I’d be hard-pressed to find any person in higher ed who has had a larger influence on my own thinking than James Lang. Many folks will know Jim from his books like Cheating Lessons, Small Teaching and Distracted. He’s consistently ahead of the curve when it comes to identifying a problem in teaching and learning spaces—academic dishonesty, class disengagement, student attention problems—and proposing remedies that instructors can explore and make use of for themselves.
His new book, Write Like You Teach: Taking Your Classroom Skills to a Bigger Audience, part of the University of Chicago Press series of guides to writing, editing and publishing, is the best book I’ve ever seen for showing academics how to translate their current skills and practices to another audience and purpose. I’m excited by this book because we need as many academics as possible putting their voices into the world, not just because they have so many interesting and worthwhile things to say as individuals, but because it also helps remind everyone about the value of institutions where this kind of work happens.
I had a great time talking to Jim over email. This Q&A even breaks some news on Jim’s next book, too.
Jim Lang is a professor of the practice at the Kaneb Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Notre Dame, and an emeritus professor of English at Assumption University. He’s the author of multiple books, including Small Teachingand Distracted, and a longtime columnist for The Chronicle of Higher Education. You can follow him on Substack at A General Education or connect with him on LinkedIn.
John Warner: One of my favorite initial questions for people who write is if they enjoy writing. So that’s my question: Do you enjoy writing?
James Lang: “Enjoyment” doesn’t seem like the right word for my feelings about writing. Writing has always been the activity that drives and gives meaning to my life. It helps me make sense of the world; if I have deep questions about the purpose of my life, or questions about anything important, I seek answers through writing, both within my published work and in my various notebooks. I have always been a very curious person who gets excited about learning new things, so writing has always been a way to satisfy those curiosities and push me into new places in my life.
If I focus specifically on the emotion of enjoyment … I hate to admit it, but I don’t seem to enjoy the actual writing process quite as much as I used to. I think I had a more unreserved embrace of writing when I was younger, when I felt like I had a lot to say and was confident that I had the ability to say it. I think both of those feelings have diminished, which I attribute in equal parts to the stroke I had a few years ago and to my age. I had to learn to speak and write again after my stroke, and while I have regained all of the words and writing skills I had before, I have to work a little harder than I used to [to] call them up and apply them. But even beyond the stroke, I guess I feel less of a desire to announce my ideas confidently to the world than I once felt. I have a great family, lots of friends and ongoing interests in many areas of my life. As my appreciation for those things has increased, the available real estate in the enjoyment part of my brain has shrunk slightly.
But the key word in that sentence is “slightly.” I do still take much pleasure from finding the perfect word, crafting a great sentence or launching a new essay or book. Writing still fills my life with meaning, and I could never envision my life without writing, or at least the desire to write, being part of who I am.
Q: What you describe sounds a bit like a winding down or maybe a shift in focus? I often say about myself that I’m never going to retire because I can’t imagine not reading and writing, which is both my pleasure and my work. But I do sometimes wonder if there’s a space to do less of it, if that makes sense. But as you note, it seems impossible to shut off that curiosity that drives those activities.
Where does that curiosity come from for you? You’ve had a varied career and it seems like every so often you shifted gears. Was that necessity or design or something else?
A: It comes from both a negative and a positive place. The negative place is that I do get bored of routines in any form, and when I feel like my life has fallen into a routine place, I start getting this itch to break it. I received tenure in the usual time frame, and it was only a couple of years after that I was seeking a new challenge, so I applied to direct our honors program. I enjoyed that work tremendously, but then once again sought a change and founded a new teaching center on campus. Right after the pandemic, based on the success of Small Teaching and Distracted, I decided to give myself a new challenge: give up tenure and try to make it with a mix of writing, speaking and adjunct teaching. That plan was upended by my long medical ordeal, but even after I was able to return to that life, I realized that I missed deeply having a home on a campus, which led me to Notre Dame. So that has definitely been a pattern in my career and in my life.
For the positive explanation for this restlessness, I would point to something my wife (an elementary school teacher) told me about the kids who come into her classrooms each year. She says that while we might be all born curious, by the time children get into school, they are already separating in terms of how much curiosity they bring to school. The differentiating factor she sees is how much exposure kids have to different kinds of life experiences. The kids who sit in their bedroom on their parents’ tablets all day or play video games in their rooms just don’t see as much of the world, and they aren’t being prompted to ask questions, wonder and explore. The ones who come in curious are the ones whose parents have deliberately tried to expose them to new things in some form—trips, walks outside, reading aloud, giving them books, etc.
When I heard that, I realized that I had been raised as one of those latter kids. My mother was also an elementary school teacher, but her best years were in preschool. She had a special love, and special gift, for very young children. And while I have only a few memories of my preschool years, I know from seeing how she interacted with my children that I must have been raised to become a curious person.
Q: I had a mini epiphany while reading the opening section of Write Like You Teach, which is that good teachers and good writers think of the needs of their audience (students/readers) first. This is something I think I’ve always done as a teacher, perhaps because I was a writer before I was a teacher, but you make it pretty explicit and then give it a little specific flesh. When did this connection first come to you?
