Blog

Abrupt Pause, Unpause of Grants Doesn’t End NIH Funding Woe

The Tuesday night news quickly sowed alarm among researchers: Media outlets reported that the Trump administration had stopped the National Institutes of Health from funding any new grants. The Wall Street Journal wrote that “certain grants that are up for renewal” were also cut off, and STAT, along with other outlets, later confirmed that reporting.

The newspaper reported that the Office of Management and Budget was blocking these billions of dollars in research funding for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. After that, the dollars would return, unspent, to the Treasury. This nationwide halt to grants stemmed from an OMB footnote in a budget document, the Journal reported, adding that “the fourth quarter of the fiscal year is typically the busiest for grant-giving institutes at the NIH.”

Inside Higher Ed reviewed screenshots of an email from an NIH employee saying, “Research grant, R&D contract, or training awards cannot be issued during this pause.” The funding halt would’ve meant an end to new research to help find and improve cures and treatments for diseases as well as stanched the flow of federal dollars to already financially beleaguered universities and labs nationwide.

“This is undeniably an unforced error, since this will not only harm current and future American patients, but the disruptive and chilling effect of this sudden holding back of promised funds will further jeopardize the future of the American medical research enterprise,” Association of American Universities president Barbara R. Snyder said a statement Tuesday.

But before the night was over, the Trump administration appeared to reverse course. In an updated article citing unnamed sources, the Journal reported that unnamed “senior White House officials intervened.” (OMB is part of the executive branch.) The Journal said officials at the Health and Human Services Department, which includes NIH, fought the pause for days, but OMB only relented after the newspaper published its initial story Tuesday.

In response to Inside Higher Ed’s written questions and interview requests about the situation Wednesday, the White House and HHS both sent the same statement from an HHS spokesperson: “The programmatic review is over. The funds are out.”

One OMB spokesperson posted on X that OMB had been “waiting for more information from NIH” before releasing the funds.

The NIH is one of the largest sources of funding for research at colleges and universities, and it touts itself as the “largest single public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world.” Tuesday night’s controversy wasn’t the first—and likely won’t be the last—upheaval that this crucial agency has faced under the Trump administration.

From grant cancellations to the White House proposal to slash the agency’s budget by 40 percent for the next fiscal year, institutions and researchers have seen the flow of NIH grant money stymied. Atop all this, the reportedly now-abandoned move by OMB to stop grant awards highlights continuing concerns about the fate of the grant dollars that the NIH still hasn’t given out this current fiscal year.

Since Trump took office, the NIH has awarded fewer grants compared to previous years, multiple analyses have found. A former NIH official estimated to Science that at least $6 billion of the agency’s $48 billion budget could be sent back. In a higher estimate, Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that what OMB reportedly tried to do before reversing course Tuesday “would choke off approximately $15 billion in funding that would otherwise go to institutions across the country.”

A nongovernment official familiar with the NIH appropriations process told Inside Higher Ed that, within a sample of major universities surveyed, institutions are down 20 to 48 percent in NIH award and renewal funds compared to the same time last year.

The official, who requested anonymity to maintain relationships with people within the administration, said Wednesday that there’s been “a very, very slow spend at NIH, even prior to last night’s fire drill.” The official said they don’t think NIH has ever had to push out so much remaining money in such a short time, and there’s “a very small amount of NIH staff left to allocate those funds.”

Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges, told Inside Higher Ed that Tuesday’s news “caused a real concern across the research enterprise very quickly. This is a community that has seen not just threats but actual damaging changes to the typically stable federally funded research grants take place overnight, or even faster.

“By any measure, the pace of grant funding is a fraction of what it has been in any other year, and that includes grant renewals, that includes new funding opportunities,“ Pierce added. “And the pace with which grant applications are reviewed and awarded is far below what we’ve seen in the past, and that includes applications that were submitted a long time ago that have already been scored and gotten very competitive scores that would be expected to be funded.”

Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the reported freeze “just reinforced the current mood among researchers that the future of scientific research at NIH is still in question and could change at a moment’s notice, but also that this isn’t just about NIH. This cloud of uncertainty hovers over other agencies as well, such as the National Science Foundation.”

Carney added that “the head of the Office of Management and Budget has made public his interest in reducing spending and reducing the size of government and using what tools that he is able to use to do that.”

Russell Vought, head of OMB, hasn’t sworn off using rescission legislation, which can be passed with a simple majority in both chambers of Congress, to take back already appropriated funds during a fiscal year. NPR also reported that he’s called Congress’s spending bills “a ceiling … not a floor.”

Murray, who represents Washington State, previously warned that the Trump administration’s use of such legislation to claw back funds already appropriated for this fiscal year—like it recently did for public broadcasting money—could scuttle consensus on the budget for next fiscal year.

Carney attributed the slowdown in NIH grants to multiple factors, including the regular change in presidential administrations, Congress adopting a continuing resolution instead of a budget for this fiscal year and the Trump administration’s executive orders and other actions.

