Blog

  • ensure college grads gain higher incomes

    ensure college grads gain higher incomes

    Seventeen years ago, the Lumina Foundation set out to try to raise the percentage of working-age U.S. adults with a college credential from 38 percent to 60 percent by 2025.

    It didn’t reach that goal, though it was only short a few percentage points; today, 55 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 have a college degree or short-term credential, an increase that Lumina CEO Jamie Merisotis called “one of the most significant but least recognized success stories of the past decade and a half.” 

    But times have changed since 2008, Lumina’s leaders said during a news briefing Monday, and in developing a new goal for the coming 15 years, they chose to focus not only on college attainment, but also on making sure that people’s college degrees help them find success and prosperity in their careers.

    That’s why the foundation’s new goal aims to increase the number of adults in the labor force who have a “credential of value”—meaning they have earned a college credential and now make an income at least 15 percent more than the national average for high school graduates—to 75 percent by 2040. That number lines up with various labor projections, such as a Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce report, released earlier this year, that anticipated that 72 percent of jobs will require postsecondary education or training by the year 2031.

    Lumina’s leaders decided to focus on earnings in large part because of Americans’ lack of confidence in the value of higher education. Polls by Gallup and Lumina have shown that a major reason people don’t think a degree is worth the high cost of attending college is because they don’t believe higher education sets people up well to be successful in the workforce.

    “Our view is that we’ve got to do more to transform higher education workforce systems in order to meet human talent needs, in order to expand economic prosperity for individuals and for families and for communities,” said Merisotis. “Today, we have to make sure higher education literally serves more people better.”

    Currently, only 44.1 percent of the U.S. labor force—which includes members of the military and those who are looking for work—has a college degree or certificate and earns at least 15 percent more than those with just a high school diploma, according to the foundation’s analysis of Census data. Those rates are significantly lower for Native American, Hispanic and Black people, and higher for white and Asian people.

    The foundation laid out four pillars it plans to prioritize to reach that 75 percent goal: continuing to expand access to college, promoting student success and retention, redesigning college and workforce readiness to better support today’s students, and ensuring the credentials students receive do, in fact, pay off.

    Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the education equity nonprofit EdTrust, lauded the foundation for turning its focus to college value—and for providing a definition of what a valuable credential actually is.

    “The return-on-investment piece is under serious scrutiny nationally,” he said. “Including a metric that measures outcome—that measures income as an outcome—pushes folks to think about the return on investment of higher education that I think is a much-needed data point”—though he noted that earning 15 percent more than high school graduates, who made an average of about $38,000 in 2023, seems like “a low bar.”

    (Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning, said at the media briefing that the 15 percent figure was determined in consultation with multiple labor economists.)

    Lumina’s quest to increase credentials of value will be a boon not only to graduates, but also to employers seeking to recruit talent they can trust will have the job skills to succeed in their role, according to Shawn VanDerziel, president and CEO of the National Association of Colleges and Employers. In an email to Inside Higher Ed, he called the project a “worthy goal” and a “win-win” for graduates and employers.

    “The education landscape is changing and how adults are consuming education is changing,” he wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed. “With Lumina’s assistance, I hope we can expand the speed at which our educational institutions can evolve to meet the changing needs of employers and their focus on skills-based hiring.”

    Charles Ansell, vice president for research, policy and advocacy at Complete College America, noted that while he appreciated the foundation’s focus on the value of credentials, he was also happy Lumina hadn’t shifted its focus away from attainment entirely.

    “College attainment is still the best predictor of the higher wage outcomes,” he said. “If you have full-time-student graduation rates hovering in the 20s at best in the community college space … it’s hard to get economic mobility. It’s still extremely important to put that attainment goal itself first and not to lose sight of quantifying that college completion.”

    As for whether the 75 percent goal seems achievable? That’s irrelevant, Ansel argued, because it’s simply what needs to happen to keep the country’s economy and democracy healthy.

    “We should never lie to ourselves about what we need to do,” he said. “I don’t find it unrealistic—it’s what we need to do.”

    Source link

  • The disruptive idea of the university

    The disruptive idea of the university

    by Rob Cuthbert

    “Ideas of the university in the public domain are hopelessly impoverished. ‘Impoverished’ because they are unduly confined to a small range of possible conceptions of the university; and ‘hopelessly’ because they are too often without hope, taking the form of either a hand-wringing over the current state of the university or merely offering a defence of the emerging nature of ‘the entrepreneurial university’.”

    Fifty years on from the Robbins Report, that was how Ron Barnett began Imagining the University in 2013, and it seems that nothing much has changed since then. Stefan Collini had written a much-cited book, What are universities for?, in 2012, which as the Guardian review said (Conrad, 2012) was “heavy on hand-wringing and light on real answers”. Tom Sperlinger, Josie McLellan and Richard Pettigrew wrote Who are universities for? Remaking higher education in 2018, which despite its respectable intentions was more akin to what Barnett called a ‘defence of the emerging nature of the entrepreneurial university’, aiming in the authors’ words to “make UK universities more accessible and responsive to a changing economy.”

    By 2019 Raewyn Connell was taking a rather different tack in The Good University: What Universities Actually Do and Why It’s Time for Radical Change:

    “… what should a ‘good university’ look like? … Raewyn Connell asks us to consider just that, challenging us to rethink the fundamentals of what universities do. Drawing on the examples offered by pioneering universities and educational reformers around the world, Connell outlines a practical vision for how our universities can become both more engaging and more productive places, driven by social good rather than profit, helping to build fairer societies.”

    Simon Marginson and his colleagues in the Centre for Global Higher Education have pursued a broad programme to conceptualise and promote the idea of the public good of higher education, but in his interviews with English university leaders:

    “Nearly all advocated a broad public good role … and provided examples of public outcomes in higher education. However, these concepts lacked clarity, while at the same time the shaping effects of the market were sharply understood.”

    His sad conclusion was that:

    “English policy on the public good outcomes of higher education has been hi-jacked, reworked, and emptied out in Treasury’s long successful drive to implement a fee-based market.”