A: I actually can’t quite remember where that specific connection came from. I do know that this book really came out of my desire to write some more about attention, the subject of my previous book. I have written books about several major issues in teaching and learning, and some of them I finished and felt like I was done with that topic. That wasn’t true for attention. The more you read and learn about attention, the more you realize how it has a part in almost everything that matters in our lives. Work, play, relationships, spirituality, learning—all of them demand our attention. They often go well or poorly depending upon the quality of our attention. And so I still find attention fascinating, and I keep reading and thinking and writing about it. I also just really enjoyed writing the book Distracted. So I think maybe I was trying to determine what else I could write about attention which would relate to another area where I have some interest and expertise.
Reading was the initial bridge to further thinking about attention. Anyone who reads a lot knows that some books capture our attention more than others. I think the teaching-writing connection that produced this book came from realizing both in classrooms and books, you have to be aware of the limits of a learner’s attention. Both as teachers and writers, we can either just expect people to pay attention or we can try to help them. I had made the case for the latter approach in Distracted and realized I could make the same case to writers: If you want readers to sustain their attention over the course of many pages, don’t just bang away at them with paragraph after paragraph of argument and idea. They need breaks, they need stories, they need space to pause and think—just as students do in the classroom. Seeing how attention informs both teaching and writing led to the basic idea of the book: The things we do in the classroom to help students learn can also be useful for our readers.
Q: In a note at Substack, Arvind Narayanan (coauthor of AI Snake Oil) offered a “hypothesis on the accelerating decline of reading.” It’s got a bunch of bullets, so I’ll do my best to paraphrase: Essentially, people mostly read for pleasure or to obtain information. These functions have been replaced by other things. Video is more entertaining than reading. We can use large language models to summarize long texts and deliver information to us. He theorizes that most people will be happy with the trade-off of increased speed/efficiency, the same way we’ve gravitated toward “shallow web search over deeper reading.” He’s worried about this but also believes that merely “moralizing” about this is not going to be helpful. (I tend to agree.) I’ve argued for years that getting students engaged with writing is a great way to get them reading, because reading is the necessary fodder for writing. Writing is also a tremendous way to cultivate our ability to pay attention. I’m wondering if you’re worried in the same way as Narayanan or if you have any additional ideas of what we can do about this.
A: First, thanks for sharing that note, which will be helpful to me as I am working on my next project—which I am happy to announce here. My next book will be The End of Reading?, which will be published by W. W. Norton, a publisher whose books I have been reading since high school and assigning in my courses for my entire teaching career. I’m so excited to dig into this project, but I am going to beg off on an answer here because I am just in the beginning of my thinking and writing and need more time to formulate my ideas. Put another way: Ask me that question again in two years!
Q: I have sort of the opposite problem as the folks this book is addressed to, in that I find it very natural to write to regular people—because that’s where I started—while writing for more formal or academic audiences is something I can struggle with. What is it about the experience of the academic that makes the transition you’re writing about difficult?
A: The problem here is that experts often lose track of what novices don’t know in their fields. The more we know in a discipline, the further away we get from our memories of what it was like to know very little about biology or literature or politics. When academics write to each other, they can assume their readers know certain things: basic facts, theories, common examples or cases, histories, major players in the field. Let’s say I’m a scholar of Victorian literature and want to write something about a work of Victorian literature. If I am writing to other scholars in that field, I can be confident that my readers know things I know: the expansion of the British Empire during that time period, the impact of Darwin and evolutionary theory on many writers in that era, the political turbulence and social unrest accompanying the Industrial Revolution.
If I am writing to a more public audience, I can’t assume my reader knows any of that stuff. In a classroom, I can always stop and just ask students, “Have you heard of this before?” If they haven’t, I can give a quick introduction. But as a writer with deep expertise in a subject, I have no idea what a more public audience knows or doesn’t know. Faced with that problem, I think a lot of academics just say, “Never mind, I’ll just keep writing to my people.” And that writing is important and can be great! I love a good scholarly book, and I still read them regularly. That kind of writing also helps people get and keep academic jobs, so I am not on some crusade to encourage everyone to write for the public. But I think the major sticking point for people who do want to expand their audiences is thinking more deeply about their audiences: what they know or don’t know, why they are reading your work, and what you want them to take away from the experience.
Q: Something I’ve often said about both writing and teaching is that they are “extended exercises in failure,” where failure means not missing the target entirely, but falling short of one’s initial expectations. I find this reality interesting, fascinating, really, because with both activities, you usually get a chance to try again. Does this make sense to you, or do you have any different frames for how you view these two activities?
A: No absolutely, and in fact that framework applies to all of the pursuits that give me satisfaction, including the other major intellectual pursuit of my life: learning languages. I did not start learning other languages until my first year of high school, where I started with Latin. Immediately I was fascinated, and so in my junior year I added ancient Greek into my curriculum. When I got to college, I took classes in both those languages, and then also took French. Over the next 30 years I have gone back and forth with those original three languages and also tried to learn Spanish and Italian and German.
I start every new language with this expectation that this time I’m going to really dig in and master this thing and become just totally fluent. The truth is that I have some basic knowledge in all six of those languages but know none of them particularly well. But I just love the fact that I can go back to any of them, at any time, and start trying again. I’m 55, and my brain has a different shape than it used to (because of the stroke), so I have to be realistic and acknowledge that it’s unlikely that I will ever become a fluent speaker in any other language than English. But gosh, I just love to keep trying.