“It’s like throwing sand into the machine,” Carney said. She said her association is pleased “that the funding will continue to flow, but it’s still unknown whether that flow of funds will be in drips or will be full stream, and we only have two months left until the end of the fiscal year.”

Some Senate Republicans recently called on NIH and OMB to send more money out the door, as directed in the continuing resolution Congress passed in March.

“We are concerned by the slow disbursement rate of [fiscal year 2025] NIH funds, as it risks undermining critical research and the thousands of American jobs it supports,” the senators wrote in a letter to OMB. “Suspension of these appropriated funds—whether formally withheld or functionally delayed—could threaten Americans’ ability to access better treatments and limit our nation’s leadership in biomedical science. It also risks inadvertently severing ongoing NIH-funded research prior to actionable results.”

Tuesday night’s controversy came as some Republican members of Congress have joined Democrats in opposing the president’s proposal to gut the NIH’s funding for fiscal 2026. The Senate Appropriations Committee is meeting today, and it’s set to unveil how much it plans to send NIH next fiscal year.

Carney said, “The U.S. is considered a global leader in biomedical research and medical discoveries, and we can’t afford to lose opportunities for advancing new discoveries and therapies and treatments for diseases that affect millions all over the world.

“So when it comes to Alzheimer’s or cancer or infectious diseases, this is about hope,” she said. “It shouldn’t be about politics.”

Source link

July 31, 2025
Psychology Course Encourages College Students to Make Friends

Starting college can be an exciting time for students to learn new things, make friends and live away from home for the first time. But not every student takes advantage of the opportunity.

Emmanuel College psychology professor Linda Lin said she’s seen students reluctant to engage with peers in public spaces, including on their own dorm floor, out of fear of being perceived as odd or intrusive.

“At the beginning of the semester, I always offer students extra credit points if they come see me for a 10-minute meeting and I just check in with them,” Lin said. Typically, a significant share of those students will say they have yet to make friends and get connected on campus.

“It’s become almost half or maybe a majority of the students are really struggling to find their people on campus and find their way,” Lin said.

Nationally, college students express high levels of social anxiety. One study, by the College Student Wellness Advocacy Coalition and the Hi, How Are You Project, found that 65 percent of students said they feel stress often or all the time, and 57 percent reported feeling anxious, worried or overwhelmed frequently.

Lin thinks this could be due in part to the pandemic’s role in hindering social skill development as well as changing social norms among adults in the U.S., who now prioritize relationships built online or via phone-enabled connections, rather than in shared physical spaces.

In response, Lin designed a course on positive psychology and happiness to demonstrate the evidence-based practices that can improve student well-being and push them out of their comfort zones.

How it works: The course covers topics in positive psychology and the research behind those principles. Content includes stress management, connection to nature, exercise and mental health, gratitude, spirituality, optimism, self-compassion, mindfulness, and generosity.

The class is an upper-level psychology elective, so the majority of students enrolled are junior or seniors majoring in psychology, though about 20 percent are nonmajors, Lin said.

Throughout the semester, students receive assignments to practice various techniques to boost their own well-being, ranging from taking a nature walk to writing a letter expressing thankfulness or performing a random act of kindness.

Lin’s most controversial assignment is asking students to talk to three people they don’t know over two or three days. “It can be a stranger you’re making small talk with, or someone that you see in your regular day that you’ve never introduced yourself to,” she said.

Students have said they’d rather drop her class than do the assignment, Lin said. “The social anxiety is so high, they anticipate it being super awkward, super anxiety-provoking, that people are gonna think they’re weird.”

But so far, none of her students has reported a bad experience; instead they’ve come back pleasantly surprised by the interactions. Some have even made lasting friends.

The impact: The class has received an overwhelmingly positive review from students who have taken it, Lin said, with some graduating seniors telling her it had a huge impact on them or that the course changed their life.

“A lot of students, generally, by the end of the course, are shocked that these little things make them feel better,” Lin said. “A lot of them were saying, ‘I technically know I should be doing these things, but this course gave me an opportunity to actually do them.’”

Some students shared her lecture recordings (PowerPoints with audio overlaid) and assignments with their families and friends, in the hopes that the content could benefit their health and well-being, as well.

Lin also conducts pre- and postassessments of student happiness and well-being throughout the term. She found that from the first class in September to the final one in December, students report a 20 percent jump in their scores. And that’s on top of seasonal blues and stressful final exam season feelings, Lin said.

The practices helped all students boost their happiness and well-being, but the greatest gains were among students who were already struggling, especially those receiving clinical mental health support.

“One student was like, ‘My therapist wants to talk to you—this made such a big difference in my life,’” Lin said.

Lin is collecting data from the course for future research and has also taken her curriculum out of the classroom, training resident advisers and other campus community members on how to make friends.