    This means that everyday pressures too often drive us back to either handwringing or apologetic entrepreneurialism, or some mixture of the two. Even Colin Riordan, one of the most thoughtful of VCs during his tenure at Cardiff, could not break the mould:

    “What are universities for? Everybody knows that universities exist to educate students and help to create a highly educated workforce. Most people know they’re also the place where research is done that ends up in technologies like smartphones, fuel-efficient cars and advanced medical care. That means universities are a critical part of the innovation process.”

    These ideas sell the university short, and leave their leaders and managers ill-equipped to live the values they need to protect.

    We are entering an era when Donald Trump and Elon Musk seem determined to ‘move fast and break things’, as the Facebook motto once had it. Mark Zuckerberg tried to move on ten years ago to “Move fast with stable infrastructure”, but it seems that Elon Musk didn’t get the memo, as the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ cuts huge swathes through and – as it presumably hopes – out of US government. Whether or not DOGE succeeds we will soon discover, but the disregard for stable infrastructure may well prove fatal to its own efforts.

    People would not normally accuse a university of moving fast, but what some might see as an excessive concern for stable infrastructure perhaps conceals the speed at which universities move to break existing ideas and understandings. The pursuit of truth may be an imperfect way to describe the aim of the university, but as an academic motivation it suffices to explain how one way of understanding will sometimes rapidly give way to another. Yes, we know that some paradigms hang on doggedly, often supported long past their sell-by date by academics with too much invested in them. But usually and eventually, often more suddenly, the truth will out.

    How can universities best protect their distinctive quality, of encouraging open-minded teaching and research which will create the most favourable conditions for learning, individually and collectively? Strategies and academic values have their place, they might even constitute the stable infrastructure that is needed for a university to flourish. But the infrastructure needs to be built on a simple idea which everyone can comprehend. And that simple idea has to be infinitely flexible while staying perpetually relevant – here is one I prepared earlier:

    “Many people can’t shake off the idea that management in higher education is or at least it should be about having clear objectives, and working out what to do through systematic analysis and ‘cascading’ objectives down through the organisation. They want to see the university as a rational machine, and the manager as a production controller, because Western scientistic culture has encouraged them to think that way.

    The best way to deal with that way of thinking is to agree with it. You say: yes, we must focus on our key objective. In teaching our key objective is personal learning, development and growth for students, a process which cannot be well specified in advance. In research our key objective is the generation of new knowledge. So in higher education the key objective in each of our two main activities is the generation of unpredictable outcomes. Now please tell me what your key performance indicators will be.”[1]

    The fundamental test of performance for a university is that it generates unpredictable outcomes. An infinitely flexible, endlessly relevant idea that everyone can understand – and always disruptive. That is why higher education matters – not just training students for the economy, not just innovation in research for economic growth. Universities need to keep generating unpredictable outcomes because that is their unique function as open public institutions, and that is what their wider society needs and deserves.

    Rob Cuthbert is editor of SRHE News and the SRHE Blog, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics. Email rob.cuthbert@uwe.ac.uk. Twitter/X @RobCuthbert.

    [1] Text taken from inaugural professorial lecture; Rob Cuthbert, 7 November 2007

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • AGB leader resigns abruptly after six months

    AGB leader resigns abruptly after six months

    Less than a year into the job, Framroze Virjee is out as president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Virjee retired, a decision that was effective Saturday, according to an email from Ross Mugler, chair of AGB’s Board of Directors, who has been tapped as acting president and CEO.

    “Fram shared that after working diligently to further the organization’s mission, he determined that the president/CEO role at AGB did not align operationally with his personal and professional goals, and he decided to step down from the organization. The AGB Board of Directors accepted his resignation and offered its appreciation for his accomplishments during his tenure,” Mugler wrote in a Monday email.

    In a message to AGB staff, Virjee wrote, “This was a difficult decision and not one that I made casually, but instead only after careful consideration and thought. As I leave AGB, I remain committed to its mission of supporting excellence in board governance and leadership and remain dedicated to the value of higher education in the lives of students, our communities, and our nation.”

    Virjee, president emeritus of California State University, Fullerton, formally started in mid-August after his predecessor, former AGB president and CEO Henry Stoever, resigned amid plagiarism allegations in late 2023.

    AGB did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed on Monday about Virjee’s sudden exit, but the organization’s website has been updated to reflect the leadership change.

    “As a result of this announcement, I have agreed to serve as acting president and CEO while the AGB Board of Directors finalizes details regarding new leadership,” Mugler wrote Monday.

    Mugler recently retired as commissioner of the revenue for Hampton, Va., a post he held for more than three decades. Mugler has been on AGB’s board since 2018 and was appointed five times to Old Dominion University’s Board of Visitors.

    Source link

  • Findlay, Bluffton merger called off

    Findlay, Bluffton merger called off

    Almost a year after the University of Findlay and Bluffton University publicly shared plans to merge, the deal is off, both institutions announced last week, citing various challenges.

    The University of Findlay, the larger and financially stronger of the two private, religiously affiliated institutions in northwest Ohio, was the one to call off the merger. Its Board of Trustees voted last week not to move forward with the plan, according to a statement from the university.

    “Some higher education organizations may find mergers the best path forward,” University of Findlay president Katherine Fell said in the statement announcing the decision. “For us, due diligence in this case has demonstrated that partnering in key ways is a better solution.”

    A Sudden Change of Plans

    Sticking points on the deal were college athletics and, relatedly, financial aid.

    When the merger plan was initially announced, both institutions intended to combine operations but maintain certain elements of their identities. For example, Findlay would remain affiliated with the Churches of God, General Conference, and Bluffton would stay with Mennonite Church U.S. Athletics would also stay separate; Findlay planned to compete as the Oilers at the NCAA Division II level, while Bluffton would continue in the NCAA’s Division III under the Beavers moniker.

    But that proved difficult, according to Findlay’s statement, which noted that regulations require a separate process for financial aid distribution “and prohibit the sharing of resources and sports facilities, resulting in fewer synergies in those areas than originally anticipated.”

    The statement said that Findlay will continue to seek strategic partnerships. Asked for more information, Fell told Inside Higher Ed by email that “while Findlay is open to continuing these types of collaborations with Bluffton, we extend that potential for collaboration to other higher education institutions that are looking for creative ways to engage and serve students, employees, and stakeholders.”