As you say, teaching and writing are the same. You start off with such hope and expectation and excitement: This will be the best class I will ever teach! This essay or book is the one that will change people’s lives! But it never quite works out that way. Even when you teach a great course, not every class period will be perfect. Not every student will have a great experience. When I look at my own books, I am proud of them but can see places where I cringe and wish I had done better. But I don’t feel defeated by those feelings: They make me want to keep trying.
Q: The book is filled with practical approaches to writing for broader audiences, but I wouldn’t quite call it a book of “advice.” The word that comes to mind is “guidance.” Does that distinction make sense to you?
A: This distinction matters a lot to me, actually. I think because of the success of Small Teaching, which had a lot of concrete pieces of advice, people can view me as a “teaching tips” guy. I do love learning and thinking about specific practices in the classroom, so I don’t wholly disavow that association. Presenting theories and big ideas about teaching only gets people so far; they need to envision what those theories look like when they are standing in the classroom on Tuesday of week seven with 20 blank faces in front of them. Describing examples of specific practices helps them with that imaginative work.
But I always want people to understand that I am not advising them to do anything in particular: I am showing examples designed to spur their own creative thinking. Write Like You Teach, for example, has a chapter about the challenge of reader attention, and I do offer some very concrete pieces of advice based on writing strategies that I have observed in great writers. Ultimately, though, I want the readers of my book to move beyond these specific examples and develop their own strategies based on the principle readers are learners, and learners need support for their attention. With that principle in mind, I want people to analyze their classroom practices and see what translates to the page.
That leads me to the final thing I want to say: The first and final goal of this book is to help academics feel empowered and enabled to write for the public. The prospect of doing that kind of writing can be intimidating, and many of us shy away from it. But if I can convince academics of this one principle—a great teacher can become a great writer—then I hope they will be able to develop their own writing practices based on their experiences in the classroom.
Q: And finally, the last question I ask everyone: What’s one book you recommend that you think not enough people are aware of?
A: When people ask me to recommend a novel to them, or when people ask me to share my favorite novel, I always mention two: Zadie Smith’s White Teeth and Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. I am cheating a little bit here because both of these novels were very well-known when they were published, sold many copies and won prizes. But they are both a couple of decades old now, and I believe that their themes are as relevant today as they were when they were first published. If you are a word person, choose Roy, whose prose comes as close to poetry as a novel can get; if you love a great plot, choose Smith, whose genius shines through the ebullience of her narrative construction. If I were forced to choose between the two, I would choose … I can’t. I just can’t.
Earlier this week, we announced a new partnership between the University of Michigan and Google to provide free access to Google Career Certificates and Google’s AI training courses for more than 66,000 students across U-M’s Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses. These high-demand, job-ready programs are now available through the university’s platform for online and hybrid learning, Michigan Online. The courses and certificates help students to develop in-demand skills in areas like cybersecurity, data analytics, digital marketing, UX design, project management and foundational AI.
We’re both proud graduates of the University of Michigan. Our undergraduate experiences in Ann Arbor were transformational, shaping how we think, who we are and the lives we’ve led. There are countless ways to take advantage of an extraordinary place like U-M. But with the benefit of hindsight, one lesson stands out: Learning how to learn may be the most valuable thing you can take with you.
That has always been true. But it’s becoming more essential in a world where technological change is accelerating and the life span of a “job-ready” skill is shrinking.
A False Choice We Can’t Afford to Make
Today’s learners are navigating a noisy debate: Is a degree still worth it? Should they invest in college—or seek out a set of marketable skills through short-term training?
Too often, this is framed as an either-or choice. But our new partnership underscores the power of both-and.
A college degree is a powerful foundation. And when paired with flexible, high-impact programs like Google Career Certificates, AI Essentials and Prompting Essentials, students are positioned to thrive in a dynamic global workforce. This is not about diluting the value of higher education. It’s about enhancing it—by equipping students with the durable intellectual tools of a university education and the technical fluency to succeed in real-world roles.
The stakes are high. Nearly 70 percent of recent college graduates report needing more training on emerging technologies, while a majority of employers expect job candidates to have foundational knowledge of generative AI. As noted in a New York Times opinion piece by Aneesh Raman, chief economic opportunity officer at LinkedIn, the rise of AI and automation is reshaping the skills required for many jobs, making it imperative for educational institutions to adapt their curricula accordingly. This underscores the importance of integrating practical, technology-focused training into traditional degree programs to ensure graduates are prepared for the modern workforce. The world of work is changing rapidly. Higher education can and must evolve with it.
Rethinking What It Means to Prepare Students for the Future
This partnership is part of a larger effort at the University of Michigan to reimagine what it means to support lifelong learning and life-changing education. Through Michigan Online, U-M students already have access to more than 280 open online courses and series created by faculty in partnership with the Center for Academic Innovation, as well as thousands of additional offerings from universities around the world. These new certificates and AI courses deepen that commitment, creating new on-ramps to opportunity for every student, regardless of background or campus.