“I think everybody’s a little bit concerned about this, and I’m just trying to go out and take the science everywhere, because I think this should not be behind a paywall,” Lin said.

Are you noticing and responding to a lack of peer engagement and community on your campus? Tell us more about it.

Source link

July 31, 2025
VP Online Enrollment, Integrated Marketing Solutions, Carnegie
The last time we caught up with Shankar Prasad, he was telling us about his new role as chief strategy officer at Carnegie. Shankar reached out, saying that he is recruiting for the key role of Carnegie’s VP of online enrollment and integrated marketing solutions. As I’m on the lookout to share information with our community about roles at the intersection of learning, technology and higher education change, this job seemed perfect. Shankar graciously agreed to answer my questions about the role.

Q: What is the mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the company’s strategic priorities?

A: Carnegie’s Online Program Experience (OPX) business line is an important growth area. The company aims to be the premier provider of integrated marketing and enrollment solutions for online programs. The mandate of the VP of online enrollment and integrated marketing solutions is to build and own the sales plan for this OPX business, drive revenue growth, and ensure that Carnegie’s full suite of services (research, strategy, digital marketing, lead generation, creative and website development) are successfully cross‑sold to new and existing clients.

The job description states that the VP will “lead our sales strategy and execution to achieve our revenue targets,” shape the OPX growth strategy, and establish Carnegie as the premier provider of online program solutions in higher education. To do this, the VP must create the OPX sales plan, drive sales, meet goals and targets, and deliver growth through new clients and client‑expansion opportunities across Carnegie’s entire suite of services.

This work aligns closely with Carnegie’s strategic priorities. The company positions itself as a leader in higher education marketing and enrollment strategy and emphasizes human‑centered, data‑driven solutions. By spearheading integrated marketing and enrollment solutions for online programs, the VP advances this mission—ensuring that Carnegie’s OPX offerings evolve with market trends, deliver measurable results and reinforce the organization’s leadership position. The role also requires thought leadership, cross‑team collaboration and partnerships, which support Carnegie’s focus on innovation and authentic human connections

Q: Where does the role sit within the company’s structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across the company?

A: The VP of online enrollment and integrated marketing solutions is Carnegie’s leader of integrated sales for OPX. The position sits within the company’s growth and revenue organization and is accountable for the sales plan, revenue forecasting and team performance. The description notes that the VP “owns the development of all sales pursuits related to OPX” and partners closely with the SVP of marketing and the chief growth officer to develop messaging, positioning and proposals. This indicates that the role reports into or collaborates with senior leadership on growth strategy and marketing alignment.

The role is highly cross‑functional. It requires partnering with marketing and business development to support inbound and new business pursuits and providing training and support to sales representatives in those divisions. The VP must collaborate with leaders of all business units to share feedback and optimize the OPX solution for clients.

Day to day, the person will work with colleagues in sales, account management, production, senior strategists, client success, executive sales and enrollment strategy. They will also work with growth team members to craft proposals and coordinate with the marketing leader on business development materials and events. Additionally, the VP manages OPX revenue forecasting and ensures visibility across all accountable parties. This matrixed engagement means the VP acts as a connector between sales, marketing, product and leadership, ensuring that OPX solutions are delivered seamlessly and that market feedback informs strategic decisions.

Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

A: In the first 12 months, success would involve laying the groundwork for a high-performing OPX sales organization. The VP should build and execute a sales plan, recruit or train a team, and cultivate strong relationships with marketing, business development and other unit leaders. Key milestones would include securing new OPX clients and expanding revenue from existing accounts, delivering on initial sales goals, instituting accurate revenue forecasting and establishing Carnegie as a respected thought leader at conferences and webinars.

Three years: By year three, the VP should have turned OPX into a mature, scalable business line. The sales plan would be continuously optimized based on market feedback and the team would be driving sustained revenue growth across Carnegie’s services. Market penetration should be evident through a diversified client base, with high renewal and upsell rates. The VP should have built a strong network of external relationships and should be contributing to product evolution by monitoring industry trends and competitor activity. Measurable outcomes might include year‑over‑year revenue growth outpacing the market, higher average contract values and expanded partnerships or acquisitions that enhance the OPX offering.

Beyond (five-plus years): Over a longer horizon, success would mean that the OPX division is a significant growth engine for Carnegie and a well‑recognized market leader. The VP will have built a resilient, data‑driven sales organization capable of adapting to changes in the higher education landscape. They may spearhead new offerings or strategic acquisitions and could play a central role in broader company leadership. The division’s revenue contribution might warrant further expansion into related services or international markets, ensuring Carnegie remains at the forefront of online program marketing and enrollment strategy.

Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

A: The VP of online enrollment and integrated marketing solutions oversees sales strategy, team leadership, revenue forecasting and cross‑functional collaboration. With 10-plus years of experience required in higher education enrollment and marketing for online programs, the role prepares someone for broader executive positions. Potential future roles could include:
- Chief growth officer or chief revenue officer, because the VP manages revenue planning, sales execution and cross‑unit coordination.
- General manager or president of a business unit, given the experience in developing a business line, building teams and driving profitability.
- Chief marketing officer or chief commercial officer: The position demands collaboration with marketing leadership and deep knowledge of enrollment strategy.
- Consulting or strategic advisory roles in higher education marketing and enrollment strategy, leveraging expertise in market trends, client relationships and integrated solutions.
- Entrepreneurial leadership roles within the higher ed technology and services space, capitalizing on the growth mindset, executive presence and strategic thinking emphasized in the qualifications.
By leading a high‑growth, cross‑disciplinary sales organization, the VP will develop a skill set that translates to senior leadership roles not only within Carnegie but across the broader higher education services sector.
Source link
July 31, 2025
Service Portfolios Make Service Visible (opinion)

Another academic year is fast approaching, and with it another promotion and tenure cycle in which faculty members will prepare dossiers for promotion. Some, but not all, universities have detailed instructions on what and what not to include in the dossier. At many research institutions, the service section consists of a list of committees on which the faculty member has served with little information about the nature of their participation. Having managed promotion and tenure at multiple institutions, I know that faculty members are often told to check the service boxes and move on.

Yet, the pandemic and its aftermath threw into high relief what most faculty members already knew: Faculty service is a mission-critical portion of workloads and highly undervalued by our institutions. We also know that mission-critical workload is unevenly allocated to and carried out by some faculty members while others either refuse to participate, focus their service outside the institution for the profession or participate as free riders while others pull their load. This leads to conversations about “service slacking” and “service shaming.” Articles abound with useful suggestions on how to address the uneven distribution of service, including advice on how to say no. And the Faculty Workload Equity project, part of an NSF ADVANCE award to the University of Maryland, provides important tools to better understand the contours of differential workloads and ways to create transparency around them.

This conversation is not new; Joya Misra and colleagues suggested in 2011 that changing the culture around service is essential in order to find ways to distribute the workload more evenly and to develop reward mechanisms for doing critical service in mission-central areas like curricular reform or student outcomes assessment. More than 10 years later, this conversation seems to have stalled. Properly recognizing the value of service would be a good way to restart it.

Articulating the Value of Service

Let me start with a story. About 15 years ago, I co-chaired my institution’s reaccreditation bid with the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. We were tasked, among other things, with collecting information about how our faculty engaged in outreach to our community. Our campus survey about community engagement came back with pitifully little data. We realized that we needed to excavate the information. After visits to lots of faculty meetings, we had an amazingly rich list of ways our faculty were engaging with schools, nonprofits and local governments in our area. To my question about why these activities didn’t appear in any university document, faculty members universally replied that they didn’t think anyone cared.

As Cullen C. Merrit recently argued, service and engagement activities are ways that the academy provides value to society at large. I agree. Yet we cannot value or demonstrate the impact of what we don’t document.

To that end, colleges can launch a service portfolio that faculty can submit as part of promotion and performance-review processes. The service portfolio documents the range of service activities for each faculty member, as well as success metrics that demonstrate their impact on students, other faculty and the institutional mission. Identifying impact is a first step in increasing the value our institutions place on service activities and establishing fairer systems of allocation and rewards.

The Service Portfolio

Before you stop reading because no one wants to do more service work, a service portfolio can help bring attention to the value of work by demonstrating the impacts and outcomes. Indeed, some universities and colleges already have faculty members provide such information about service; others make suggestions about how to craft a promotion and tenure service and engagement dossier.

As with a teaching portfolio, a service portfolio is a structured assemblage of contributions to mission-critical activities around student and faculty success (e.g., mentoring, curriculum development, professional development) and engagement with local and regional communities (e.g., support for K–12 education, support for local governmental and nongovernmental agencies).

Service portfolio guidelines could begin by listing elements of the stated mission or the strategic planning goals at the department, college/school and institution levels. In consultation with department chairs or deans, faculty members would then select those elements to which they contribute through their service activities. In addition to describing their contributions, faculty could describe outcomes and impacts either in terms of future goals or what can already be measured.

For example, a faculty member might want to prioritize curriculum development or faculty mentoring. In that case, we might expect them to serve locally or institutionally in those areas, to engage in professional development opportunities, or to develop community engagement activities related to their specializations. A focus on value requires that the service portfolio identify the impacts or expected outcomes of each activity. For example, participation in a curriculum revision might result in higher learning outcomes or lower DFW rates. Faculty mentoring can result in improved teaching outcomes, enhanced research productivity and an improved work environment.