    A Bluffton spokesperson said by email that the two universities “do not have any type of formal partnership in the works at this time.”

    In their own statement on the deal being called off, Bluffton officials noted that the due diligence process was beneficial in helping the university move forward, even though the merger did not come to fruition despite a year of work.

    “While the outcome of this vote was not within Bluffton University’s control, we remain confident, optimistic and steadfast in our commitment to the future of our institution,” Cheryl Hacker, chair of the Bluffton University Board of Trustees, said in a statement issued last week.

    Though she acknowledged feeling “a moment of disappointment” in the failed merger, Hacker added that Bluffton “continues to be financially stable, strategically independent, and well-prepared for the future.”

    The move to drop the merger was unexpected; a frequently asked questions page on Bluffton’s website said that the university was “shocked and disappointed by this change in direction.”

    The FAQ page also noted that “Bluffton University is not privy of [sic] the reasoning behind the decision.”

    As Bluffton moves forward in the aftermath of the aborted plan, it will do so without President Jane Wood: she resigned Wednesday, the same day Findlay’s board voted down the merger.

    Financial Imbalance

    On paper, Findlay is the stronger of the two institutions.

    Its endowment was valued at $67.8 million in the latest publicly available audit. Findlay has also stayed in the black, operating with positive revenues generated during its last 10 fiscal years.

    Bluffton’s endowment was valued at $29.3 million in the latest publicly available audit, down from $37.6 million in the previous fiscal year. It has operated at a loss in six of the last 10 fiscal years.

    In terms of enrollment, Findlay is much larger, reporting a head count of 5,057 students in fall 2023, compared to 678 for Bluffton, federal data shows.

    What’s Next?

    Despite the abrupt change of plans, Bluffton officials have sought to dispel speculation that closure is imminent, noting on the FAQ page that it has “a solid foundation, and is well-prepared for future growth and success.”

    Not long ago, both institutions seemed fully on board with the merger.

    In a FutureU podcast interview recorded in January and published last week, the presidents of both universities appeared committed to moving forward, but they noted various frustrations with the effort—particularly the glacial process, which both leaders said they wanted to speed up.

    “We believe in this merger,” Fell said at the time. She noted in the podcast that the two universities were “already setting up shared services, which are going to benefit us tremendously.”

    In her email to Inside Higher Ed, Fell wrote that the two universities “have collaborated to share guest speakers, cover sabbatical leave, offer additional course options for students, fill low-enrolled course sections, host events for our local communities and provide students with joint cross-cultural experiences.” At the same time, she noted, the two institutions have “explored cost sharing of administrative services but have not yet implemented those.”

    On the podcast, Fell expressed impatience with the change of control required for a merger, noting “frustrations embedded in the process,” which could take from 18 months to three years to complete, limiting what the two institutions could achieve before approval. She added the process “will certainly cost us a few hundred thousand [dollars]” but “we have had good fortune in having internal grants and funding sources” to aid with merger costs.

    “There is reason for frustration—not blame,” Fell said on the podcast.

    The proposed merger between Findlay and Bluffton isn’t the only partnership to fall apart in recent years—even in the state of Ohio.

    Last year Notre Dame College, a private Catholic institution, announced it was closing after the strategic partnership it sought with the much larger, public Cleveland State University never materialized.

    Elsewhere, in 2023, Trocaire College scuttled its planned acquisition of nearby Medaille University, in Buffalo, N.Y., leading Medaille to announce its closure the very next week.

    Some colleges have managed to survive independently after reversing course, including the Portland, Ore.-based National University of Natural Medicine and Seattle’s Bastyr University, which called off merger plans in late 2023.

    Source link

  • Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    While much of the now-infamous Valentine’s Day Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was vague and void of specific information, the following sentence was crystal clear:

    “The Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date, including antidiscrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funding.”

    Despite the letter’s clear language to the contrary, higher education leaders and the media (including the higher ed press) did the math and declared Feb. 28 “deadline day” for diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education. “Deadline day,” read one story. “The clock is running out,” claimed another. An Associated Press story ran with the lead “Schools and colleges across the U.S. face a Friday deadline to end diversity programs or risk having their federal money pulled.” What ensued was a self-made crisis characterized by spirited debates and ill-advised anticipatory compliance with the yet-to-be-announced changes to enforcement of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Seasoned veterans knew better. The most likely “next step” indicated by the department was presumed to be further communication from OCR about the “measures to assess compliance” that were promised in the letter.

    And that is exactly what happened. On March 1, the department issued a press release and FAQ document elaborating on the Dear Colleague letter. The FAQ elaborates on the new administration’s intention to use a novel and expansive interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard, an admissions case in which Chief Justice John Roberts opined that diversity-related goals within higher education can be “commendable” and “plainly worthy.” It answers questions about how the department will receive complaints. In short, the department did exactly what it stated it would do within the 14-day timeline. The so-called deadline was a chimera, an artifact of the confusion and fear created by the letter’s politically charged context and lack of specificity.

    While it leaves many key questions unanswered, the FAQ does favorably settle several unclear points raised by the Dear Colleague letter.

    Question 8 asks, “Are Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs unlawful under SFFA?” The answer is no. Only if those programs discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin do they violate the law. The answer further clarifies what we have known all along: “Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’” The department declares in unambiguous language that it cannot deem certain words “illegal,” nor are phrases such as “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion” or “belonging” a violation of nondiscrimination obligations.

    Question 9 asks, “Does this mean that students, teachers, and school employees may not discuss topics related to race or DEI under Title VI?” Again, the answer is no. Only if those classroom discussions create “hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes” do they violate the law. The answer makes clear, “Nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.”

    The 14-day window between the Dear Colleague letter and the FAQ did not pass without some productive and inspirational advocacy. Notably, Paulette Granberry Russell and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education won a significant legal victory in federal district court, achieving a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement activities and the withdrawal of funding based on anti-DEI executive orders.

    The American Council on Education submitted a persuasive letter to OCR—signed by 71 national higher education organizations—requesting that the Dear Colleague letter be rescinded and that the department engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of the legal obligations of colleges and universities—a rare example of higher education speaking with one voice on this topic.

