Stephanie Marshall is Vice-Principal (Education) at Queen Mary University of London. She is the author of the forthcoming Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education (3rd edition). Ben Hunt is Executive Officer (Education) at Queen Mary University of London.
In contrast to the adage that ‘good strategy closes doors’, the Office for Students (OfS) Strategy consultation has left many options open. This is true of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), which the OfS intends to bring into alignment with its wider quality regime:
‘TEF will be the core of our new integrated approach to quality, with assessment activity becoming more routine and more widespread to ensure that institutions are delivering high quality academic experiences and positive outcomes’.
Cart before the horse?
The OfS has stated in its consultation that it will expand its quality assessment regime without evaluating how this exercise has, or will, enhance education provision.
Previous investigations were seen as burdensome and lacking transparency.[1] On transparency, Professor Amanda Broderick, Vice-Chancellor & President at the University of East London, reflected on a quality investigation: ‘…we were not informed of what the OfS’s concerns had been at any point of the review’.
On burden, Professor David Phoenix, Vice-Chancellor of London South Bank University, has written about an investigation at his provider: ‘…providers are already very used to…scrutiny. Professional and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) have their own approaches to course review and validation, and in many instances the level of scrutiny can greatly exceed that of the OfS’.
And in a recent HEPI blog, the ex-higher education minister and architect of TEF Lord Jo Johnson asserts that the OfS has consistently deprioritised innovation.
So perhaps the OfS has reached a moment of choice: to stick or pivot.
Stephanie Marshall has written previously about the different global ‘pivots’ in higher education quality: ‘massification, quality assurance, quality enhancement, and then a move to addressing equity deploying large data’.
The OfS’s decision to pause new provider entrants has arguably stalled massification. It is duplicative when it comes to assurance with other regulators such as Ofsted. And its deployment of data through the Data Futures process is beset by delays. Instead of enabling providers to embrace change, an unintended consequence of these decisions is that sector innovation is slowed. Amidst this and the sector’s financial challenges, the OfS seeks to expand its investigatory regime without a clear theory of change linked to enhancement.
Pivot Part 1: From assurance to fremragende
In a Norwegian report to which Marshall contributed, it was noted that: ‘In English, the term ‘excellence’ is now much overused…In Norwegian the word “fremragende” has a sense of moving forward (frem) and upward (tall or reaching above the rest, ragende) and is reserved to describe something really cutting-edge’.[2]
Centres for disciplinary excellence in education were established in Norway through the Centres for Excellence (CfE) Initiative, introduced by their previous Quality Assurance body, NOKUT. To be eligible for CfE status and funding, higher education institutions had to meet baseline standards and evaluate the distinctive quality of their provision. Each Centre selected its own criteria aligned to the provider’s vision and mission.
Of course, there were challenges with this process, particularly when it came to differences in judgements of the panel assessing, against the institution being assessed. However, NOKUT was open to evolving its views, positioning itself as a ‘critical friend’. This process set out to be supportive and iterative, focused on both past impact and continuous improvement. The success of this approach has been validated over the years by regular evaluations of the impact of the scheme.
In England there were 227 providers who participated in TEF. Adopting a system from a country with 21 higher education providers is clearly not practical. The important lessons are, firstly, a critical friend approach can be beneficial to enhancement, and, secondly, institutions can be trusted to evolve some of their quality metrics in line with their mission and values. This is particularly important in a system as diverse as in England where most providers are already above the quality baseline.
Fremragende may be a more accurate framing of authentic educational enhancement rather than the English buzzword ‘excellence’.Frenragende suggests an ongoing journey: a verb rather than a noun. The higher education environment is and will be in a state of flux where quality frameworks need to be agile and unlock innovation, particularly in the territory of AI.
Pivot Part 2: Enabling enhancement through data
The OfS has a basket of lagging indicators: the National Student Survey (NSS) and Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS) which comprise the TEF. If they are utilised in the next TEF, which seems likely, one way to begin to move from assurance to continuous improvement could be for the OfS to encourage greater use of the optional NSS bank. There are additional questions in place regarding the views of healthcare students, and several optional additional questions. An integrated approach could also be taken to the questions within the GOS, either enabling some optional questions for graduates, or mapping the GOS questions to those in the NSS.
This flexibility would demonstrate trust, give providers a way to articulate ‘learning gain’, and capture the diversity in the sector. It would also maintain many of the positive aspects of TEF for key stakeholders, including the centrality of the student voice through the NSS and other mechanisms.
Pivot Part 3: Quality through partnership
Any approach to integration should be a partnership with students, providers, international organisations and employers. We hope that entrance into the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education will enable the OfS to collaborate with other global quality bodies.
The OfS should consider how, in its assessment of excellence, it integrates learning from other inspection regimes, such as Ofsted and existing PSRB requirements. Through this, it should reduce regulatory duplication. This is in line with the Regulator’s Code principle of ‘collect once, use many times’.
A mindset shift from assessing the baseline to forward-facing, continuous enhancement is required, both by the OfS and the sector. With further contextualisation of provision, the sector can exercise its autonomy to drive excellence, and the OfS can fulfil its statutory role in enabling quality and innovation.
Let’s join our Norwegian colleagues in adopting the fremragende approach.
Imagine a classroom in which young students are excitedly discussing their future aspirations and a career in medicine feels like a tangible goal rather than a distant dream. Now, imagine that most of the students come from historically marginalized communities — Black, Hispanic and Indigenous populations — that disproportionately face higher rates of chronic illness, shorter life expectancies and poorer health outcomes.
For many students from underrepresented backgrounds, a medical career feels out of reach. The path to becoming a doctor is daunting, full of obstacles like financial hardship, lack of mentorship and systemic inequities in education. Many students are sidelined long before they consider medical school, while those who persist face an uphill battle competing against peers with far more resources and support.
To mitigate these disparities, we must look beyond our hospitals and medical schools and into the places where young minds are shaped: our K-12 classrooms. Early exposure to health care careers can ignite curiosity and show students that they belong in places where they have historically been excluded.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to receive our comprehensive reporting directly in your inbox.
Organizations like the Florida State University College of Medicine, with its “Science Students Together Reaching Instructional Diversity and Excellence” (SSTRIDE) program, are leading the way in breaking down barriers to medical careers for underrepresented students. SSTRIDE introduces middle and high school students to real-world medical environments, giving them firsthand exposure to health care settings that might otherwise feel distant or inaccessible. Then, the program threads together long-term mentorship, academic enrichment and extracurricular opportunities to build the confidence and skills students need to reach medical school.
The 15 White Coats program in Louisiana takes a complementary but equally meaningful approach: transforming classroom environments by introducing culturally relevant imagery and literature that reflect the diversity of the medical profession. For many students, seeing doctors who look like them — featured in posters or books — can challenge internalized doubts and dismantle societal messages that suggest they don’t belong in medicine. Through fundraising efforts and scholarships, other initiatives from 15 White Coats tackle the financial barriers that disproportionately hinder “minority physician aspirants” from pursuing medical careers.