There are numerous advantages of a service portfolio over the current way of counting the number of committees on which we serve. First, faculty members can gain agency in the way that they shape and narrate their own contributions to the institutional mission through service. Agency is a motivating factor that might encourage yet more engagement. Faculty members will have a harder time free riding on a committee when they must articulate their contributions and when those contributions are then reviewed by departmental peers. Equity-minded faculty members and chairs/heads will be better able to track individual contributions and ensure that service is equitably allocated. And chairs and departmental colleagues who are impressed with a particular faculty member’s service contributions will be better positioned to suggest that recognition or reward for those contributions may be in order.

To be sure, putting together a service portfolio will require extra time, something that faculty members do not have lots of. But the relatively small time commitment can result in significant benefits to faculty and to the institution. Intentional and agentic shaping of service and engagement workloads can ensure that mission-critical work is accomplished in a visible way and can be assessed for impact. Perhaps most importantly, a service portfolio gives information and tools to our colleagues to amplify impactful and valuable activities.

Beth Mitchneck is professor emerita in the School of Geography, Development and Environment at the University of Arizona.

Source link

July 31, 2025
Think of the Learner and Less About Modality

Institutions should be thinking about how all kinds of learners fit into their learning environments and avoid viewing online and in-person courses as distinct environments, according to Stephanie Moore, an associate professor in organization, information and learning sciences at the University of New Mexico.

“Higher ed is not just simply face-to-face but rather additional modalities of online or blended,” she said. “If an institution is planning strategically around these, then you’re better able to meet a range of diverse learner needs—and oh, by the way, that gives your institutions some pretty tremendous resilience and flexibility that if you ever have to shift or pivot in emergencies, [you can].”

The latest episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast, features an interview between Moore and IHE’s senior editor for special content, Colleen Flaherty, recorded at the Digital Universities conference in Salt Lake City in June.

Moore discusses how to scale feedback and a foster a sense of connection in online learning ecosystems and why she thinks AI will not be more disruptive than any other communication technology that’s come before it.

Source link

July 31, 2025
Who’s listening to the TNE student experience?
Transnational education (TNE) is an increasingly prominent feature in the UK higher education landscape. The sector now has more than 600,000 TNE students, who study outside the UK for awards made by UK providers. Growth in the number and diversity of TNE students shows no sign of stopping. This has implications for institutional strategy and for the UK’s global reputation. At the same time, it asks us to consider the quality of the TNE student experience.

The 2024 HEPI report recommends practical ways to increase public understanding of the TNE student experience. These include: wider engagement with the Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Enhancement of Transnational Education (QE-TNE) scheme; and greater use of external surveys of TNE students. Jisc’s new report focuses on the digital experience of TNE students and staff.

Things rarely stay still for very long in the TNE world. What has changed in the six months between the two reports, and what can we learn now?

In April, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (part of Jisc) published the latest aggregate offshore record. There were 621,065 UK TNE students in 2022-23, an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year. The total number of TNE students has grown every year since the current record was established in 2019-20. This trend looks set to continue, with India attracting particular recent attention. The government’s revised International Education Strategy is expected to have a renewed emphasis on TNE growth.

Meanwhile, at home, higher education providers face financial headwinds, combined with a potentially unfavourable policy environment for international students in the UK. Is TNE part of the answer? TNE projects are notoriously complex and have long lead-in times, making the direct impact on a provider’s bottom line hard to gauge. But many providers recognise the long-term strategic value of TNE projects, and are ready to invest even at a time of financial uncertainty for the sector.

April also saw a change of mind by two regulators: the Office for Students in England, and Medr in Wales. They jointly paused the development of TNE data sets based on individual student records, a requirement that would have been excessively burdensome on providers. Instead, there will be an expanded aggregate offshore record, such as was already planned in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the absence of more granular data, it is all the more important that we find ways to understand the quality of the TNE student experience.

One aim of the HEPI report was to give a higher profile to TNE students in the policy agenda. This month’s Jisc report maintains the profile of TNE students by summarising the known digital challenges to global educational delivery from the perspective of 21 UK higher education providers. Digital is central to the success of all TNE students: whether learning in classrooms, dialling in or in asynchronous online modes of study. In every case, technology is woven throughout curriculum delivery and beyond. Jisc found that:

In aiming to deliver an equitable learning experience, we cannot assume that connectivity, digital resource access and prior digital experience in host countries is the same as in the UK

Intermittent access to the internet is common in many countries, often due to disrupted electricity supply. Technology infrastructure is especially vulnerable during times of extreme weather, natural disaster, civil unrest or war

Challenges associated with accessing digital resources and learning materials are common. They can be caused by software or publisher licensing restrictions, export control laws and/or host country restrictions

Significant fees can be charged for TNE student access to software or e-publications. This reflects how publishers define a student as ‘belonging’ to an institution

There are cultural differences in expectations related to how digital is used to support learning, teaching and assessment

Cultural differences also create challenges in understanding and adapting to UK academic norms associated with academic integrity, copyright, plagiarism, effective use of AI and assessment rubric

The digital skills and capabilities expected of HE students and staff can differ between countries and cultures

The report also summarises how Jisc, Universities UK International, British Council and The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education are working together to support the sector to better understand the quality of the TNE student experience, and so support effective and successful global educational delivery.