    The rest of the frenetic activity in this two-week time span was less productive. Despite many thoughtful suggestions to the contrary, some colleges and universities hastily undertook “audits” and website “scrubbing” of programming they thought might possibly be covered in the OCR’s forthcoming communications. A careful review of the FAQ document is likely to reveal that much of this was an unnecessary overreaction.

    From my perspective, the most harmful occurrence was an unproductive debate over institutional responses to the letter. Most of these took the shape of a false dichotomy between courage and cowardice. In my estimation, the institutions that stayed the course and waited for guidance from OCR were not courageous, but rather prudent. Conversely, the institutions that moved to action were not universally motivated by fear or cowardice, but rather by institution-specific realities of board governance, state and local politics, and individual risk assessments. At the end of the day, it was context and not courage or cowardice that motivated institutions.

    With a published methodology for compliance assessment now communicated, the department has answered a few of the lingering questions outlined on Valentine’s Day. Most notably, the FAQ provides a clear statement on how the Dear Colleague letter will be enforced.

    The answer to Question 14 clarifies that the department will use existing case-processing procedure—which includes due process for institutions and the possibility of a voluntary resolution agreement—and links to a newly revised Case Processing Manual. It is now the job of institutions that are committed to building “inclusive and diverse campus communities”—as the ACE letter penned by Ted Mitchell so eloquently states—to prepare a spirited defense of their programming by demonstrating that their efforts do not violate federal civil rights law.

    Steve Robinson is president of Lansing Community College.

    Source link

  • Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Public confidence in higher education is declining. Even students, most of whom say they’re getting a quality education, question the value of a degree with respect to affordability. Such doubts increase higher education’s vulnerability to the threats it’s currently facing. All this evokes the long-running debate over whether higher education can be viewed as a public good. And when revisiting that debate, it’s instructive to know what students expect from their college or university—specifically, whether they consider themselves not just students but also customers.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s first-ever Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators, released last fall, 71 percent of administrators said that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves customers (most of these administrators also agreed that parents of students consider themselves customers).

    But what do undergraduates themselves say? According to a new analysis of IHE’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab, nearly the same share of students—65 percent—consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity, defined in the survey as expecting to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees.

    Some 41 percent of the survey’s 5,025 two- and four-year student respondents say they see themselves as customers both in their classes and across campus. Another 13 percent consider themselves customers only in their classes, while 11 percent view themselves as customers only outside of class, when interacting with staff and administrators across campus.

    Methodology

    Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

    Respondents include over 3,500 four-year students and 1,400 two-year students. Sixteen percent are exclusively online learners, and 40 percent are first-generation students.

    Top-line findings from the full survey are here and the full data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. The main annual survey asked questions on academic success, health and wellness, the college experience, and preparing for life after college.

    How satisfied are students as customers of their institution? When those who do not identify as customers (n=1,744) are asked to wear that hat for a moment, nearly half (45 percent) say they’re somewhat satisfied with their institution. Another quarter (23 percent) are very satisfied. The rest are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (19 percent), somewhat unsatisfied (9 percent), or very unsatisfied (3 percent).

    What about students who do identify as customers (n=3,280)? The satisfaction numbers are very similar, but this group is slightly less likely to have high satisfaction; 45 percent, the plurality, are somewhat satisfied with their institution and an additional 18 percent are very satisfied. Twenty percent are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, some 13 percent are somewhat unsatisfied and very few (4 percent) are very unsatisfied.

    The results are relatively consistent across sector and a swath of student characteristics. However, two-year college students are less likely than four-year college students to say they consider themselves customers both in classes and when interacting with staff and administrators outside of class, at 35 percent versus 43 percent, respectively.

    The higher-education-as-public-good debate typically centers on whether higher education meets the common criteria for a public good: nonexcludability, meaning it’s accessible to everyone, and nonrivalry, meaning one person’s use of the good the doesn’t limit others’ ability to use it.

    In this sense, counting students as customers of higher education hurts the public good argument: How can one be a customer of a public good? And concerns about a creeping customer service dynamic in higher education have long worried scholars, including the authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal for Educational Integrity arguing that a facile customer service model of higher education undermines the instructor-learner relationship by reducing it to transactional, vendor-vendee connection—one in which the institution meets the student’s expressed needs in exchange for payment. (Think grade inflation and more.) The name of that paper kind of says it all: “The Customer Isn’t Always Right: Limitations of ‘Customer Service’ Approaches to Education, or Why Higher Ed Is Not Burger King.”

    But is thinking of students as customers—and students thinking of themselves as customers—a universally bad thing?

    Alternative Models

    Various scholars have proposed alternatives to the customer service model of higher education.

    Student as client: Scholar Keith B. Murray, for instance, proposed in a December Inside Higher Ed opinion piece that it’s better to think of students as clients. Whereas vendors need to appeal to customers via a product at an attractive price point, he wrote, in “client-type transactions, exchange of time, effort and money by the consumer is predicated on one party’s professional expertise and advice.” Typical client-based vendor examples include “physicians, dentists, financial advisers, tax preparers, accountants, veterinarians, therapists and professors,” he added.

    Faculty and staff as stewards: Scholar Jeffrey Vetrano, in responding to Murray’s piece, also in Inside Higher Ed, advocated for a stewardship framework.

    “Faculty and staff at institutions of higher education are stewards of both our students and their educations. As such, we take personal responsibility for granting them every opportunity to succeed, by maintaining strong ethics as identified in Murray’s article. As stewards, every action we take is for the care and development of our students, and we strive for much more than a client/vendor relationship.”

    Luke Hobson, an instructional design leader and online lecturer with his own education podcast and blog, actually encouraged institutions to think of students as customers last year, citing these five reasons:

    • Focus on quality
    • Responsiveness to needs
    • Enhanced accountability
    • Market competitiveness
    • Feedback loop for continuous improvements

    Summing up all these points, Hobson wrote in a blog post that the “most significant factor” here was to “emphasize caring. A business cares about their customers. Without them, they can’t survive.” Moreover, he said, “The greatest educators I can think of share this trait in that they cared. They were passionate. They were there for the students and to see them succeed. They could all have different styles of teaching, but at the end of the day, they served their students. It’s this mentality that will keep students engaged in the learning environment.” Indeed, existing research links instructor caring to student trust and sense of belonging, both of which are associated with student success. Quality nonclassroom student support services also promote student success.