Through Google’s flexible online programs, we’ve seen how high-quality, employer-validated training can make a meaningful difference. More than one million learners globally have completed Google Career Certificates, and over 70 percent report a positive career outcome—such as a new job, raise or promotion—within six months of completion. Google’s employer consortium, including more than 150 companies like AT&T, Deloitte, Ford, Lowe’s, Rocket Companies, Siemens, Southwest, T-Mobile, Verizon, Wells Fargo and Google itself, actively recruits from this pool of talent. Google partners with over 800 educational institutions in all 50 states, including universities, community colleges and high schools, to help people begin promising careers in the Google Career Certificate fields.This new partnership extends these opportunities to U-M students to further support career readiness.
By offering accessible, skill-based programs like the Google Career Certificates, we aim to provide additional scaffolding for student success and career readiness, alleviating some of the pressures associated with traditional academic routes and recognizing diverse forms of achievement.
An Invitation to Higher Ed and Higher Ed Ecosystem Leaders
We believe this partnership is a model for how industry and education can come together to create scalable, inclusive and future-forward solutions.
But it’s just one step.
As we reflect on this moment, we invite fellow leaders in higher education, industry and government to ask,
How can your institution better integrate career-relevant skills into the student journey without sacrificing the broader mission of a liberal arts education?
What partnerships or platforms might allow your students to benefit from both a degree and credentials with market value?
In an era defined by AI, how will your institution ensure students are not just informed users of new tools, but thoughtful, responsible and empowered innovators?
How can your institution or organization expand equitable access to high-value learning opportunities that lead to social and economic mobility?
What role should public-private partnerships play in shaping the future of education, work and innovation, and how can we design them for long-term impact?
The path forward isn’t a binary choice. It’s a commitment to both excellence and access, both degrees and skills, both tradition and transformation.
We’re honored to take this step together. And we look forward to learning alongside our students and our peers as we navigate what’s next. In a rapidly shifting higher education environment, we see reason for optimism: opportunities to reimagine student success, forge lasting strategic partnerships and strengthen the bridge between higher education and the future of work.
James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.
By Vincenzo Raimo, an independent international higher education consultant and a Visiting Fellow at the University of Reading, where he was previously Pro Vice-Chancellor for Global Engagement.
Vincenzo Raimo will be joining David Pilsbury and Janet Ilieva at the International Higher Education Forum (IHEF 2025) on 4 June 2025 to discuss the topic: ‘Outdated policy and unfounded optimism drive British universities to the abyss.’
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”
— The Leopard, Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
UK universities are awash with the language of transformation. Internationalisation and Global Engagement strategies speak of partnerships, student mobility, intercultural learning and global citizenship. Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors for Internationalisation describe international education as central to institutional values and academic mission. And yet, for many, the real driver is far simpler: money.
There is a widening gap between the rhetoric of internationalisation and the reality of its execution. Strategic plans position it as an enabler of diversity, excellence and global reach, but the day-to-day reality is that it functions as a financial lifeline. In a sector facing significant funding pressures, international student income is often the difference between surplus and deficit. That tension matters. It undermines credibility, risks student experience and can lead institutions to prioritise volume over value.
The quote from The Leopard, Lampedusa’s novel of aristocratic decline during the unification of Italy, captures a central paradox of institutional reform. It speaks to the instinct to embrace the appearance of change in order to preserve the status quo. In recent months, this sentiment has felt uncomfortably familiar in UK higher education. We appear to be entering a period of cosmetic transformation: new job titles, rebranded structures and revised plans, but all too often without the deeper shifts in strategy, culture or resourcing that genuine transformation demands.
This is particularly evident in international student recruitment.
Universities in the UK have long faced political headwinds. International students are welcomed in principle but scrutinised in practice. Brief moments of progress, such as allowing students to bring dependents, are quickly reversed in response to migration debates. The result is unpredictability, which undermines confidence in the UK offer.
Despite this, the UK has historically benefited from a position of passive advantage in international recruitment. We speak the global language of higher education. Our qualifications are widely recognised. Many of our institutions enjoy long-established reputations. And our complex legacy of Commonwealth ties, colonial familiarity and cultural affinity has offered visibility and access in key markets.
But that advantage is fading.
Policy instability is only part of the challenge. Global competition is intensifying, and not just from the traditional English-speaking destinations. European countries are increasingly offering high-quality, English-taught programmes at lower cost, often with clearer post-study pathways. In Asia, more students are opting to stay closer to home, choosing emerging regional providers with improving reputations and stronger cultural fit. The UK can no longer assume it is the default choice.
In response, institutions are making changes, or at least talking about them. The mood music is shifting: towards diversification, resilience and sustainability. Yet much of this amounts to cosmetic change. Beneath the surface, many universities are still operating on the same assumptions, deploying the same strategies, and relying on the same markets and channels as they have for years.
I have argued that recruitment targets are vanity, quality and retention are sanity, but margin is king. Growth in international enrolments may look impressive, but it means little if acquisition costs are rising, if retention is falling, or if students leave feeling unsupported. In one recent project, I found that recruitment costs, dominated by agent commissions, amounted to nearly a third of the net tuition income per student. That model is unsustainable in the long term.