This month’s Jisc report is the first of two on the TNE student and staff digital experience. The second report will summarise the views of over 4,800 TNE students and 400 staff, across 50 instances of global delivery. It will be published in October 2025 and launched at the Universities UK International TNE conference.
Source link
July 31, 2025
More comprehensive EDI data makes for a clearer picture of staff social mobility

Asking more granular EDI questions of its PGRs and staff should be a sector priority. It would enable universities to assess the diversity of their academic populations in the same manner they have done for our undergraduate bodies – but with the addition of a valuable socio-economic lens.

It would equip us more effectively to answer basic questions regarding how far the diversity in our undergraduate community leads through to our PGT, PGR and academic populations, as well as see where ethnicity and gender intersect with socio-economic status and caring responsibilities to contribute to individuals falling out of (or choosing to leave) the “leaky” academic pipeline.

One tool to achieve this is the Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DAISY), a creation of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health (EDIS) and the Wellcome Trust. This toolkit outlines how funders and universities can collect more detailed diversity monitoring data of their staff and PGRs as well as individuals involved in research projects.

DAISY suggests questions regarding socio-economic background and caring responsibilities that nuance or expand upon those already in “equal opportunities”-type application forms that exist in the sector. DAISY asks, for example, whether one has children and/or adult dependents, and how many of each, rather than the usual “yes” or “no” to “do you have caring responsibilities?” Other questions include the occupation of your main household earner when aged 14 (with the option to pick from categories of job type), whether your parents attended university before you were 18, and whether you qualified for free school meals at the age of 14.

EDI data journeys across the sector

As part of an evolving data strategy, UCAS already collects several DAISY data points on their applicants, such as school type and eligibility for free school meals, with the latter data point is gaining traction across the university sector and policy bodies as a meaningful indicator for disadvantage.

Funders are interested in collecting more granular EDI data. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), for example, invested around £800 million in the creation of Biomedical Research Centres in the early 2020s. The NIHR encouraged the collection of DAISY data specifically on both the researchers each centre would employ and the individuals they would research upon, in the belief (see theme four of their research inclusion strategy) that a diverse researcher workforce will make medical science more robust.

The diversity monitoring templates attached to recent UKRI funding schemes similarly highlight the sector’s desire for more granular EDI data. UKRI’s Responsive Mode Scheme, for example, requires institutions to benchmark their applicants against a range of protected characteristics, including ethnicity, gender, and disability, set against the percentage of the “researcher population” at the institution holding those characteristics. The direction of travel in the sector is clear.

What can universities do?

Given the data journeys of UCAS and funding bodies, it is sensible and proportionate, therefore, that universities ask more granular EDI questions of their PGRs and their staff. Queen Mary began doing so, using the DAISY toolkit as guide, for its staff and PGRs in October 2024, alongside work to capture similar demographic data in the patient population involved in clinical trials supported by Queen Mary and Barts NHS Health Trust.

While we have excellent diversity in our undergraduate community, we see less in our PGR and staff communities, and embedding more granular data collection into our central HR processes for staff and admissions processes for PGRs allows us to assess (eventually, at least, given adequate disclosure rates) how far the diversity in our undergraduate population leads through to our PGT, PGR and academic population.

Embedding the collection of more granular EDI data into central HR and admissions systems required collaboration across Queen Mary’s Research Culture, EDI, and HR teams, creating new information forms and systems to collect the data while ensuring it could be linked to other datasets. The process was also quickened by a clinical trials unit in our Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry who had piloted the collection of this data already on a smaller scale, providing a proof of concept for our colleagues in HR.

EDI data and the PGR pipeline

Securing the cooperation of our HR and EDI colleagues was made easier thanks to our doctoral college, who had already incorporated the collection of more granular EDI data into an initiative aimed at increasing the representation of Black British students in our PGR community: the STRIDE programme.

Standing for “Summer Training Research Initiative to Support Diversity and Equity”, STRIDE gives our BAME undergraduate students the opportunity to undertake an eight-week paid research project over the summer, alongside a weekly soft skills programme including presentation and leadership training. Although the programme has run annually since 2020 with excellent outcomes (almost 70 per cent of the first cohort successfully applied to funded research programmes), incorporating more granular EDI questions into the application form for the 2024 cohort of 425 applicants highlighted intersectional barriers to postgraduate study faced by our applicants that would have been obscured had we only collected basic EDI data.

Among other insights, 47 per cent of applicants to STRIDE had been eligible at some point for free school meals. This contrasts with our broader undergraduate community, 22 per cent of whom were eligible for free school meals. Some 55 per cent of applicants reported that neither of their parents went to university, and 27 per cent reported that their parents had routine or semi-routine manual jobs. Asking questions beyond the usual suite of EDI questions allows us here to picture more clearly the socio-economic and cultural barriers that intersect with ethnicity to make entry into postgraduate study more difficult for members of underrepresented communities.