    Hobson also wrote that it’s “crucial to maintain a balance. Education is not a typical consumer good, and the primary goal of a university should be to educate and foster intellectual development, not just to satisfy customer demands. Students are coming to learn because they don’t have all the answers. They want to get better and they are seeking the expertise from the institution. The focus should be on helping them to reach their goals.”

    ‘Polarizing’ Idea

    A year later, Hobson recalls that post being his most polarizing ever, based on the feedback he got (some loved it, others hated it). But while he acknowledges the concerns of his peers—that, for example, a customer-focused model could hurt student autonomy by shifting the responsibility for learning onto institutions—his own views haven’t changed.

    Reviewing the Student Voice data, Hobson imagines that students who describe themselves as customers believe they’re “paying for the ultimate learning experience,” defined by a “comprehensive blend of academic rigor, personalized support and opportunities for professional and personal growth.”

    In this light, students expect “the best the university has to offer, including engaging faculty interactions, meaningful assignments, timely feedback and an overall environment that fosters intellectual and practical development,” he continues. They also “anticipate that this education will serve as a pathway to their future goals and aspirations. The effort they invest in their learning, they hope, will directly correlate to the outcomes they receive,” in the form of knowledge, skills or career opportunities.

    This model has parallel benefits for institutions, Hobson adds, in that it encourages a focus on quality, including in online education; responsiveness to student feedback and a general feedback loop for continuous improvements to the learning environment; accountability for delivering “value for tuition and aligning institutional actions with expectations for academic rigor and integrity”; and market competitiveness by virtue of providing exceptional experiences.

    Jhenai W. Chandler, vice president for research and policy at NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, who also reviewed the Student Voice data, says she understands the impulse to think about students as customers or even clients. And she’s recently been on the student side of this conversation, helping two people close to her choose a college based on their very different needs and wants: Chandler’s own mother returned to community college to advance specific career goals, while her high school daughter is exploring colleges based on their ability to deliver a well-rounded education both in and outside the classroom.

    Still, Chandler worries that framing the student as customer can sometimes reinforce “harmful misconceptions about the nature of higher education, particularly in a time when our field is under political scrutiny.”

    Instead of using terms such as “client” or “customer,” “we need to focus on a more meaningful conversation about the value we provide and the outcomes we generate for students and society,” she says. Higher education’s value is “rooted in evidence that shows how students’ lives and communities improve after degree completion, whether it’s an associate, bachelor’s or graduate degree. We have a responsibility to communicate this impact effectively—through data, outcomes and success stories—to students, parents, industry leaders and policymakers.”

    Chandler adds this: “Language and terminology can often be our worst enemies in this conversation, as the terms we use are not always understood outside of the academic world. We need to be intentional about the way we communicate, especially as we navigate misconceptions about what students expect from us.”

    What do you think students who view themselves as customers—in classes or of their institution as a whole—expect from professors and/or administrators or staff across campus? Are the expectations typically reasonable ones? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Shaping the future before it shapes us

    Shaping the future before it shapes us

    I’ve worked closely with colleagues in Silicon Valley throughout my career. Through these interaction, there are always new ideas, and the level of confidence in predictions typically starts strong and only gets stronger. This time felt different. Last week during a visit to Silicon Valley, I repeatedly heard the following as a preface to a prediction, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard it before when engaging with my most techno-optimistic colleagues: “I could be wrong, but …”

    A few innocent words, but a rhetorical hedge that suggests even the most confident among us understand that the AI era is pretty, pretty complicated.

    I was there to attend the Annual AI+Education Summit 2025, hosted by Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. The theme—Human-Centered AI for a Thriving Learning Ecosystem—framed discussions that were both urgent and inspiring. AI is not just on the horizon; it is actively reshaping the educational landscape. Our responsibility is to ensure this transformation augments human potential rather than diminishes it.

    The summit brought together leading researchers, educators and policymakers to explore AI’s role in personalizing learning, empowering educators and bridging educational divides. The pace of change is staggering—today, half of students use AI tools at least weekly, both inside and outside the classroom. Institutions must act now to shape AI’s role in education intentionally rather than reactively.

    The Power of Collective Action in Higher Education

    One of the key messages from the summit was that no single institution, company, innovator or researcher can tackle this challenge alone. A coordinated effort across higher education is essential to ensure AI serves students, faculty and society in equitable and effective ways.

    At the University of Michigan, we have seen firsthand how faculty innovators are experimenting with generative AI to enhance teaching and learning. Our most recent call for proposals at the Center for Academic Innovation resulted in a diverse set of AI-enhanced teaching and learning projects designed to explore AI’s potential across disciplines, from medical education to humanities. These projects demonstrate not only how AI can enrich classroom experiences but also how it can deepen engagement, personalize learning and extend human creativity. We are helping faculty translate emerging technologies into meaningful applications, creating impactful learning experiences on campus and beyond.

    Organizations like U-M’s Center for Academic Innovation and Stanford’s HAI and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning play a critical role in leading this work—through experimentation, research and convening communities of practice. Without spaces to explore AI’s potential responsibly, without research to test its effectiveness and without convenings to align efforts, the future of AI in education would be left to chance rather than deliberate innovation.

    Michigan’s work is part of a broader movement. Across higher education, institutions are launching AI-driven initiatives to explore the role of AI in teaching, learning and research. One example is the California State University system, which recently announced a partnership with OpenAI to explore AI’s potential across its 23 campuses. This initiative, like many others, underscores the need for systemwide efforts to develop responsible and scalable AI solutions.

    These efforts—faculty-led experiments at Michigan, large-scale system initiatives like CSU’s, and global convenings like Stanford’s AI+Education Summit—demonstrate the range of approaches to AI in education. Stanford’s summit, in particular, highlighted outstanding faculty-led experiments exploring AI’s role in augmenting learning, fostering creativity and addressing challenges in equitable access to technology. These initiatives reinforce the importance of institutional collaboration in shaping the future of AI in education. But the big question remains: How do we shape AI’s role in education to serve our preferred future rather than react to an imposed one?