The impact of these programs can be profound. Research shows that students exposed to careers in science or medicine at an early age are far more likely to pursue these fields later in life. And medical students who belong to underrepresented groups are the most likely to return to underserved communities to practice. Their presence can improve communication, foster patient trust and drive innovation in addressing health challenges unique to those communities.
These programs can even have a ripple effect on families and entire communities. When young people pursue careers in medicine, they become role models for siblings, friends and neighbors. This creates a culture of aspiration in which success feels both possible and accessible, shifting societal perceptions and inspiring future generations to aim higher.
But programs like 15 White Coats and SSTRIDE cannot thrive without sustained investment. We need personal and financial commitments to dismantle the systemic barriers that prevent students from underrepresented groups from entering medicine.
Policymakers and educators must step up. Federal and state educational funding should prioritize grants for schools that partner with hospitals, medical schools and health care organizations. These partnerships should offer hands-on experiences like shadowing programs, medical summer camps and health care-focused career fairs. Medical professionals also have a role to play — they can volunteer as mentors or guest speakers, offering valuable guidance and demystifying the path to a medical career.
As a medical student, I know how transformative these experiences can be. They can inspire students to envision themselves in roles they might never have imagined and gain the confidence to pursue dreams that once seemed out of reach.
Let’s be clear, representation in medicine is not about optics. It’s about improving health outcomes and driving meaningful change. Building a stronger, more diverse pipeline to the medical profession is not just an educational priority. It’s a public health imperative.
An investment in young minds today is an investment in a health care system that represents, understands and serves everyone. Equity in health care starts long before a patient walks into a doctor’s office. It begins in the classroom.
Surya Pulukuri is a member of the class of 2027 at Harvard Medical School.
This story about health equity was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Co-Authored By Aaliyah Lee-Raji, Amadis Canizales, Amaiya Peterson, Andrew Stillwell, Anessa Mayorga, Aniyah Campbell, A’niyah Leather, Anna Fleeman, Brookelyn Vivas, Cassandra Mathieu, Christian Bennett, Clio Chatelain, Daniel Abernethy, Fatoumata Sow, India Davis, Isabella Maiello, Jazmine Collins, Jennifer Sanchez-Martinez, Joseph Stauffer, Karlee Howard, Kaylee Japak, Keanell Tonny, Kristian Isom, Leonardo Pisa, Mackenzie Lemus, Maddox Wreski, Madelyn Beasley, and Saverio Consolazio
In higher education, one of the greatest challenges is getting students not only engaged in learning but also excited about research. An equally pressing issue is navigating the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the teaching and learning space. This semester, I aimed to tackle both by teaching a psychology of wellness class that integrated the principles of positive psychology with the use of AI tools. During the two-week module on positive psychology, I wanted students to experience research and writing as positive and engaging activities. I floated the idea of co-authoring an article on student wellness from their perspective, incorporating the responsible use of AI, fostering a passion for research, and ensuring that the process was enjoyable.
Here is how the project unfolded:
Day 1: Setting the Stage for Collaborative Writing
The project began by gauging student interest in co-authoring an article on student wellness. I asked those who wanted front-facing credit and authorship acknowledgment to text me their consent and indicate if they would be comfortable with their photo(s) being included. Importantly, students had the option to opt-out at any time if they felt uncomfortable with the direction of the article. I was fortunate because a large majority of the students showed a genuine interest in this assignment.
To kick off the project, I used ChatGPT to generate an outline based on positive psychology as aligned with the textbook chapters and student-led ideas and topics. The students were then divided into groups, where each group received a dedicated workspace in our learning management system, D2L. Each group selected a predetermined subtopic to focus on, and I tasked them with using ChatGPT to generate 20 ideas on that subtopic. From those 20 ideas, the groups narrowed it down to three, which they discussed in detail, considering both research-based and personal experiences. Each group member took notes to guide the next stage of the project.
Day 2: Mind Mapping and Cross-Pollination of Ideas
On the second day, students were given poster paper and markers to create mind maps of their ideas and help gain clarity on their discussions from the previous day. Each group placed their chosen topic at the center of the mind map and organized the associated ideas around it. The mind mapping exercise allowed students to visually connect their thoughts and discussions from day one.
One member from each group was nominated to circulate among the other groups, engaging in discussions about each team’s subsection of the article. This not only gave students a broader perspective on how their topics related to the overarching theme of student wellness but also facilitated the flow of information between teams. After gathering input from other teams, the group representative brought the new insights back to their original group, enhancing their understanding of their own topic and how it fit into the larger article. To ensure continuity, students took photos of their mind maps, which would later serve as guides for the writing process.
Day 3: Writing and Research Alignment
On the third day, each group was tasked with creating a document that contained a minimum of five references, with each group member responsible for contributing at least one reference. The document consisted of chunks of article drafts accompanied by their respective references. Students were asked to align these references with the ideas discussed during the earlier sessions and integrate them into their mind maps. Next, students took 15 minutes individually within a shared Google doc to write about their subsection, drawing from their mind maps and class discussions. This individual writing time allowed students to consolidate their thoughts and begin crafting their portion of the collaborative article.
Day 4: Ethical Use of AI in the Writing Process
The fourth day focused on ethical AI usage. We began with a discussion on how students had been using AI tools like ChatGPT and how they envisioned using any type of AI tools in the creation of this article. Together, we created an AI disclosure statement, agreeing on how AI would be used during the editing phase.
We explored specific AI prompts that could enhance their writing, including:
“Rephrase for clarity.”
“Organize this paragraph for the introduction, summary, or conclusion.”
“Give me a starting sentence for this paragraph.”
These prompts were designed to guide students in using AI as a tool to enhance clarity and organization rather than relying on it to write the content.
Day 5: Final Writing and Cohesive Editing
On the final day, students returned to their group documents and spent 15 minutes revising their sections. Afterward, they worked together to co-edit the document without the use of AI, striving to make the article more cohesive and polished. Finally, we revisited the agreed-upon AI prompts, and students were given the option to use AI only when they felt it was necessary for tasks like rephrasing sentences or organizing paragraphs.
The project culminated in a completed article on student wellness, co-authored by students and enhanced by responsible AI usage. The collaborative process not only demystified research and writing but also empowered students to see these activities as positive, engaging, and enjoyable experiences.
Takeaways From This Teaching Experience
The AI writing project was a valuable learning experience for the students, as it incorporated individual and collaborative learning elements alongside technology-based approaches. Reflecting on this experience, I have identified several key takeaways to carry forward into the new semester of teaching and learning.
The Importance of Throwback Learning Experience: Something Familiar Traditional tools like markers and poster boards remain essential in fostering cohesion, socialization, and competence-building. These activities encouraged students to engage in discussions and create visual representations of their ideas, which helped build their confidence and reinforce the collaborative process.