The data chimed with internal research we conducted in 2021, where we discovered that many of the key barriers to our undergraduates engaging in postgraduate research were the same as those who were first in family to go to university, namely lack of family understanding of a further degree and lack of understanding regarding the financial benefits of completing a postgraduate research degree.

Collecting more granular EDI data will allow us to understand and support diversity that is intersectional, while enabling more effective assessment of whether Queen Mary is moving in the right direction in terms of making research degrees (and research careers) accessible to traditionally underrepresented communities at our universities. But collecting such data on our STRIDE applicants makes little sense without equivalent data from our PGR and academic community – hence Queen Mary’s broader decision to embed DAISY data collection into its systems.

The potential of DAISY

As Queen Mary’s experience with STRIDE demonstrates, nuancing our collection of EDI data comes with clear potential. Given adequate disclosure rates, collecting more granular EDI data makes possible more effective intersectional analyses of our PGRs and staff across our sector, and helps understand the social mobility of our PGRs and staff with more nuance, leading to a clearer image of the journey that those from less privileged social backgrounds and/or those with caring responsibilities face across our sector.

More broadly, universities will always be crucial catalysts of social mobility, and collecting more granular data on socio-economic background alongside the personal data they already collect – such as gender, ethnicity, religion and other protected characteristics – is a logical and necessary next step.

Source link

July 30, 2025
Brown Strikes Deal With Trump Administration

Brown agreed to donate $50 million to workforce development programs in Rhode Island.

Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Brown University has struck a deal with the Trump administration to restore about $510 million in frozen federal research funds in exchange for various concessions but no payment, officials announced Wednesday.

The federal government will restore millions in frozen research funding and settle investigations over allegations of campus antisemitism, according to the agreement. While Brown will not pay out a settlement to resolve the complaints like its Ivy League counterpart Columbia University did, the university pledged $50 million over the next decade to state workforce development efforts in Rhode Island.

Brown is the second university to cut a deal with the Trump administration since Columbia reached a similar agreement last week. Trump officials said the Columbia settlement would be a template for their talks with other colleges, though other higher ed experts argued the deal was unlawful and represented a threat to the sector at large. (Harvard University, which has also been in the administration’s crosshairs over alleged antisemitism, has reportedly considered a settlement of up to $500 million to resolve its ongoing dispute.)

Still, Brown agreed to multiple other changes. They include adopting the Trump administration’s definitions of male and female, not performing gender-affirming surgeries on minors or prescribing them puberty blockers, providing admissions data to the federal government, and conducting a campus climate survey and sharing the results with the federal government. Brown also agreed to codify prior changes officials announced to combat discrimination on campus.

The deal does not include restrictions on campus curriculum or programs.

“At its core, the agreement preserves the integrity of Brown’s academic foundation, and it enables us as a community to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty in a way that ensures Brown will continue to be the Brown that our students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and friends have known for generations,” President Christina Paxson said in a statement.

Brown announced the agreement shortly after the university took out a $500 million loan, which could have helped plug research funding holes or fund a protracted legal battle. The university also borrowed $300 million in April after the Trump administration froze research funding over allegations of antisemitism connected to pro-Palestinian protests.

The funding freeze, along with other changes in federal policy, has hit the university hard, and officials warned in June of the potential for “deep financial losses.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the deal, asserting in a statement that the agreement would protect Jewish students from antisemitism as well as women’s sports.

“Restoring our nation’s higher education institutions to places dedicated to truth-seeking, academic merit, and civil debate—where all students can learn free from discrimination and harassment—will be a lasting legacy of the Trump administration, one that will benefit students and American society for generations to come,” McMahon wrote in a social media post.

Source link

July 30, 2025
Northwestern University cuts 425 jobs in face of federal funding pressure
Dive Brief:
- Northwestern University plans to cut about 425 staff jobs— amounting to roughly 5% of the private nonprofit’s staffing budget — senior leaders said Tuesday in a community message.
- Nearly half of the jobs are vacant, while others will be cut through layoffs, which administrators are working to complete within 48 hours of the announcement.
- The Illinois university is navigating a host of financial challenges, including federal research funding cuts and a potentially higher endowment tax under the Republicans’ new spending law.
Dive Insight:

In their message Tuesday, Northwestern President Michael Schill, Provost Kathleen Hagerty and Chief Financial Officer Amanda Distel described recent months as “among the most difficult in our institution’s 174-year history.”

About a month and a half ago, the same group of officials said the university faced “an increasing strain” on its finances from both looming federal policy changes and increasing expenses.

At the time, they rolled out a series of austerity measures, including a pause on employee raises, a hiring freeze for faculty and staff, health insurance changes, reduced capital spending, and lowered budgets for academic and administrative units.