    5 Key Takeaways From the AI+Education Summit

    1. AI is transforming education, but its role must be purposeful.

    AI is already reshaping how students learn and how educators teach. We must ensure AI serves as a tool for augmentation rather than automation. How do we steer away from optimizing automation and toward optimizing AI’s ability to augment human creativity, problem-solving and collaboration?

    1. Faculty innovation is leading the way—with institutional support.

    Some of the most compelling AI applications in education are emerging from faculty-led experimentation. Universities must create conditions for responsible innovation by investing in faculty training, providing resources for experimentation and developing ethical frameworks that support AI integration while prioritizing student learning. We need to understand what’s working for whom and be ready to quickly invest further in the most impactful efforts.

    1. AI ethics and governance must be at the forefront.

    AI’s potential to amplify biases and exacerbate inequities is well documented. Institutions must focus on governance, transparency and bias mitigation to ensure AI benefits all learners. Without clear institutional leadership, regulation will fill the void. Can we build governance frameworks that protect learners and help them to flourish while also fostering innovation and global competitiveness and security?

    1. AI literacy is urgent—but we lack consensus on what it means.

    There is universal agreement that students, educators and institutions need to accelerate AI literacy. However, what constitutes AI literacy remains unclear. Should AI literacy be about technical proficiency? Ethical responsibility? Practical applications? Probably all of the above—but the right balance is elusive. I could be wrong, but if we don’t actively shape this now, we may find that AI literacy is defined for us in ways that don’t align with our values. Definitions vary, but there is broad consensus that we need highly accessible and scalable opportunities for anyone to acquire AI literacy—and soon.

    1. We need a shared vision for AI in education.

    The AI+Education Summit made it clear that AI’s impact should be shaped by the collective choices of educators, institutions and policymakers. Without a shared vision, the future will be dictated by market forces alone. Speakers at the conference described the future they want to see: one that designs for the widest range of learners to support human flourishing, strengthens the essential relationship between teachers and students, and works for everyone—practically, equitably and responsibly.

    Institutions have taken very different approaches to AI—some choosing to ban it, restricting its use until clearer guidelines emerge, while others have opted to embrace it, fostering a culture of experimentation and innovation. Others have decided to take a wait-and-see approach, uncertain about how AI will ultimately shape higher education. Perhaps all of these strategies have their merits. Or maybe in a few years we’ll look back and realize the most effective approach was something we haven’t even considered yet. I could be wrong—but that’s precisely why we need a wide range of perspectives shaping this conversation now.

    Questions for Our Growing AI-in-Education Community

    As institutions embrace AI, we should ask ourselves:

    • How can we ensure AI enhances equity and access rather than reinforcing existing disparities?
    • How do we ensure AI supports human creativity and critical thinking rather than replacing them?
    • How do we balance experimentation with the need for institutional policies that safeguard students and educators?
    • What models of collaboration—between institutions, industry and policymakers—can accelerate responsible AI adoption in higher education?
    • How can institutions maintain trust with learners and faculty as AI adoption accelerates?
    • What does a thriving, AI-enhanced learning ecosystem look like in five years? How do we get there?

    The AI+Education Summit reinforced that we are not passive observers of AI’s impact on education—we are active participants in shaping its trajectory. The work happening at Stanford, Michigan, CSU and across the broader higher ed community signals a growing recognition that AI is not just another technology to integrate but a transformational force that demands intentionality, collaboration and vision.

    Yet, it would be a collective failure if we simply make it easy for students to offload critical thinking. AI must not become a shortcut that undermines the cognitive skills we seek to develop in our learners and citizens.

    Now is the time for institutions and individuals to come together, share knowledge and create our preferred future for AI in education. We don’t have all the answers, and some of today’s best ideas may prove incomplete or even misguided. It feels like there is little time for passive observation. AI’s role in education will be defined—either by us or for us. Let’s build the future we prefer—because if we don’t, well … I could be wrong, but I doubt we’ll like the alternative.

    James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    Source link

  • Ramadan should matter to higher education

    Ramadan should matter to higher education

    Ramadan celebrates the revelation of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, to the Prophet Muhammad.

    One of the five pillars of Islam is fasting (abstaining from all food and drink) during daylight hours in this holy month.

    In the UK, approximately 321,000 (11 per cent) students identify as muslim, which is the largest religious group after christian students (27 per cent).

    However, in a recent survey of nearly 300 UK educators, almost a quarter of them couldn’t say when Ramadan took place in 2024. A quarter also didn’t know whether they had any muslim students in their classes.

    Only 30 per cent knew the exact dates of Ramadan, and 47 per cent could only guess approximately. Worryingly, 40 per cent of respondents had no idea whether their muslim students were fasting, and despite 56 per cent acknowledging a need for change in teaching practices, only half of them had actually made any adjustments.

    This is concerning – because the practice of Ramadan will undoubtedly impact muslim students’ ability to engage with their studies among those who are able to observe it.

    The ninth month of the Islamic calendar

    Throughout Ramadan, priorities may shift towards personal worship and devotion, as well as family and community.

    They are more likely to require time to pray during the day, and to be absent to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan.

    Changes to muslim students’ routines to enable them to take part in pre-dawn meals and night prayers may also impact their learning. The effects of Ramadan will also fluctuate during a given day as well as through the fasting period.

    You can gain an insight into Ramadan from a students’ perspective in this video, produced by Oxford Brookes University.

    A prevalent myth is that staff should avoid eating and drinking in front of fasting students. This is not necessary – muslim students respect the need for others to eat and drink and generally do not expect others to alter their behaviour.

    However, it is considerate to avoid organising social events centred around food and drink during Ramadan.

    Another misconception is the belief that students will automatically request support or adjustments if needed. In reality, students may not be aware of their rights to reasonable adjustments on religious grounds, or they might not feel comfortable making those sorts of requests.

    Staff should openly communicate institutional policies regarding religious observance and encourage students to discuss their needs without fear of judgement or disadvantage.