And the consequences are already visible: redundancies, departmental reconfigurations and even the closure of entire disciplines. The pursuit of international income has not protected the sector from financial strain. Rather, it may simply have postponed the difficult decisions needed to build genuinely sustainable institutions.
One apparent solution is transnational education (TNE). There is renewed enthusiasm for TNE as universities seek to diversify income and reach. I have worked with institutions developing long-term TNE partnerships that deliver real benefits: stronger reputation, broader access and more distributed risk. But TNE is not a short-term fix. It takes time to design and deliver well, requires significant investment and cannot plug immediate financial gaps.
Nor can TNE substitute for a broader rethink of international strategy. In my International Student Recruitment Success and TNE Success scorecards, I offer practical frameworks for assessing capabilities, identifying risks and planning more strategically. These tools are designed to help institutions move beyond tactical fixes and focus on longer-term sustainability. Key questions include:
What is our purpose in internationalisation?
How distinctive and competitive is our offer?
Are our structures and resources aligned to support quality and retention?
And are we being honest about what our strategy is really for, and is that clearly communicated across the institution and to our wider stakeholders?
Too often, international strategies present one set of values, while day-to-day activities pursue another. This misalignment makes success harder to define, measure and achieve.
The danger today is that we confuse activity with progress. Structural tweaks and strategic refreshes may signal intent, but unless they are anchored in purpose and matched by investment, they will not deliver the resilience the sector needs.
Lampedusa’s quote reminds us that change can be used either to preserve the status quo or to enable transformation. The UK higher education sector faces a choice: to make difficult, strategic changes now, or to continue changing just enough to maintain the illusion of stability, while the foundations quietly erode.
Have you ever felt the weight of being overworked and underpaid? Do you find yourself questioning your value in your workplace? Are you contemplating exploring new employment opportunities in the near future? If these thoughts resonate, knowing you are not alone in this journey is important. Many of your peers share these concerns.
The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey (ERS) is not just a study; it’s a comprehensive collection of your experiences and opinions. It gathered data from 4,783 higher education employees across 539 institutions, including administrators, professionals, and non-exempt staff from various departments. This survey is valuable for understanding the job satisfaction and retention challenges you and your peers face in higher education (Bichsel et al., 2023).
The 2023 survey asked questions in the following areas:
Likelihood of looking for other employment opportunities in the near future
Reasons for looking for other employment
Remote work policies and opportunities
Work performed beyond normal hours and duties (overwork)
Satisfaction with benefits
Well-being and satisfaction with the job environment
Retention incentives experienced in the past year
Challenges for supervisors
Demographic questions on gender, race/ethnicity, and age
Characteristics of the employee’s position (Bichsel et al., 2023)
The survey’s analyses provided critical insights into the proportion of our higher education workforce at risk of leaving, the reasons why employees are considering other job opportunities, and the underlying factors contributing to their desire to leave. These findings are crucial in addressing our shared concerns. (Bichsel et al., 2023)
The survey results are as follows: one-third (33%) of higher ed employees are very likely or likely to look for new employment opportunities in the next year, which is unchanged from last year. This indicates that retention remains a significant and urgent challenge in higher ed. The area with the most acute retention challenge is student affairs, where 39% of employees surveyed say they are likely or very likely to look for other employment opportunities within the next year (Bichsel et al., 2023)
*A graph of reasons employees are seeking new opportunities was obtained from CUPA-HR’s 2023 survey data. (Bichsel et al., 2023)
A notable aspect of dissatisfaction revolves around their institution’s support for their professional growth. Almost half of employees (44%) express disagreement when asked whether they have opportunities for advancement at their institution, and around one-third (34%) disagree that their institution invests in their career development. Moreover, more than one-fourth of respondents (28%) disagree that their institution’s leaders show they care about their mental health and well-being. (Bichsel et al., 2023)
According to CUPA-HR research and key findings for 2023-2024, across higher education, employees are still paid less in inflation-adjusted dollars than in 2019-20 (pre-pandemic). (CUPA, 2024)
*A screenshot of a graph of Annual Pay Increases by Position Type was obtained from CUPA-HR research and key findings for 2023-2024. (CUPA, 2024)
In a well-run organization, these nuts and bolts that shape compensation are routinely checked and updated to stay competitive and achieve strategic goals. However, for many colleges, compensation practices have become the ‘deferred maintenance’ of the human resources world. This term refers to the practice of postponing necessary maintenance, often due to a need for more funds or resources. In the context of compensation, these practices must be regularly reviewed and updated, leading to issues such as stagnant salaries, late paychecks, inaccurate titles, and confusion over how pay is pegged to performance. (McClure, 2024)
Despite the availability of rich data backed by years of research, institutions are still mainly lagging in implementing standard-raised pay scales, resulting in higher attrition levels.
The survey’s findings are a call to action. Senior management and leadership must approach the situation holistically and use the data to implement a solution swiftly. This is crucial to prevent the loss of trained, qualified, and high-performing employees, a loss that higher educational institutions cannot afford!