While the university has cut nonpersonnel budgets by 10%, employee costs make up 56% of Northwestern’s total annual spending. “We still are left with a budgetary gap that cannot be bridged without cutting personnel costs,” the officials said.

The layoffs announced this week represent “a drastic step that causes pain and anxiety both for the individuals whose lives are affected, but also for our entire community, and we do not take it lightly,” they said. They also noted that schools and units were given discretion in making cuts and asked to “think strategically” to minimize the impact to units, workers, students and the university.

Northwestern is among the prominent universities targeted by the Trump administration through probes into their responses to antisemitism on campus by the U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services.

The university, however, has reported an 88% year-over-year decline in complaints of antisemitic discrimination or harassment as of November 2024.

Nonetheless, the Trump administration in April reportedly froze $790 million funds to Northwestern. Although the university at the time hadn’t received official notification of a targeted freeze from the government, it saw around 150 stop-work orders and grant terminations from federal agencies by May 1.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported via an anonymous source that the Trump administration was in talks with Northwestern and other universities about possible deals that would involve a hefty fine to resolve the investigations. The news followed Columbia University’s controversial settlement with the government requiring a $221 million payment in return for the government restoring most of its research funding.

In an op-ed published in The Daily Northwestern on Tuesday, a group of Northwestern faculty described such fines as a “ransom” and called on university leadership to “resist the administration’s attack on fundamental democratic principles by refusing to ‘make a deal’ with the administration.”
Source link
July 30, 2025
UCLA violated civil rights law, Justice Department alleges
Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Justice alleged Tuesday that the University of California, Los Angeles violated civil rights law by failing to do enough to protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment.
- The findings stem from UCLA’s approach to a pro-Palestinian encampment that students erected on the university’s campus in the spring 2024 term. UCLA officials declined to disband the encampment for nearly a week, citing the need to balance free speech protections with student and employee safety.
- In a letter to Michael Drake, president of the University of California system, Justice Department officials said they would seek to enter a voluntary resolution with UCLA to “ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated.”
Dive Insight:

The Justice Department is also investigating the entire University of California system over similar allegations. That systemwide probe found “concerning evidence of systemic anti-Semitism at UCLA that demands severe accountability,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a Tuesday statement.

“DOJ will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system,” Bondi said.

Justice Department officials gave UCLA leaders until Aug. 5 to reach out about entering a voluntary resolution. They threatened the university with a lawsuit by Sept. 2 if they don’t believe they can strike an agreement with the institution.

The Justice Department investigation focused on the pro-Palestinian encampment erected on UCLA’s campus on April 25, 2024. Encampment demonstrators demanded that the university divest from companies with ties to Israel’s military.

On the same day it was erected, a university spokesperson told the campus community that officials were monitoring the situation to balance the “right to free expression while minimizing disruption” to the institution’s teaching and learning mission.

However, several days into the protest, some demonstrators formed human blockades to prevent some people on campus from moving freely throughout Royce Quad, including students wearing a Star of David or those who refused to denounce Zionism, according to an internal report from a university task force released last October.

The task force also found the encampment violated university rules and that the blockades disparately impacted Jewish people.

The Justice Department’s letter to UCLA heavily cited the university’s own task force report, as well as 11 complaints the university received alleging that encampment protesters discriminated against them based on their race, religion or national origin.

“UCLA’s documentation established that it did not outright ignore these complaints; however, the University took no meaningful action to eliminate the hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students caused by the encampment until it was disbanded,” the letter states.

Violence broke out at the site on the night of April 30, 2024, when counterprotesters attempted to dismantle the encampment’s barricade, The New York Times reported.

The counterprotesters attacked those within the encampment, including by launching fireworks into the encampment and hitting the pro-Palestinian protesters with sticks, according to the publication. Some of the pro-Palestinian protesters also fought back.

Police arrived hours later, though they did not immediately break up the violence. The next day, UCLA officials made the call to have police break up the encampment, resulting in over 200 arrests.

“In the end, the encampment on Royce Quad was both unlawful and a breach of policy,” then-UC Chancellor Gene Block said in a statement. “It led to unsafe conditions on our campus and it damaged our ability to carry out our mission. It needed to come to an end.”

In their letter, Justice Department officials criticized university leaders, alleging they knew that protesters were “engaging in non-expressive conduct unprotected by the First Amendment” and were denying “Jewish and Israeli students access to campus resources” days before they moved to disband the encampment.

UCLA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Justice Department findings come the same day the university settled a lawsuit from Jewish students and a Jewish professor, who alleged their civil rights were violated because UCLA allowed protesters to block their campus access.

The agency’s letter mentioned the lawsuit’s filings, though it did not refer to the settlement.

As part of that agreement, UCLA agreed to pay about $6 million, with the funds going directly toward the plaintiffs and their legal fees, as well as to Jewish groups and a campus initiative to combat antisemitism.
Source link
July 30, 2025