Starting With Original Ideas Matters Students benefited from discussing their ideas within the context of originality before integrating AI-generated content. Generative AI poses a potential threat to originality, emphasizing the need for human thought, discussion, and creativity to provide a benchmark for comparing the quality and intentionality of AI contributions.
Clear Parameters and Prompts Are Essential Defining the role of AI in the writing process was critical for success. Many students initially viewed AI as a tool for producing entire works. By discussing the parameters beforehand, it became clear that AI was to be used to supplement and enhance cohesion rather than replace the creative process.
The Importance of Prompt Development Students gained a growing understanding of the importance of crafting effective prompts for AI. Recognizing how prompts influence AI outputs is a crucial skill that was previously underdeveloped in many students. Moving forward, this skill will be vital as they navigate the intersection of human creativity and AI assistance.
Final Thoughts
Developing effective AI prompts is a pivotal skill that empowers students to use AI intentionally and meaningfully in their learning. A well-crafted prompt acts as the foundation for generating accurate, relevant, and cohesive responses, highlighting the importance of clarity, specificity, and purpose in the initial instructions given to the AI. By understanding how to formulate prompts, students can better harness the potential of AI to support their ideas, enhance their creativity, and improve the quality of their work without relying on AI to replace their original contributions.
This skill also encourages critical thinking, as students must evaluate the type of input needed to achieve a desired outcome, troubleshoot issues in responses, and refine their prompts for better results. Moreover, it aligns with the broader need for digital literacy in education, preparing students to interact responsibly and effectively with technology in academic, professional, and personal contexts.
Lastly, incorporating intentional AI use into teaching strategies ensures that students not only learn how to use these tools but also understand their limitations and ethical considerations. By balancing traditional methods, which foster originality and human connection, with innovative technologies like AI, educators can create a holistic learning environment that values both creativity and technological fluency. This balance will be crucial as AI continues to play an increasingly integral role in education and beyond.
Dr. Courtney Plotts’ students in class.A snapshot of the students’ work.
Special Note of Pride: I would like to note that this group of students worked on this project during class and completed this while two natural disasters accrued, power outages, remote and in person learning and did a great job considering the circumstances. I am so proud of each of them! We originally had bigger visions for the project but due to weather we had to make some changes to the plan!
Freshman College Students’ Advice to Peers for Health & Wellness in 2025
The new year always comes with the possibility of change and growth. As students, much of our growth focus is academics and learning-based. Being academically successful isn’t an easy task. Student wellbeing is an important factor in the learning process (Frazier & Doyle-Fosco, 2024). And for most of us, throwing ourselves into our studies and homework can come with negative side effects like burnout, stress, and decreased mood and motivation. But being successful doesn’t have to come at the risk of your mental health. In our view, academic success means more than good grades and knowledge. Although you may have gone through something last year, or are still going through it now, it doesn’t have to affect you in a negative way. There is so much more that goes into being successful. Success requires dedication, consistency, self-care, and a positive mindset. But for many of us a positive mind set is hard to come by.
The Collective Obstacle
The average age of our class is 19.7 years of age. We have lived with social media all of our lives. A lot of voices have imparted information. Some good, some not so good. The negativity that is readily accessible on social media can lead to negative self-talk. “Negative self-talk refers to your inner voice making critical, negative, or punishing comments. These are the pessimistic, mean-spirited, or unfairly critical thoughts that go through your head when you are making judgements about yourself” (Scott, 2023). Negative self-talk can be detrimental to your psychological well-being. It can really bring you down after you do it for too long. Negative self-talk can also induce stress, depression, and relationship problems. How you can start to believe the negative self-talk: you can start to believe negative self-talk after a while of you doing it. The more you start to tell yourself you can’t do something, the more you’ll start to believe it.
The effects of positive self-talk are the opposite of negative self-talk. It will improve your mental health, can reduce stress, lessen depression, and improve relationships. This not only impacts academics, but other aspects of life. To minimize negative self-talk, you can catch your inner critic when it’s happening and change your thinking to think more positive thoughts, remember that thoughts are not facts, contain your negativity, shift your perspective, think like a friend, or other trusted advisors.
Two Positive Ideas to Embrace in 2025
Two ideas to embrace in the new year that can jumpstart your positivity are evaluating how you think about failure and the control of your future. Failure is an inevitable part of life, but it is through our setbacks that we find opportunities for growth and success. How we respond to failure matters more than the failure itself, and cultivating a mindset of optimism is key to overcoming challenges (Hilppö & Stevens, 2020). Optimism, combined with grit—the perseverance and passion to achieve long-term goals—forms the foundation for a positive and resilient lifestyle. Together, these qualities enable us to turn obstacles into stepping stones and approach life’s difficulties with determination and hope. Think of failures as learning opportunities. Think about the knowledge you gain from hindsight when thinking about failure.
Additionally, understanding the distinction between what we can and cannot control is crucial for maintaining positivity and health (Pourhoseinzadeh, Gheibizadeh,& Moradikalboland, Cheraghian, 2017). Accepting that not everything is within our power allows us to shift our focus to areas where we can make a difference and grow from the experience. Remaining positive during challenging situations and remembering the aspects we can influence help us navigate adversity with a constructive mindset. It’s also important to respect that some factors are beyond our control and may happen for reasons we do not yet understand. By seeking to understand why certain things are outside our control, we can cultivate acceptance and use these moments as opportunities for reflection and personal growth.
The Importance of Health Communication in 2025
Healthy communication is critical to positive personal growth. Asking open-ended questions is important when engaging in meaningful communication because it ensures that there are no assumptions being made. One researcher found that assumptions “lead to consistent and unnecessary community failures” (Macrae, 2018, p.5). Additionally, healthy communication can build true connections among people and better understanding. Also, avoiding assumptions is a way to stay present in the moment allowing you to determine if there is genuine interest in the conversation. Most importantly, health aspects of communication like listening, reflecting, and pausing encourage new thinking and can develop new ideas just about anything.
In addition to healthy communication, think about sharing more of your experiences with peers. Starting from a place of curiosity and health, inquire about someone’s well-being. You can start with a simple phrase like “Are you ok?” Or be ready and willing to share your own personal experience when the time is right. Not only can this help someone else but sharing your story can also help you process what you have been through. Sharing and listening to each other’s experiences can show understanding and help you feel more willing to share now and in the future. Understanding and being present is a power combination for communication.
Lastly, remember that relationships are complex. Whether parental, academic, or personal, everyone has their relationships challenges. One tactic to strengthen relationships is humor. Remember to laugh and enjoy life and the people around you. Most people forget about light heartedness and humor, and how humor can help strengthen and resolve issues within a relationship. Humor can improve the quality of relationships by reducing the stress, tension, and anxiety of the people within the relationship. This effect can only occur if humor is used respectfully in relationships. When used right, humor also can create a more comfortable relationship with less anxiety and sadness for those in it. It’s ok to laugh—even in challenging times.