    Fasting doesn’t affect all students in the same way. Not all muslim students fast – some may be exempt due to health reasons, travel, or other personal circumstances. The effects of fasting can also vary, with some students managing well while others may struggle, particularly during the holiest last ten days of Ramadan.

    Evidence regarding the impact on learning of fasting during Ramadan is mixed. It can have different impacts on cognitive functioning depending on whether students are studying in predominantly muslim countries or not.

    In terms of the impact of disrupted sleep routines and a lack of sleep on learning, the evidence is fairly robust, with multiple studies showing a negative impact. This sleep disruption when observing Ramadan could potentially have a greater impact on students’ learning than fasting itself.

    Unfortunately, the limited guidance available on most institutional webpages in the UK seems to be aimed at muslim students themselves, putting the onus on them to seek support or adjustments. This positioning takes away some of the responsibility of institutions to amend practices and policies to support these students.

    Supporting muslim students

    With these issues in mind, I led a project to find out what educators proactively do to support muslim students.

    Based on our findings, and with contributions from a panel of muslims and other experts, we created a guide containing information and practical support for educators to implement in their classrooms. The guide is available to download from the National Teaching Repository.

    In the guide we have:

    • included an email template (page 9) that you can adapt to send to all students to acknowledge Ramadan
    • included a link to free printable posters about Ramadan to display on campus
    • busted common myths, for example around eating and drinking
    • provided 6 ways to make relatively small changes to learning and teaching practices that could make a big difference. These include 1) Acknowledge Ramadan, 2) Avoid Assumptions and Ask, 3) Adjust Assessment Timings, 4) Offer Asynchronous Learning, 5) Raise Awareness and Celebrate, and 6) Be Inclusive and make Sustainable Change.
    • given some guidance relating to supporting students who are on a work placement

    Supporting muslim students on work placements during Ramadan presents unique challenges and opportunities. The guide encourages conversations with placement coordinators and managers early to explore what accommodations might be available, such as flexible scheduling to allow for prayers or adjusted meal breaks to accommodate Suhoor (pre-dawn meal) and Iftar (meal to break the fast).

    It also highlights the importance of understanding the potential impact of such accommodations not only on students but also on clients, patients, or service users in placement settings, ensuring that any adjustments made are both supportive and practical.

    Organising a three-way meeting between the placement provider, the student, and the academic lead can help surface specific issues and create tailored solutions. And constructing a formal policy for supporting fasting students on placements could serve as a blueprint for sustainable, long-term change.

    More broadly, institutions could formalise their approach by adding “religious observance” as a standing agenda item in relevant committees and planning meetings. This would ensure that religious inclusion is not treated as an afterthought but as an integral part of institutional decision-making.

    Working with university chaplaincies is another recommendation – chaplains often have direct connections with religious student groups and can provide valuable insights into their needs. Ideally the sector would move beyond fixes and towards normalising religious inclusivity, reduce barriers to learning, and demonstrate a genuine commitment to equity and fairness.

    We hope that the guide will make it relatively easy for educators to take some immediate positive action, and that even a small change will make a positive difference by increasing a sense of belonging and mattering to our muslim students.

    Source link

  • Cross Disciplinarity – HEPI

    Cross Disciplinarity – HEPI

    To tackle the major challenges facing society, cross-disciplinary research may be necessary. However, conducting this type of research requires researchers to overcome functional silos. Various factors, such as differing incentives, cultures, terminologies, and jargon, can lead to opportunistic or counterproductive behavior. So, how can cross-disciplinary research be conducted effectively to advance knowledge and understanding? To answer this question, we will first explore the processes of theorizing. Next, we will discuss ways to break down cross-disciplinary barriers. Finally, we will offer practical guidelines for successfully conducting cross-disciplinary research.

    First, we argue that the theorising process developed by Brodie and Peters (2020) provides guidelines for undertaking cross-disciplinary research by integrating general theoretic perspectives and contextual research to develop midrange theory. Midrange theory bridges the theoretical domain of knowledge and the applied domain of knowledge (Figure 1). The paradigmatic perspective provides the outer ring for the recursive theorizing process between general theory, midrange theory, and applied research.

    Figure 1: Domains of knowledge and levels of theory

    By employing the aforementioned theorising process, senior management can demonstrate to researchers that there are various ways to develop and apply midrange theory. The primary general theoretical perspective can connect directly with midrange theory, but alternative general theoretical perspectives can also offer routes that lead to other midrange theories. These alternative pathways can eventually converge on a focal midrange theory that can be utilised in research (as shown in Figure 2).

    Figure 2. Interfaces for theorizing

    Second, we propose ways to break down barriers to cross-disciplinary research. Senior management should recognize that research teams do not necessarily have to consist of cross-disciplinary researchers. Instead, teams should be composed of experts from their own disciplines who possess enough familiarity with the research problem and a basic understanding of each other’s fields to enable effective communication. A team of mono-disciplinary experts with a strong mix of skills and effective communication abilities is more advantageous than a team of cross-disciplinary researchers who lack sufficient experience or expertise.

    Senior management should also recognise that research is typically mono-disciplinary. For instance, a cross-disciplinary grant application might struggle because the reviewers are often mono-disciplinary experts who may not grasp the cross-disciplinary elements or recognize the value of collaborative research. Therefore, senior management should encourage their researchers to take on riskier, but potentially rewarding, collaborations with peers from vastly different disciplines.

    Senior management’s efforts to support and reward cross-disciplinary research can sometimes be misguided, as cross-disciplinary work should not be pursued as an end in itself. Imposing a vaguely defined cross-disciplinary agenda on researchers can lead to wasted efforts or, at best, projects that are difficult to fund or publish. A more effective approach would be for senior management to encourage researchers to start with the research problem, determine which problem class it falls into, and assess whether the problem is significant or complex enough to justify cross-disciplinary work, especially when questions arise that require expertise from multiple fields. Most importantly, and often overlooked, senior management should avoid the temptation to reward cross-disciplinary research solely for its own sake. It is far more advantageous to create an environment where researchers excel in their own disciplines while being rewarded for occasionally taking on larger cross-disciplinary challenges.