Ranjitha Rao is the Budget/Financial Analyst Manager at the College of Nursing at Texas Woman’s University. She is dedicated to supporting academic and administrative goals through financial oversight. As an active member of the TWU Staff Council, she fosters a spirit of unified community among staff members and provides opportunities for their democratic representation. Through her involvement in the Staff Council, she promotes a positive and collaborative work environment and serves as a representative advisory member, presenting recommendations to university leadership. Ranjitha is also committed to fostering healthy workspaces, ensuring faculty, staff, and students thrive in a supportive and productive environment. Ranjitha holds a background in engineering and is currently a Ph.D. student focusing on leadership in higher education. She also holds a Master’s in Business Administration, with an emphasis in Accounting and Management. Additionally, as an adjunct, Ranjitha has taught first-year incoming classes, focusing on curriculum and strategic success, to help students transition smoothly into their academic journeys, along with accounting and healthcare administration classes for undergraduates. Ranjitha’s research interests include competency-based education, workforce development, leadership, management, and financial well-being in higher education.In her free time, Ranjitha enjoys exploring financial trends, participating in community events, and contributing to initiatives that promote financial literacy and education.
Left to right: Crown Princess Mette Marit, Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Crown Prince Hakon Magnus of Norway attend the Norwegian Constitution Day on with the children’s parade at their residence Skaugum on May 17 in Oslo, Norway. Picture: Per Ole Hagen
A future monarch of Norway, Princess Ingrid Alexandra, will relocate to Sydney in August to study at the University of Sydney.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Danny Liu from the University of Sydney posited that artificial intelligence compelled us to re-evaluate not just the methodology, but the very purpose of our teaching practices.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Are you on the job market or seeking a new career? Professors and researchers, this interview is especially for academics considering leaving academia (or if you’re forced to leave unexpectedly). I’m happy career coach, Dr. Jennifer Polk of From PhD to Life is back for this 2025 episode.
Jen’s been on The Social Academic to chat with me back in 2022 when we talked about Informational Interviews. She also joined me for a YouTube live in 2020 where she answered the question, What Is Networking? This year especially, mid-career and senior academics may be pivoting away from their more traditional academic career path. Many researchers and scientists in the United States of America have been let go. While there’s many resources out there to help with your next steps, such as the From PhD to Life blog, you may want personalized support from a career coach and community. We talk about Jen’s PhD Career Clarity Program which you may find helpful.
While we talk about a service for academics in this and other interviews on The Social Academic, I don’t receive any gift or monies if you choose to move forward with Jen’s PhD Career Clarity Program. I share people including Dr. Jen Polk with you, because I trust and recommend her to clients and friends.
In this interview
Reintroducing Dr. Jennifer Polk (@FromPhDToLife)
Jennifer Van Alstyne[‘Jennifer’]: Hi! Welcome back to The Social Academic, a podcast, blog, YouTube channel about online presence for professors, researchers, PhDs, people who are in academia. Dr. Jennifer Polk is back with me today. She’s someone who we featured here on The Social Academic in the past. She’s been live on the YouTube channel, but this time we have new things to talk about. I mean, the social media landscape has changed in 2025. Jen, would you start by introducing yourself?
Dr. Jennifer Polk [‘Jen’]: Oh no, I’m on the spot!
Yes, I’m Jen Polk. My business is called From PhD to Life. I work with professors, postdocs, and other PhDs who are ready to leave academia and go somewhere where they will be respected and valued and all that good stuff, even if they don’t yet know what the heck that could ever be. I’ll help them figure it out.
Jennifer: I love that. You’re a career coach who’s like, you’re not new to this space, right? You’ve been doing this for a while.
Jen: A while, indeed. What’s a while? More than 10 years? More than 10 years, yes.
Jennifer: Amazing.
Jen: Yes. Someone called me the OG PhD career coach. Am I saying that right? OG, is that what the kids say?
Social media climate for academics in 2025
Jennifer: OG, yeah. I love it. I love it. I’m curious because you’re actually like an early social media user, early online user. How have you seen things shifting or changing in social media in the past year or so?
Jen: Big sigh, sob, hysterics. [Sighs]. Okay, one way of putting it is Twitter is dead to me. I mean, Twitter is dead, right? Twitter is dead to me and Twitter is dead. And now that was a big problem. And please interrupt me when I go on and on and on about this. Most of my clients the last few years found me via Twitter. Not 100%, but that was a big place where people got to know me and eventually work with me. And that was true for individuals who wanted to work with me as like for career coaching, guidance on their own individual job searches, as well as the folks who work in universities and bring in speakers to do workshops and presentations. And so a lot of my business happened in part on Twitter.
Now, I don’t even go to Twitter anymore. So just for me personally, Elon Musk has ruined my life. No, I’m being dramatic. Yeah, just like that’s a small but sort of huge thing for me when it comes to social media. I mean, that’s the first thing that comes to mind.
Jennifer: I’m curious, like, gosh, you’ve been such a prolific Twitter user. Are you finding community elsewhere? Like, are you using other platforms the way you used to use Twitter or what?
Jen: Yeah, it’s a good question. And I don’t have a good answer because my answer right now is also a sigh. And I am on Bluesky, but I haven’t quite started using it for my career. Let’s put it that way. So it’s not that I’m not using it at all, but I tend to go on there more as like a personal, I want to share a thing. And ideally, if it was, if it made sense to spend the time, it would have a mix of like me as a person and me as a business owner that you could work with. That is how I always used Twitter. And Bluesky is different in terms of reach and engagement. That is not just because I’m bad at it, but that was like a deliberate, you know, that’s how it works.