Summary
A positive mindset is the root of achieving any goal you put your mind to. As a collective voice, we hope the information we shared is valuable information. Our goal was to share meaningful information for your new year and new journey in 2025. As students, we fully understand the importance of mental health, especially because all of us experienced covid at some of the most challenging times of our lives. We hope this information helps you in the new year as much as it helped us learn and grow. Remember to stay happy, healthy, and safe in the new year and think positive!
Dr. Courtney Plotts is a Dynamic Keynote Speaker, Author, and Professor. Dr. Plotts is the National Chair of the Council For At-Risk Student Education and Professional Standards, the country’s only organization that provides standards for working with marginalized and nontraditional students in Kindergarten to College. Her role as National Chair includes training, consulting, and research. Her subject matter expertise has been used in a variety of book publications. Most recently “Small Teaching Online” By Flower Darby with James M. Lang published in June 2019. Dr. Plotts was recognized in 2017 by the California State Legislature for a bold commitment to change in education. She is currently in talks with higher education institutions to launch an institute that focuses on diversity and best practices in online teaching spaces to launch in 2021.
References
Frazier, T., & Doyle Fosco, S. L. (2024). Nurturing positive mental health and wellbeing in educational settings – the PRICES model. Frontiers in public health, 11, 1287532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.12875
Hilppö, J., & Stevens, R. (2020). “Failure is just another try”: Re-framing failure in school through the FUSE studio approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101494
Macrae, C. (2018). When no news is bad news: Communication failures and the hidden assumptions that threaten safety. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076817738503
Pourhoseinzadeh, M., Gheibizadeh, M., & Moradikalboland, M., Cheraghian, B. (2017). The Relationship between Health Locus of Control and Health Behaviors in Emergency Medicine Personnel. International journal of community based nursing and midwifery, 5(4), 397–407.
Vice-chancellor of the Auckland University of Technology Professor Damon Salesa shares his views about place-based innovation in the context of his university in south Auckland. He is the first Indigenous person to be appointed a vice-chancellor in New Zealand or Australia.
He shares multiple lessons and strategies for driving equity in universities and providing opportunity for a diversity of learners.
The new National Student Ombudsman (NSO) is bracing for a slew of complaints from this year’s O-Week celebrations after it was revealed it received 170 complaints in just the first two weeks of operation.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The 408-page Universities Accord document has shaped the past year of university reform discussions. The document includes 47 recommendations that are expected to take up to 25 years to implement.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
If we think about research as a means of driving innovation and by extension economic growth, there is a need to consider the lives of the people who are doing the research.
The UK has a significant strength in the quality and diversity of its higher education system – which trains a large proportion of the staff who end up working in universities (and elsewhere) performing research. We should, in other words, be better than we are at sustaining and shaping research capacity through supporting the people who contribute research throughout their careers.
Certainly, that’s the case that the University and College Union makes in last week’s research staff manifesto – noting that nearly two thirds of research staff are on fixed term contracts, following research funding and strategic decisions around the country at a significant detriment to their personal lives and professional development.
How does the system work?
Precarity is not an accident of the system – it is the entire design of the system. Becoming a postdoc is not the final stage of the undergraduate to postgraduate to researcher pipeline: it is a step into a new system where the trial of job-hopping, house moving, city shifting work, may one day lead to a full time post.
The first step after undertaking a doctorate is, unsurprisingly post-doctoral work – the postdoc. The term is confusing as it implies simply the job someone does after being awarded a PhD. Over time the taxonomy has changed to take on a specific meaning. It has become synonymous with precarious employment tied to grant funding. As an example, Imperial College London describes their postdocs as follows
a member of staff who will have a PhD, and be employed to undertake research
commonly on an externally funded grant secured by their principal investigator (PI) e.g. Research Council standard grant
responsible for their own career development but entitled to the support of their PI and the PFDC
entitled to 10 days development per year
entitled to 25 days leave plus bank holidays and college closure dates (if full time, pro-rata for part time)
entitled to regular one-to-one meetings with their line manager
entitled to a mid and final probation review
entitled to a Personal Review and Development Plan (PRDP) meeting once per year
Crucially, in the section which describes what a postdoc is not, it includes being “a permanent member of academic staff.”
This is often the case because postdocs are tied to grant funding and grant funding is limited to a certain period of time to cover a specific project. UKRI, for example, does not fund postdocs directly but funds research organisations directly through a mix of focused studentships and capacity funding. Research organisations then fund postdocs.
This means that the flexible deployment of resources is the very start of the system. It’s not an accident or a quirk, it is that the UK’s research system is built around incentivising human capital to move to the organisations and places that most closely aligns to their research skills. The upside of this is that, in theory, it should mean resources are efficiently deployed to the people and places that can use them most productively. In reality, it means that instability and structural barriers to progressing to full research contracts are the norm.
It’s not that UKRI are not aware of this problem. In a 2023 blog on team research Nik Ogryzko, Talent Programme Manager at UKRI, wrote that
We’ve built a system where research groups sometimes act as their own small business inside an institution. And this leads to a very particular set of weaknesses.
Employment contracts have become linked to individual research grants, with research staff often highly dependent on their principal investigator for career progression, or even their continued employment.
Group leaders are often not equipped to support their staff into anything other than an academic career, and we know most research staff do not end up there.
We also know such precarious employment and power imbalances can in some cases lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination. Such structural factors further compromise the integrity of our research, despite the strong intrinsic motivation of our researchers and innovators.“
[…]some of the areas of most concern to researchers, such as the prevalence of fixed-term contracts and enforced mobility, will require long term systemic changes, which can only be realised through collective action across stakeholders.
Again, should a researcher be lucky enough to pass through their postdoc a permanent role is not guaranteed or even the norm. In reading through the websites of universities the reasons for fixed term contracts are various including; to align with grant-funding, to cover peak demand, to meet uncertain demand, to cover staff absence, to cover time-limited projects, secondments, training, and to bring in specialist skills.
It is not that universities don’t recognise the issue of fixed term contracts, institutions like the University of Exeter has a whole framework on the appropriate use of these contacts, it’s that in a funding system which places a premium on project working it is necessary to have a highly flexible staff force.
However, this does not mean that this system is inevitable or that the number of fixed term contracts is desirable.
What is going on?
According to HESA data, that number is slowly falling – both numerically and proportionally – for research only academic staff. As of the 2023-24 academic year, 63.9 per cent of “research only” academic staff (64,265) are on a fixed term contract. This sounds like a lot, but it is down slightly from a peak of 68 per cent (70,050) in 2019-20.
The proportion of fixed term contracts for teaching only academics (another prominent early career route, often coupled with weekends at the kitchen table writing literature reviews for publication in an attempt to bolster credentials for a research job in an underfunded field) is also on a downward trajectory. Some 44.3 per cent of teaching only contracts (equating to 64,300 people) were fixed term in 2019-20 – by 2023-24 the numbers were 35.7 per cent and 63,425.
