student’s high school and neighborhood while explicitly excluding race or ethnicity.

    Standardized test scores and GPAs never tell the whole story. Median family income, access to Advanced Placement courses, local crime rates and other key indicators help admissions officers see the full picture and provide crucial context to help identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged communities. These are students whom universities might otherwise overlook. Tools that give context level the playing field—not by lowering standards, but by lifting students up according to their merit and the obstacles they have overcome.

    The Supreme Court, even in striking down diversity initiatives, still made clear that universities could explore race-neutral alternatives to achieve equity. The use of socioeconomic and geographic factors is exactly such an alternative. Despite U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s recent nonbinding guidance warning against the use of geographic indicators as “proxies” for race, make no mistake: Abandoning consideration of these elements of an applicant’s background is not a legal requirement but a political choice, reflecting fear rather than courage.

    Without tools that account for the barriers students face, colleges will fall back on practices that overwhelmingly favor the privileged, shutting out low-income and first-generation students who have already beaten the odds. This spoils opportunity for millions, and our campuses and our nation will suffer for it. Diversity is not a box to check; it is a vital engine of education and democracy. Classrooms that bring together students from different walks of life prepare all graduates to lead a diverse society, foster innovation and strengthen our communities.

    We cannot allow the Supreme Court’s decision—and the chilling effect in its wake—to undo decades of progress. And we cannot allow educational institutions to abdicate their responsibility in this moment of crisis. The data that provides broader context for applicants remains available, but without the will to use it, too many doors will remain closed for the students who need them most.

    America has always promised to reward hard work and perseverance, no matter where you come from. That promise rings hollow if we allow the wealthy and well connected to monopolize educational opportunity. Colleges and universities must honor that promise by continuing to seek out and support students who have succeeded against the odds. Fairness demands it, equal opportunity requires it and the future of our country depends on it.

    The authors all serve as state attorneys general: New York Attorney General Letitia James, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown.

    Source link

  • Dear DfE… Show Your Workings 

    Dear DfE… Show Your Workings 

    This blog was kindly authored by Mike Crone, a final-year law student at the University of Reading. He is developing a series of blogs, articles and research on public law matters, and the future of higher education policy.

    The Issue 

    You look intently at the assessment mark. 52%. That’s it. No why. No how. Just 52%. The comments read something like: ‘Good structure. Engage more critically’. Two sentences to explain twelve weeks of work. And that number now decides your classification, your next step, maybe your career. 

    In the HEPI and Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey 2025, 58% respondents state that all or most of their teaching staff gave them useful feedback. However, this means that for 42% of respondents, around half, a minority, or none of their teaching staff were providing useful feedback. Similarly, 51% of respondents stated that all or a majority of teaching staff provided feedback on draft work, and 58% stated that all of the majority of their teaching staff gave them more general feedback on progress. While some of these figures are welcome, there is an issue of consistency. Most students are having a positive experience of feedback from most of their teaching staff, however, there are gaps in the system. For example, 14% of students stated that a minority or none of their teaching staff provided them with useful feedback. 

    While these figures have improved over the last five years, the statistics remain concerning. Where useful feedback is lacking, marks may be being awarded without transparent explanation, feedback is often vague, and links to assessment rubrics may be missing or inconsistently applied. Without improvements, students are not consistently being shown how to improve, and even where rubrics are introduced, their effectiveness hinges on clarity, training, and implementation, all of which vary widely. If students question the result, they may often be told it falls under ‘academic judgement’. 

    In a system that demands students explain every idea, quote every claim, and justify every argument, surely institutions should be held to the same standard? 

    This would be concerning at any time. But in 2025, it’s urgent. Ninety-three per cent of students now use generative AI tools in their studies, up from 66 per cent just a year ago, according to the HEPI–Kortext Gen AI Survey. As the Guardian reported, thousands of UK university students were caught cheating using AI in the last academic year. The pressure on universities to modernise assessment and restore student trust has never been greater. 

    And as Rohan SelvaRadov highlighted in his HEPI Policy Note Non-Examinable Content: Student access to exam scripts, most students do not even see their exam scripts. If students cannot access the work being judged, feedback loses almost all its value. Transparency begins with access. Without it, fairness collapses. Rohan’s superb recommendations on page 10 of the Policy Note set the foundations for rectification.  