    Third, the following practical guidelines can help break down barriers and create an environment that encourages cross-disciplinary research. For instance, researchers should be encouraged to present their work outside their own discipline, as this can enhance visibility, generate fresh insights, and open up opportunities for future collaboration. Senior management could promote participation in initiatives that address major societal challenges and incentivise researchers to engage with practitioners and the broader community. They should also prompt researchers to consider how their theoretical knowledge could be applied to real-world problems faced by policymakers, practitioners, and consumers.

    Senior management could encourage research groups to formulate clear and well-defined research questions that accurately identify the specific problem class and knowledge gap. This approach will help determine whether expertise from multiple scientific disciplines is necessary. Refining a knowledge gap into a focused research problem can attract potential collaborators and offer context and direction for the collaborative research.

    When two or more scientific disciplines are involved, it may be unclear who should provide guidance. Senior management could form a leadership team that can bring in additional members to offer expertise as needed.

    Source link

  • The Impact of AI on Student Placement Applications

    The Impact of AI on Student Placement Applications

    On today’s HEPI blog, Adam Lindgreen, C. Anthony Di Benedetto, Roderick J. Brodie, and Michel van der Borgh explore how researchers can successfully navigate the challenges of cross-disciplinary research to address major societal issues. If you’ve ever wondered how experts from different fields can effectively collaborate despite differing terminologies, cultures, and incentives, this blog offers practical strategies and insights. You can read the blog here.

    Below, Dave McCall and Zoë Allman discuss what AI means for those students seeking to undertake placements while they study.

    ***Sign up now for Wednesday’s lunchtime webinar on the school curriculum and how it can prepare students for higher education: register at this link.***

    • Dave McCall is a Placement Tutor, De Montfort University (DMU), and Zoë Allman (@zoe_a) is Associate Dean (Academic) at DMU.   

    As higher education explores the impact of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), colleagues from De Montfort University examine the use of AI in student placement applications.

    Generative AI is transforming student placements. Year-long industry placements offer professional growth and employability, bridging academic learning and practical experience. Supported by universities, students are encouraged to maximise learning opportunities in the workplace and reflect on their experiences.

    We increasingly find students using AI in placement applications, mirroring its role in their academic journey and in preparation for graduate employment. We consider how AI is used (and embedded) to improve the chances of securing a placement through searches, applications, and interview preparation, while also recognising the challenges this presents.  

    Placement Searching

    AI algorithms shape how students search for placements. Platforms like LinkedIn and Glassdoor recommend opportunities tailored to users’ profiles and preferences, streamlining the process. However, this personalisation may also limit exploration, narrowing exposure to diverse job types and industries. The National Association of Colleges and Employers highlights how reliance on AI-generated job recommendations might lead students to miss opportunities, whilst the USA-based National Association of Colleges and Employers highlights how students might miss diverse opportunities by relying exclusively on AI-generated job recommendations. 

    Not Forgetting ChatGPT

    Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, have become popular with students when developing search strategies, alongside drafting emails, generating lists of companies in niche fields, or refining search terms for specific industries. While useful, such tools demand a certain level of digital literacy to optimise outputs effectively. Research indicates AI’s effectiveness is limited by the quality of user prompts, underscoring the need for universities to provide AI literacy training to help students optimise their interactions with these tools while addressing the potential digital literacy skills gap. Targeting this developmental training in placement searching and application is critical for ensuring positive experiences on placement and future graduate outcomes. 

    AI Applications

    Having been used in searches, AI is increasingly used as students develop their placement applications. Students employ generative AI to draft and tailor CVs and cover letters, quickly generating professional documents. Tools like Resumé Worded enable students to format and optimise applications for use in Applicant Tracking Systems. While efficient, over-reliance on AI risks producing applications lacking originality; a reliance on AI raises concerns about authenticity and self-reflection. AI use can lead to generic applications, potentially reducing a student’s ability to articulate their individualised experiences, values, and what they bring to the placement role.

    Universities can address this by supporting students to understand how to balance AI-assisted optimisation with authentic self-expression. Workshops encouraging reflective practices help students integrate personality in applications, with feedback reinforcing human input.

    Preparing for Interview

    AI’s role in interview preparation is multifaceted, simulating interviews through generating questions and offering feedback. A student preparing for an engineering placement might use ChatGPT to generate technical and behavioural questions, refining responses through iterative feedback. AI-powered simulations offer ‘real-time’ feedback, enhancing confidence.

    Beyond verbal preparation, AI tools like HireVue analyse tone, facial expressions, and word choice. While these technologies offer valuable insights to employers regarding applicants, they also introduce potential ethical concerns, including the possibility of bias in AI-driven evaluation.   While providing valuable employer insights, these technologies raise ethical concerns, including AI-driven bias.

    Levelling the Playing Field?

    AI tools can help students practice and enhance their skills and experiences but also raise concerns regarding accessibility and equity. Access to advanced AI tools and the digital literacy required to use them effectively is not necessarily evenly distributed among students. This digital divide could exacerbate existing inequalities, particularly for students from underrepresented backgrounds.  Universities play a vital role in educating students to understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools, enabling them to use these technologies effectively and ethically. 

    Working with Employer Partners

    Collaboration with industry partners remains essential. Understanding AI’s influence on recruitment strategies allows universities to align student support with industry expectations, preparing students for contemporary hiring processes.

    AI is undeniably reshaping the employability landscape. However, its integration challenges traditional career development approaches, raising equity, ethics, and authenticity concerns. Universities must adapt by equipping students with skills such as effective prompt engineering to navigate AI-driven processes. Recent reports highlight the need for universities to prepare students for AI-driven assessments, combining technical proficiency with critical thinking and ethical awareness. Aligning employability programs with these insights enables students to harness AI’s full potential while maintaining human-centred career development. 

    As AI transforms placement applications, universities play a pivotal role in preparing students for this reality. By promoting AI literacy and reflective practices and addressing equity and ethics, universities can empower students to approach placement applications with confidence and integrity. AI should serve as an enhancement tool rather than a barrier. Supporting students in understanding and appropriately using AI tools best prepares them for achieving professional aspirations.

    Source link