If we take this to provider level we can see that a significant research focus is no predictor of a reliance on fixed term contracts. This chart shows the proportion of all academic staff on research only contracts on the y axis, with the proportion of all academic staff on fixed term contracts on the x axis.
What this chart shows is that a strong focus on research (with many research only academic contracts) does not predict a reliance on fixed term contracts – indeed, there are many providers with a significant proportion of fixed term contracts that have no research only academic staff at all. While a fixed term contract is a poor basis on which to plan long term as an individual, for many higher education institutions it is a useful answer to wildly varying income and recruitment. Whereas for more traditional institutions it makes sense to maintain capacity even as prevailing conditions worsen, in smaller and more precarious providers unutilised capacity is a luxury that is no longer as affordable.
If you look back to the first chart, you may notice a “salary source” filter. One of the prevailing narratives around fixed term contracts is that these necessarily link to the “fixed term” nature of funded research projects – the argument being that once the money is finished, the staff need to find new jobs. In fact, this is less of a factor than you might imagine: the proportions of research only academic staff on fixed term contracts is higher for externally funded than those funded internally, but the difference isn’t huge.
Plotting the same data another way shows us that around a quarter of research only salaries are funded entirely by the higher education provider, with a further five per cent or so partially supported by the host institution – these figures are slightly lower for fixed-term research only staff, but only very slightly.
So we can be clear that fixed term salaries are (broadly) a research thing, but there’s not really evidence to suggest that short term external funding is the whole reason for this.
As a quick reminder, the research councils represent about a quarter of all external research funding, with the UK government (in various forms) and the NHS representing about another (swiftly growing)fifth. That’s a hefty chunk of research income that comes from sources that the government has some degree of control over – and some of the language used by Labour before the election about making this more reliable (the ten year settlements of legend) was seen as a recognition of the way funding could be reprofiled to allow for more “livable” research careers and an expansion of research capacity.
This chart also allows you to examine the way these proportions land differently by provider and subject area (expressed here as HESA cost code). The volatility is higher at smaller providers, as you might expect – while research in the arts and humanities is more likely to be funded by research councils than in STEM or social sciences. But it is really the volume, rather than the source, of research funding that determines how researcher salaries are paid.
Although the established pathway from research postgraduate to research is by no means the only one available (many postgraduate research students do not become academics) it is an established maxim – dating back to the post-war Percy and Barlow reviews – that to produce the researchers we need requires training in the form of postgraduate research provision.
Although it’s not really the purpose of this article, it is worth considering the subject and provider level distribution of postgraduate research students in the light of how funding and capacity for research is distributed. As the early research career is often dominated by the need to move to take on a fixed term contract, one way to address this might be to have research career opportunities and research students in the same place from the start.
Research capacity, and – for that matter – research training capacity, can’t be turned off and on at a whim. Departments and research centres need more than one short-term funded project to begin delivering for the UK at their full potential, because developing capacity and expertise takes time and experience. That’s a part of the reason why we have non-ringfenced funding: streams like those associated with QR in England – to keep research viable between projects, and to nurture developing expertise so it can contribute meaningfully to national, regional, and industrial research priorities. It’s funds like these that support researcher training and supervision, and the infrastructure and support staff and components that make research possible.
But what the data suggests is that while the short-term nature of project funding does have an impact, especially at smaller providers and emerging research centres, there are many universities that are able to sustain research employment between projects. A part of this is bound to be sheer scale, but it doesn’t happen at all large research performing organisations by any stretch of the imagination. A part of the answer then, must be the strategic decisions and staffing priorities that makes sustaining researcher employment possible.
That’s not to let the funding side of the equation off the hook either. There is a sense that the Labour party was moving in the right direction in considering longer term research funding settlements – but we have yet to learn how this will work in practice. By its very nature, research is discovery and opportunity led: a few years ago artificial intelligence research was a minor academic curiosity, currently it is big money – but will it be a priority in 2035? Could there be some areas – medical and healthcare research, large scale physics, engineering – where we can be more sure than others?
You’ll note we didn’t mention the arts, humanities, and social sciences in that list – but these may be some of the most valuable areas of human activity, and government-supported research plays a more prominent role in sustaining not just discovery and innovation but the actual practice of such activity. Such is the paucity of money available in the arts that many practitioners subsidise their practice with research and teaching – and it feels like arts funding more generally needs consideration.
Sure, the UK punches above its weight in the sciences and in health care – but in arts, heritage, and social policy the work of the UK is genuinely world leading. It has a significant economic impact (second only to financial services) too. Research funding is a part of the picture here, but a long term commitment to these industries would be one of the most valuable decisions a government can make.
What are the other choices?
The fundamental challenge is maintaining a system which is dynamic, where the dynamism is not solely reliant on a highly transient workforce. A simple, albeit extremely limited, conclusion from the data would be that there is too great a supply of researchers to meet the demand for their skills.
The more important question is what is the value of such a highly educated workforce and how can society make the most of their talents. This is not to say the UK should operate a supply led model. A world where funding is allocated based purely on the academic interests of researchers might be good for placing emphasis on intellectual curiosity but it would not allow funders to match social and economic priorities with researcher’s work. Put another way, it isn’t sufficient to tackle climate change by hoping enough researchers are interested in doing so. It would also not necessarily create more permanent jobs – just different ones.
Conversely, a system which is largely demand led loses talent in other ways. The sheer exhaustion of moving between jobs and tacking research skills to different projects in the same field means stamina, not just research ability, is a key criterion for success. This means researchers whose abilities are needed are not deployed because their personal incentive for a more stable life trumps their career aspirations.
The current system does penalise those who cannot work flexibly for extended periods of time, but more fundamentally the incentives in the system are misaligned to what it hopes to achieve. There can be no dynamism without some flexibility, but flexibility should be demonstrable not permanently designed. Flexibility of employment should be used to achieve a research benefit not only an administrative one.
This is not wholly in the gift of universities. A careful consideration by government, funders, institutions, and researchers, of how flexibility should be used is the key to balance in the system. There are times where the research system requires stability. For example, the repeated use of fixed term contracts on the same topic is a clear market signal for more stable employment. Furthermore, it is undesirable to have a forever changing workforce in areas governments have singularly failed to make progress on for decades. Nobody is arguing that if only research into productivity was a bit more transient the UK’s economies woes could be fixed.
The need is coordinated action. And unlike in Australia there is no single review of what the research ecosystem is for. Until then as priorities change, funders work on short time horizons, and institutions respond to ever changing incentives, the downstream effect is a workforce that will be treated as entirely changeable too.
At a time when resources within research organisations are stretched, the PGR experience, and the role doctoral supervisors play in supporting that experience, needs closer attention.
The release of the pilot indicators for the REF People Culture and Environment (PCE) has promoted a flurry of conversations across UK universities as to what ‘counts’. For the first time, institutions may evidence that “infrastructure, processes and mechanisms in place to support the training and supervision of research students are working effectively” and are invited to consider the inclusion of “pre and post training assessments” for supervisors.