    The Problem 

    Assessment is the foundation of credibility in higher education. But right now, that foundation is cracking. Markers vary. Some use rubrics carefully. Others rely on instinct. A recent study of programming assignments asked 28 markers to grade the same set of student submissions. The results were wildly inconsistent, and in some criteria, the level of agreement was close to random. Double marking and moderation exist, but they rarely give students clarity. Feedback still often consists of vague phrases like ‘needs depth’ or ‘some repetition’, which give no insight into how the grade was reached. 

    This is not only a pedagogical failure. It raises legal concerns. 

    Under Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, universities must provide services with ‘reasonable care and skill’. If a student receives a grade without explanation, it risks breaching that statutory duty. Schedule 2 of the Act lists examples of unfair terms, many of which could be triggered by provisions in student handbooks or teaching contracts. 

    The Equality Act 2010 goes further. Sections 20 and 21 require universities to make reasonable adjustments where a provision, criterion, or practice places disabled students at a substantial disadvantage. Schedule 13 goes into greater depth surrounding the duties of Higher Education institutes. Vague or unstructured feedback can do exactly that, especially for neurodivergent students who may rely on clarity and structure to improve. Where feedback is not intelligible, impactful, and rubricaligned, universities may be breaching their anticipatory duty under Section 149 as well as the individual duty under Section 20. 

    Meanwhile, the formats we continue to rely on (long essays and highstakes exams) are increasingly misaligned with the world graduates inhabit. Essays reward polish and curriculum style and adherence. Exams reward memory under pressure. Both reward conformity. Neither reflects how people learn and work today, especially in an age of technology and AIsupported thinking. 

    If students are learning differently, thinking differently, and writing differently; why are aren’t we assessing them differently? 

    The Solution 

    The Department for Education (DfE) has the power to act. The Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities appoints the Office for Students (OfS) and sets regulatory priorities. The OfS was designed as a buffer, not a direct arm of government. But if students cannot trust how their futures are decided, then the DfE must ensure the OfS enforces transparency. This does not mean ministers marking essays. It means regulators requiring clear and fair feedback from institutions. 

    First, every summative assessment should include a short, criterion-linked justification. Paragraphs should be labelled according to the rubric. If the student scored a 2:2 in structure and a 1st in analysis, they should be told so clearly and briefly. It would be as easy as colour-coding the marking rubric sections on the rubric table and then highlighting each sentence, paragraph, or particular section as to which colour-coded rubric area it correlates to.  

    Second, from September 2025, Jisc is piloting AI-assisted marking tools like Graide, KEATH and TeacherMatic. These systems generate rubric-matched feedback and highlight inconsistencies. They do not replace human markers. They reveal the thinking behind a mark, or its absence. 

    Pilots should be funded nationally. The results should be made public. If AI improves consistency and transparency, it should be integrated with safeguards and moderation. 

    Third, we need fewer mega-assessments and more micro-assessments. Small, frequent tasks: oral analyses, short-answer applications, real-world simulations, timed practicals. These are harder to cheat, easier to mark, and better at testing what matters: judgement, adaptability, and process. 

    British University Vietnam has already piloted an AI-integrated assessment model with a 33 per cent increase in pass rates and a 5.9 per cent rise in overall attainment. This is not theory. It is happening. But that, precisely, is the concern. A jump in attainment might reflect grade inflation or relaxed calibration rather than increased accuracy. Recent studies complicate the AI narrative: a 2025 study in BMC Medical Education found that while AI systems like ChatGPT-4o and Gemini Flash 1.5 performed well in visually observable OSCE tasks (e.g., catheterisation, injections), they struggled with tasks involving communication or verbal interpretation; areas where nuance matters most. 

    Finally, the OfS registration conditions can be updated to require forensic marking as a basic quality measure. The QAA Quality Code can be revised to mandate ‘outcome-reason mapping’. Institutional risk and satisfaction profiles can include indicators like student trust, misconduct rates, and assessment opacity. 

    It is to be noted that, as per the Competition & Markets Authority’s (CMA) guidance and the case of Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] EWCA Civ 129, if assessment is not transparent, it may not be lawful, and could be left open to judicial challenge. However, it may not be wise to pursue such judicial challenge through an application for judicial review. The precedent set by the case of Clark, subsequent cases thereafter, and the CMA’s guidance, almost closes the door to judicial review. But, in turn, it leaves open the door to a civil action of a possible breach of contract.  

    In conclusion, Dear DfE… please see me after class regarding the above. If students must show their workings, then so must academic institutions, with government support. With the ever-increasing appetite of the population for litigation, it would seem prudent to take pre-emptive action and collaboration to mitigate such risks.  