Jennifer: I think that’s so helpful to share with people. I mean, like you are, you have a huge following on social media. Whether Twitter is dead or not, like people still follow you there. And yet on Bluesky, what was working for you in the past, maybe it doesn’t feel the same, maybe it doesn’t get the same engagement. The same thing on different platforms can have different results. And that’s something helpful for people to know when someone has an audience size of yours is still experiencing that, I don’t know, that frustration.
Jen: Yeah. And something else that might be interesting for your audience is that I have mixed feelings, I mean, I have mixed feelings about so many things in life, but including LinkedIn as well. I go through like seasons with LinkedIn. Last year, what is it, 2025 now. So back in 2024, for the first almost six months of the year, most days of the week, I would say I was posting on LinkedIn. And yeah, I did that consistently for those first six months and I got out of the habit and I’m much more sporadic now and I want to like it, but it’s just never, it’s just never really done it for me the way it’s . . . oh, lament, lament for Twitter of old.
I don’t know. I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know social media, you’re not doing it for me, but I want to like it.
Social media for academics who are job seekers in 2025
Jennifer: Mm. Hmm. Now, there are so many job seekers right now, whether they’ve been laid off in federal government and their PhDs or their academics who are finding funding issues that are now unexpectedly needing to search for jobsl for their financial future. I’m curious, what we just talked about in terms of social media, how might that impact job seekers?
Jen: Man, it’s such a scary time. One thing that comes to mind for the impact on job seekers is folks that do have jobs in the US federal government, in the US in general maybe, in universities, I think they might want to be a little bit more circumspect if that’s the right word. A little more cautious about what they put out there. I mean, we’re reading like insane things. Who knows if they’re true, but like, is Grok reading your tweets? Is DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency], are the teenagers surrounding Musk like turning the AI on your tweets and deciding who to fire that way? Like, I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I think there’s some evidence that, anyways, I think people might be right to be a little bit more cautious about what they put out there. Even Bluesky, my understanding is that Bluesky is open. So you don’t even, I mean, even though it’s not owned by bad faith actors, foreign actors, it’s still maybe, you still want to maybe be a bit cautious about it. I don’t know if that’s what you were getting at with your question, but that’s one thing. That’s not the only thing, but I think that’s one thing that folks might want to think about.
Jennifer: Yeah, I really appreciate you saying that because that’s a question that’s been on my mind lately as professors who, this actually came up in a workshop, have sensitive topics. That was a good way of putting it. Sensitive in the sense that if they talk about it, the thing that they do in their research, in their work every day, they could attract hate. They could attract political controversy, even if they’re just posting about a new publication. And so this is actually something I brought up in a social media mastermind group that I’m in monthly because I wanted to hear how other people, how strategists who work on social media with companies and different agencies are handling the political divide. And it was really great to be open about the worries and fears that some professors are having right now. Yeah, everyone kind of said, “Airing on the side of caution.” Airing on the side of facts doesn’t even always work. It’s not enough anymore. And so really thinking about protecting yourself and having that feeling of safety, if you’re unsure before you post, maybe don’t do it. Ask a friend to look it over in advance. It’s hard.
Jen: I hate it, right? I hate it. I don’t want this. I have a client who is, well, let me not give away too many details, but who is a target of bad actors, right-wing bad actors as a person that shows up on lists, the kind of lists that you don’t want to be on and that is just total BS, right? And her solution, one solution anyways, to continue to be a public intellectual, to write because that’s important to her, is that she has changed the name that she uses. So it’s still kind of basically the same name, but the addition of like an initial or, I forget exactly what it was, the decision, but like of using like the first name instead of the middle name kind of thing as just one, it just makes it easier to differentiate herself from the person who’s being targeted on the internet. And I thought that was a nice, you know, partial kind of practical thing that was in her control, you know, because she can’t scrub the web, doesn’t have any control over that, but she could, you know, add an initial or anyways, you know what I’m saying?
Jennifer: I really like that. That’s such a, it’s a doable solution for people when you’re unsure, just know that you have that option. And maybe now is a time that anonymous accounts could protect you. If you’re someone who does want to say something politically, and you don’t want it to touch your professional or your personal kind of social media. I did hear from a couple of people who do like to say, what is truth? What is science? What is facts? And they need to protect themselves in order to do that by creating maybe an anonymous profile that’s not connected with themselves. So there are options, even though yes, it is scary. Yes, things have changed. [Sighs]
Jen: It’s just like you’re in that lament mode.
Jennifer: I know. I’m sorry. I’m kind of a downer. But honestly, I think that’s how people are feeling. And that’s what people are experiencing right now. So if we didn’t say it, it would be not right.
Jen: Yeah. The free speech brigade is, that’s not what they care about. I mean, this is obvious, right? But let’s just say we know that this is obvious. They don’t have consequences, but you might experience consequences.
Blogging and other ways to share online
Jennifer: Exactly. Exactly. Now, there are other ways to create content and you’re someone who’s actually for a long time tried different forms of content. Blogging is one of them.
Jen: [Laughs] In other words, you have failed so many times, Jen. You have failed to hit on the thing that works.