This signals to institutions that research supervision needs to be taken seriously– both in terms of quality and consistency of PGR experience, as well as the support and recognition for supervisors themselves. In doing so it validates the contribution of doctoral research to the research ecosystem.
Accelerated prioritisation of research supervision shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. This lack of consistency in PGR experience was recognised less than a year ago in the UKRI New Deal for Postgraduate Research, which stated that “All PGR students should have access to high quality supervision and Research Organisations should ensure that everyone in the supervisory team is well supported, including through induction for new supervisors and Continuous Professional Development (CPD)”. That messaging has been repeated in the UKRI Revised Statement of Expectations for Doctoral Training (2024), alongside a call to research organisations to “build supervisor awareness of PGR mental health, wellbeing, bullying and harassment, and equality, diversity and inclusion issues.”
So, what do we know about research supervision?
Data from the UK Research Supervision Survey 2024 (UKRSS) confirms that, overwhelmingly, research supervision is considered valuable, rewarding and enjoyable by those who undertake it. Supervision also positively impacts upon their own research. However, a third of respondents reported feeling anxious about supervision and reported their main challenge was fostering student confidence and focus, followed by offering compassionate support to students facing difficult issues ranging from mental health and wellbeing, to finances and funding.
Lack of time continues to be a barrier to high quality supervision practice, and rising supervisor-to-candidate ratios complicate this further. While early career supervisors were likely to be allocated one to two candidates, those later in their career could be supervising five to ten– only 30 per cent of UKRSS respondents reported that their institution had a policy on maximum candidate numbers. Respondents also made it clear that doctoral research supervision is not being adequately calculated into workload allocations, with a typically described workload model allocating 42 hours per candidate, per year, but supervisors reporting investing an average of 62 hours.
Time constraints like these contribute greatly to the ability of supervisors to participate in CPD opportunities. This itself is a barrier to good supervision practice, as the UKRSS revealed that supervisors who engage in regular, mandatory CPD reported higher levels of confidence in all areas of supervisory practice. A staggering 91 per cent of respondents who had experienced mandatory induction reported they felt able to enact their institutions’ procedures around supervision– compared to 66 per cent of those for whom induction was not mandatory and 55 per cent who reported no mandatory requirements..
The data illustrates that supervisors care about and take satisfaction from supporting the next generation of researchers, but they are getting a raw deal from their institutions in terms of time, reward, recognition and opportunities to develop and enhance their own practice. Underscoring this point, just 56 per cent of supervisors reported feeling valued by their institution, compared to 90 per cent who felt valued by their students. Until now this has gone under the radar, making the inclusion of the PCE indicators a welcome sign for those of us working to make changes within the sector.
Engaging supervisors with high quality Continuing Professional Development
Focus groups conducted with supervisors at five UK universities as part of the Research England funded Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP), have provided insight into what CPD is considered useful, meaningful and relevant. Supervisors were well aware of the need to develop and improve their practice, with one participant reflecting “… there isn’t sufficient training for supervision, you have a huge responsibility to another person’s career. So I think the idea that we ‘wing it’ perhaps shouldn’t be acceptable.”
An overwhelming majority of participants reported that the most important aspects of their supervision practice and development come from interactions with, and support from, their peers and more experienced colleagues. The idea that supervision practice is best developed by watching other supervisors on the job and through communities of practice was repeated by participants across experience levels, genders, disciplines, and institutions– with some even claiming this to be the only way to become a truly good supervisor.
Far from being reluctant to engage in professional development, many supervisors welcomed the idea of having the space and time to reflect on their practice. What they were less keen on was anything perceived as a ‘tick-box’ exercise– examples given included short courses without time for discussion, and self-directed online modules. There was a recognition by some that these approaches can be useful, but should form part of a more varied approach to CPD.
Generally speaking, supervisors with less experience were more likely to engage in facilitated workshops and other interventions that help them understand their role and the doctoral journey. Those with more experience expressed a strong preference for discussion-based CPD, including peer reading groups, opportunities for facilitated reflection and mentoring.
Recognising supervision as part of research culture
Whatever the final version of the PCE metrics look like, there is now a growing body of empirical evidence to suggest that a revision in the way we manage, reward and recognise research supervision is needed. When government enabled universities to introduce fees for undergraduates the issue of quality assurance quickly surfaced. It was recognised that students should be taught by properly trained staff with a knowledge and understanding of pedagogy and approaches to learning and teaching. Arguably that moment has now come for research supervision.
If the UK HE sector wishes to attract capable, committed, creative doctoral candidates from a range of backgrounds then those supervising them need to be treated, and trained, as professional practitioners. This means creating the time and space to enable supervisors at all levels of experience to engage in meaningful exchanges about their practice and to refresh their knowledge of policies and new areas as they arise.
Quick wins?
For institutions looking for ways to bolster their supervision support there are some empirically grounded ways to improve practice
Firstly, tap into existing levers for change. The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers outlines the need for PIs (many of whom are supervisors) to engage in professional development. Postdoctoral researchers are also required to engage in “10 days of professional development.” Since postdoctoral researchers are often informally involved in doctoral supervision (15% of the UKRSS respondents identified themselves as ‘early career researchers’) their engagement in CPD could also be counted. Actively recognising and celebrating the diversity of doctoral researchers and their supervisors also aligns with Athena Swan.
Secondly, increase the visibility of provision. Many supervisors in the UKRSS and focus groups didn’t know what CPD was available in their institution. Very few knew about routes to recognition of supervisory practice (e.g.through the UKCGE Research Supervision Recognition Programme). There is little to be lost in an institution showcasing themselves to prospective researchers and funders as one which takes the quality of supervision seriously and actively invests, rewards and recognises supervisors.
Thirdly, actively enable conversations about supervision. Aside from the formal training it is the time spent together which is often valuable. This may include offering simple opportunities for new and experienced supervisors to come together to talk about their experiences on topics that matter to them. It may mean enlisting a few champions who will speak about their experience. If there is already a mentoring scheme research supervision could be added to the list of topics that can be discussed as part of that relationship. It is also helpful to encourage supervisors to engage with the UKCGE Supervisor’s Network which offers cross-disciplinary and national level value as a community of practice.
Finally, use existing PGR and supervisor networks and expert spaces to find out what works well and where the gaps are. Including working with RSVP which is designing, with 58 partners, CPD interventions for new and more experienced supervisors around the topics identified above. Following pilots and evaluation these will be made freely available to the sector. Specific resources to support supervisors to engender a *neurodiversity-affirmative culture will be available later this year. Webpages to support mentoring will be available very soon. Join the RSVP mailing list to be kept up to date.
*with thanks to Professor Debi Riby at the centre for Neurodiversity & Development at Durham University
Chicago Public Schools unveiled a five-year plan Thursday to improve the outcomes of the district’s Black students — at a time of unprecedented backlash against efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in education.