    Source link

  • Higher Education must help shape how students learn, lead and build the skills employers want most

    Higher Education must help shape how students learn, lead and build the skills employers want most

    For the first time in more than a decade, confidence in the nation’s colleges and universities is rising. Forty-two percent of Americans now say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, up from 36 percent last year.  

    It’s a welcome shift, but it’s certainly not time for institutions to take a victory lap. 

    For years, persistent concerns about rising tuition, student debt and an uncertain job market have led many to question whether college was still worth the cost. Headlines have routinely spotlighted graduates who are underemployed, overwhelmed or unsure how to translate their degrees into careers.  

    With the rapid rise of AI reshaping entry-level hiring, those doubts are only going to intensify. Politicians, pundits and anxious parents are already asking: Why aren’t students better prepared for the real world?  

    But the conversation is broken, and the framing is far too simplistic. The real question isn’t whether college prepares students for careers. It’s how. And the “how” is more complex, personal and misunderstood than most people realize.  

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    What’s missing from this conversation is a clearer understanding of where career preparation actually happens. It’s not confined to the classroom or the career center. It unfolds in the everyday often overlooked experiences that shape how students learn, lead and build confidence.  

    While earning a degree is important, it’s not enough. Students need a better map for navigating college. They need to know from day one that half the value of their experience will come from what they do outside the classroom.  

    To rebuild America’s trust, colleges must point beyond course catalogs and job placement rates. They need to understand how students actually spend their time in college. And they need to understand what those experiences teach them. 

    Ask someone thriving in their career which part of college most shaped their success, and their answer might surprise you. (I had this experience recently at a dinner with a dozen impressive philanthropic, tech and advocacy leaders.) You might expect them to name a major, a key class or an internship. But they’re more likely to mention running the student newspaper, leading a sorority, conducting undergraduate research, serving in student government or joining the debate team.  

    Such activities aren’t extracurriculars. They are career-curriculars. They’re the proving grounds where students build real-world skills, grow professional networks and gain confidence to navigate complexity. But most people don’t discuss these experiences until they’re asked about them.  

    Over time, institutions have created a false divide. The classroom is seen as the domain of learning, and career services is seen as the domain of workforce preparation. But this overlooks an important part of the undergraduate experience: everything in between.  

    The vast middle of campus life — clubs, competitions, mentorship, leadership roles, part-time jobs and collaborative projects — is where learning becomes doing. It’s where students take risks, test ideas and develop the communication, teamwork and problem-solving skills that employers need.  

    This oversight has made career services a stand-in for something much bigger. Career services should serve as an essential safety net for students who didn’t or couldn’t fully engage in campus life, but not as the launchpad we often imagine it to be. 

    Related: OPINION: College is worth it for most students, but its benefits are not equitable 

    We also need to confront a harder truth: Many students enter college assuming success after college is a given. Students are often told that going to college leads to success. They are rarely told, however, what that journey actually requires. They believe knowledge will be poured into them and that jobs will magically appear once the diploma is in hand. And for good reason, we’ve told them as much. 

    But college isn’t a vending machine. You can’t insert tuition and expect a job to roll out. Instead, it’s a platform, a laboratory and a proving ground. It requires students to extract value through effort, initiative and exploration, especially outside the classroom.  

    The credential matters, but it’s not the whole story. A degree can open doors, but it won’t define a career. It’s the skills students build, the relationships they form and the challenges they take on along the way to graduation that shape their future. 

    As more college leaders rightfully focus on the college-to-career transition, colleges must broadcast that while career services plays a helpful role, students themselves are the primary drivers of their future. But to be clear, colleges bear a grave responsibility here. It’s on us to reinforce the idea that learning occurs everywhere on campus, that the most powerful career preparation comes from doing, not just studying. It’s also on us to address college affordability, so that students have the time to participate in campus life, and to ensure that on-campus jobs are meaningful learning experiences.  

    Higher education can’t afford public confidence to dip again. The value of college isn’t missing. We’re just not looking in the right place. 

    Bridget Burns is the founding CEO of the University Innovation Alliance (UIA), a nationally recognized consortium of 19 public research universities driving student success innovation for nearly 600,000 students. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about college experiences was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Chatbots in Higher Education: Benefits, Challenges, and Strategies to Prevent Misuse – Faculty Focus

    Chatbots in Higher Education: Benefits, Challenges, and Strategies to Prevent Misuse – Faculty Focus

    Source link