The release of the Black Student Success Plan, during Black History Month, is part of CPS’s broader five-year strategic plan and aims to address long-standing disparities in graduation, discipline, and other metrics faced by its Black students, who make up roughly a third of the student body.
The district set out to create the Black Student Success Plan in the fall of 2023, but its quiet posting on Thursday comes as both conservative advocacy groups and the Trump administration are taking aim at race-based initiatives in school districts and on college campuses.
Late last week, the U.S. Department of Education’s top acting civil rights official warned districts and universities that they could lose federal funding if they don’t scrap all diversity initiatives, even those that use criteria other than race to meet their goals. He cited the 2023 Supreme Court Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision that banned the use of race as a college admissions factor.
CPS — in a progressive city in a Democratic state — has largely been insulated from standoffs over diversity and inclusion in recent years, when districts in other parts of the country have come under intense scrutiny over how they teach race and how they take it into account in hiring, selective program admissions, and other decisions. Increasingly, though, deep blue cities like Chicago are finding themselves in the crosshairs.
Last year, a Virginia-based advocacy group challenged a Los Angeles Unified School District initiative aimed at boosting outcomes for its Black students, which CPS said inspired its own plan. At the urging of the Biden administration, Los Angeles made changes to downplay the role of race, causing an outcry from some of its initiative’s supporters.
Chicago’s plan vows to increase the number of Black teachers, slash suspensions and other discipline for Black students, and embrace more culturally responsive curriculums and professional development to “combat anti-Blackness” — goals some of which could run afoul of the Department of Education’s interpretation of the Students for Fair Admissions decision.
Still, some district and community leaders in Chicago say CPS’s plan might be better-positioned to withstand challenges than Los Angeles’ initiative — and they said the district must forge ahead with the effort even as it braces for pushback.
“Now is not the time for anticipatory obedience and preemptive acquiescence,” said Elizabeth Todd-Breland, a University of Illinois Chicago professor of African American history and a former Chicago school board member who served on a working group that helped craft the plan. “This is not the time to shrink but to live out our values.”
The new plan says Illinois law mandates this work and cites a state statute that requires the Chicago Board of Education to have a Black Student Achievement Committee. That committee has not yet been formed.
CPS declined Chalkbeat’s interview request and did not answer questions before publication. The district is hosting a celebration at Chicago State University at 3 p.m. Friday to mark the plan’s release.
Chicago set out to create Black Student Success Plan years ago
CPS convened a working group made up of 60 district employees, parents, students, and community members that started meeting in December of 2023 to begin creating its Black Student Success Plan.
The following spring, it hosted nine forums to discuss the plan with residents across the city — what the plan’s supporters describe as one of the district’s most extensive and genuine efforts to get community input.
The working group in May released a list of recommendations that included stepping up efforts to recruit and retain Black educators, promote restorative justice practices, ensure culturally responsive curriculums that teach Black history, and offer more mental health and other support for Black students through partnerships with community-based organizations.
The district adopted many of these recommendations in its plan. It sets some concrete five-year goals, including doubling the number of male Black teachers, increasing the number of classrooms where Black history is taught, and decreasing how many Black students get out-of-school suspensions by 40%.
“The Black Student Success Plan is much more than simply a document,” the plan said. “It represents a firm commitment by the district, a roadmap, and a call to action for Chicago’s educational ecosystem to ensure equitable educational experiences and outcomes for Black students across our district.”
The effort built on equity work to help “students furthest from opportunity” that started five years ago under former CEO Janice Jackson, said Dominique McKoy, the executive director of the University of Chicago’s To & Through Project. In CPS, by a range of metrics, those students have historically been Black children.
McKoy, whose work focuses on college access, points out that the district has made major strides in increasing the number of students who go to college. But more students than ever drop out before earning a college degree — an issue that has disproportionately affected Black CPS graduates.
“There’s evidence and data that we haven’t been meeting the needs of Black students,” he said. “This plan is about responding to the data. Being clear about that is one of the best ways to insulate and defend that process.”
But McKoy acknowledges that now is a challenging time to kick off the district’s plan.
“Undoubtedly there will be critics who will think it’s racial preference to help students who need help and will attack the district for doing so,” said Pedro Noguera, the dean of the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education.
Last year’s challenge against a $120 million Los Angeles program aimed at addressing disparities for Black students offers a case study, Noguera notes. Parents Defending Education, which opposes school district diversity and inclusion programs, filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The group has also challenged programs to recruit more Black male teachers and form affinity student groups based on race in other districts.
Ultimately, Los Angeles overhauled the program to steer additional staffing and other resources to entire schools serving high-needs students, rather than more narrowly to Black students. The Los Angeles Times reported that to some critics, those changes watered down the program, which was beginning to show some early results. But Noguera says he feels the program is still helping Black students.
However, it is clear that the Trump administration plans to go much further in interpreting the Students for Fair Admissions decision and seeking to root out DEI initiatives. In a “Dear Colleague” letter to school leaders Friday, Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department, said efforts to diversify the teaching force or the student bodies of selective enrollment programs could trigger investigations and the loss of federal funding. About 20% of CPS’s operating revenue comes from the federal government.
“The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions,” Trainor wrote. “The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
‘Get the help to the kids who need it’
Chicago, like Los Angeles, might consider a focus on schools — chosen based on metrics such as graduation rates, test scores and others — where the plan would help Black students and their peers, Noguera said. Maybe it doesn’t even have to refer to Black students in its name, he said.
“The main thing is to get the help to the kids who need it,” he said. But, he added, “In this environment, who knows what’s challenge-proof.”
He said what helped in Los Angeles was deep community engagement that lent that district’s initiative credibility and good will; the changes that the district made in response to the legal challenge did not erode those.
Darlene O’Banner, a CPS great-grandmother who served on the working group, said CPS got the community engagement piece right. She thinks the plan will offer a detailed roadmap for improving Black students’ achievement and experience.
“I am not going to think of the unknowns and what’s going on in the world,” O’Banner said. “We’re just going to hope for the best. We can’t put the plan on hold for four years.”
The working group issued its recommendation in early fall and stopped meeting following the September resignation of all school board members, who stepped down amid pressure from the mayor’s office to fire CPS CEO Pedro Martinez over budget disagreements.
Valerie Leonard, a longtime community advocate who also served on the working group, said during the community meetings for the Black Student Success Plan last year, there was no discussion of possible legal pushback to the plan.
“Illinois is a liberal state,” she said. “It never really occurred to us a year ago that this plan would be in danger.”
But more recently, as she heard Trump assail DEI initiatives, Leonard said she wondered if the plan would survive.
Leonard pushed Illinois lawmakers last year to mandate the Board of Education appoint a Black Student Achievement Committee as part of the state law that cleared the way for an elected school board in Chicago. The district’s plan invokes that committee though it hasn’t been formed yet. The board formed a more generic student success committee earlier this month.
“We believe that the problem with Black children in public schools is so dire that it needs to be elevated to its own committee,” she said. “When our children get lumped into something that’s for all, they inevitably fall between the cracks.”
McKoy at the University of Chicago said he feels “cautious optimism” and hopes the city and state rally around CPS as it pushes to improve outcomes for Black students.
“The plan itself isn’t going to do the work,” he said.
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.
February 23, 2025, by Dean Hoke: This profile of Hendrix College is the third in a series presenting small colleges throughout the United States.
Background
Hendrix College, founded in 1876, is a private liberal arts institution located in Conway, Arkansas. Its 175-acre campus has been affiliated with the United Methodist Church since 1884 and is nationally recognized for its academic excellence, student engagement, and commitment to innovation. Dr. Karen K. Petersen, the 13th President of Hendrix College, began her tenure in June 2023.
The student-to-faculty ratio is 11:1, fostering close interactions between students and the 91 full-time faculty members, 89% of whom hold a Ph.D. or equivalent degree. For the 2025-2026 academic year, the total cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, room, and board, is $55,080. The average net price, according to the College Board, is $22,626. More than 90% of students live in college-owned housing.
Curricula
Hendrix offers 30 majors and 33 minors, encompassing a wide range of disciplines in the arts, humanities, sciences, and social sciences. Notable programs include Psychology, Health Science, Biology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Computer Science, and Economics & Business. A cornerstone of the Hendrix educational experience is the Odyssey Program, which encourages students to engage in hands-on learning through projects, internships, and global experiences, thereby fostering both personal and academic growth.
Strengths
Engaged Learning: The Odyssey Program exemplifies Hendrix’s dedication to experiential learning, providing students with opportunities to apply classroom knowledge in real-world contexts.
High Graduation Rate: The four-year graduation rate stands at 67.3%, with 85% of 2022 graduates completing their degrees within four years.
Post-Graduation Success: About one-third of graduates pursue advanced studies immediately, with the majority gaining acceptance into graduate or professional programs before graduation.
Weaknesses
Cost of Attendance: The total direct cost for the 2025-2026 academic year is $55,080, which may pose a financial challenge for some students. However, Hendrix offers merit scholarships ranging from $13,000 to $24,000 and meets a significant portion of demonstrated financial need.
International Enrollment Challenges: Hendrix has less than a handful of international students compared to the 5-6% national average.
Limited Graduate Programs: While Hendrix provides a Master of Arts in Accounting, its primary focus is on undergraduate education.
Economic Impact
Situated in Conway, Arkansas, a city with a population of approximately 66,000 and part of the Little Rock metropolitan area, Hendrix College contributes significantly to the local economy. In a report by the Conway city government, they state: “Over 100 years ago, Conway made the strategic decision to pursue institutions of higher learning as a means of growing the Conway economy. That choice has paid countless dividends ever since. As the colleges have grown, so has their economic impact. Perhaps more importantly, over time, they have laid the foundation for Conway’s modern workforce.”
The presence of Hendrix College, the University of Central Arkansas, and Central Baptist College is, without a doubt, the reason Conway has such a remarkably young (median age 27.3) and educated (almost 40 percent with at least a bachelor’s degree) population. Those two qualities stand out nationally as the city competes for jobs in today’s economy. The result is a regional economy that has been recognized as one of the most diverse in the nation. Conway is among the nation’s top 20 percent of fastest growing cities with populations over 50,000.
Enrollment Trends
As of Fall 2023, Hendrix College has enrolled 1,120 students from 39 states and 17 countries. The student population is evenly split between male and female students, and more than 90% reside in college-owned housing, including residence halls, houses, and apartments. Approximately 44% of students are from Arkansas, while 56% come from out of state.
Like many private colleges, Hendrix has experienced a slow, steady enrollment decline of 23% over the past decade
Degrees Awarded by Major
In the 2023-2024 academic year, Hendrix College awarded 227 Bachelor of Arts degrees in 28 different majors and eight Master of Arts degrees in Accounting.
Alumni
LinkedIn data shows that the college has nearly 9,000 alums. 60% live outside of Arkansas, 3,575 reside in Arkansas, 2,600 in the Little Rock Region, and 851 in the Conway area.
Graduation Ratesare 67.3% in four years and 68.5% in six years. Approximately 75% of graduates who apply to medical or dental school are accepted, and the law school acceptance rate is 78%.
Notable Alumni:
Dr. Margaret Pittman (Class of 1923): A pioneering bacteriologist, Dr. Pittman was the first woman to lead a National Institutes of Health (NIH) laboratory. Her groundbreaking research on vaccines for diseases such as typhoid, cholera, and whooping cough has had a lasting impact on public health.
Craig Leipold (Class of 1974): A prominent businessman best known as the owner of the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Minnesota Wild.
Douglas A. Blackmon (Class of 1986): A journalist and author, Blackmon won the Pulitzer Prize for his book “Slavery by Another Name,” which explores the re-enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II.
Trenton Lee Stewart (Class of 1992): An author best known for the “Mysterious Benedict Society” series, Stewart’s work has captivated readers worldwide.
Dr. Arthur Thomason (Class of 1997): Working at NASA’s Johnson Space Center with Barrios Technology, Dr. Thomason is an Extravehicular Activities (a.k.a. space walk) flight controller and instructor for NASA.
Ashlie Atkinson (Class of 2001): An actress recognized for her work in film, television, and theater, Atkinson has appeared in productions like BlacKkKlansman, The Gilded Age, and Mr. Robot.”
Endowment and Financial Standing
As of June 30, 2024, Hendrix College’s endowment stands at $206 million, bolstered by a successful $150 million fundraising campaign. The campaign, titled A Time to Lead, added $84 million to its endowment. These funds support scholarships, faculty positions, and institutional initiatives.
Hendrix holds a 2.705 rating and a B- grade in the 2023 Forbes financial report.
Why Hendrix Remains Relevant
Hendrix College stands out in the following areas:
Academic Excellence: Known for its strong liberal arts curriculum, Hendrix is frequently ranked among the top liberal arts colleges in the U.S., reflecting its strong academic programs, student satisfaction, and overall institutional quality.
Odyssey Program: Hendrix stands out for its Odyssey Program, which emphasizes hands-on learning through internships, research, service, and global experiences, making education more experiential and practical.
Economic Impact: Located in Conway, Arkansas, Hendrix contributes significantly to the local economy through employment, student spending, and cultural enrichment.
Graduate Success: Hendrix has a strong track record of graduate success, underscoring its role in shaping well-rounded individuals equipped for personal and professional achievements. They have graduates who have excelled in various fields, including writing, film/arts, sciences, and business, adding to the institution’s prestige and influence.
Endowment Growth: The college’s stable and growing endowment supports scholarships, faculty development, and campus improvements, ensuring long-term sustainability and competitiveness.
With its commitment to liberal arts education, hands-on learning, and student success, Hendrix College remains a vital institution in higher education.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, are co-hosts for the podcast series Small College America. Season two begins February. 25, 2025