Jennifer: No. In other words, you’ve experimented with lots of different forms of media and you found things that really work for you for a time. And then sometimes you get curious about something else. And so you switch it up.
Jen: That’s a better way to put it.
Jennifer: I think that’s really what’s happened with you because you were prolific at the things that you do try and experiment with. And the From PhD to Life blog is one of them. I mean, when did you start that? That’s pretty old, right?
Jen: It’s old. So unless my memory is going, I started, so From PhD to Life started as a blog and a website the same day, December 12, 2012. I bought the domain and I got the WordPress site and I wrote my first two posts, I think, if memory serves. Yes, back in 2012, I was really excited about it. The internet was a different place back in 2012, but that is how I started and that is how I grew my business in the early years. I was on Twitter pretty quickly as well, but first the blog, then came Twitter. I think important for folks to know is that although I started my blog on my own website, within, I think I’m getting this right, within a few months, I got asked to blog on an external site. So universityaffairs.ca, which is a Canadian post-secondary ed sector magazine. I don’t know if they’re still a physical magazine, but they were like a 10 times a year kind of magazine and they also had a website. And so I was one of their bloggers, one of their columnists as they called me, but just online. So that was amazing for reach in Canada and beyond as a legitimizing place. Again, the internet is different now, but that was cool.
Jennifer: That is so cool. And you actually, I remember you won an award for that, didn’t you?
Jen: Three!
Jennifer: Three! You won three awards!
Jen: I mean, it’s been a few years now. I think back in 2015, 16, 17, I got the Gold Award in front of the Canadian Online Publishing Awards for best blog or column in the Blue category, which was for business.
Jennifer: Amazing. It’s amazing. I mean, it’s amazing because having a blog about PhDs seeking careers and finding a path that works for their life is like, that should be awarded. But I mean, it’s exciting that that’s the topic that they chose because your blog was so great. Now, the blog did win awards and it did have this big reach, but recently kind of disappeared from the university affairs website, which is typical. I will say like, websites do this. They take down the public writing sometimes in order to put new stuff up. And so when did you notice that it was gone?
Jen: Yeah. So I think I noticed maybe late fall 2024, something like that. I noticed because I think it was when a client alerted me to a broken link in our online platform for my online course. And I was like, “Oh. Oh, it’s all gone. Okay. Okay. All right. Fair enough.” I know. Gut punch, stab, but also, “Yeah, fair enough.” Okay. It’s been a few years. I stopped blogging for them back in 2020. So it’s been a few years. They owe me nothing. But there was a bit of a moment of, there was at least some good content there that, of course, I didn’t have a record of because who’s that organized? Maybe everybody else listening, but not me.
Jernnifer: No, when I’m thinking about it now, like my first two years of blogging, I backed up everything. Like I have like a word document of them at least. Recently, nothing. I don’t have anything saved outside of the website itself.
Jen: Well, it’s time.
Reclaiming online presence from out of the past
Jennifer: I know, it’s time, especially after what happened with the University Affairs version of your blog. Now, what did you do? Like, that stuff was just gone and you had a solution for actually finding the most important things and bringing it back. What happened?
Jen: Yeah. So the immediate issue was that there was this post that I’d linked to from my course that I think was a good one and useful. And I found it on Internet Archive. And so when it came time to think sort of beyond this immediate problem of like, “Okay, that one post, I want to continue to link to it. Oh, can I find all of the ones on Internet Archive?” In fact, I made a donation to Internet Archive because I was like, “Thank you so much!” Yeah. So then with your help JVA, I went through and picked out the blog posts that I thought were worth saving. I mean, there were, there were a handful that was like, “Eh, that was what I was thinking, you know, eight years ago, but whatever.” And yeah, you helped me put them on my website, copy and paste. Anyways, if you want to say more about that, I’ll let you say more about that. But I’m glad for that because now it’s on my site, I own it. Well, whoever owns the internet owns it. I feel like it’s a little bit more in my hands.
Jennifer: Yeah. I think that process is overwhelming for people. So it was kind of nice that we got to do it together. But my father-in-law, for instance, is a critic of art. And so he’s had a long career where he’s written, I mean, like hundreds, like thousands, I don’t know, like so many reviews and articles that, when art critics were being laid off quite a while ago and since then, his writing has disappeared from, a lot of his writing has disappeared from the website. And they did give him permission to pull all of the things that he wanted. But like, is he going to go back through the Internet Archive and pull all of those things? No, he doesn’t have the same drive or motivation that someone like you does. So a lot of that stuff, it’s not lost. He has it in physically bound, beautiful books, but it doesn’t mean that it’s like accessible for other people. And so when that’s the goal, when like that’s what you want, yeah, sometimes the project takes a little bit longer than we might want. It can be a little bit frustrating to have to search down old things, but then you have agency and choice in what you do about it next. And so for Jen, she got to pick the ones that were most important to her, we put them back on her blog, on her website FromPhDtolife.com. And that’s something that you could do for your own website. There’s so many options for you, but just knowing that the Wayback Machine and the Internet Archive exist for you to search, it’s a huge tip for people. Actually, after we worked together on that, I went back and I found some things that I’d written as like guest posts for other people in the past that had disappeared. Like they weren’t on the blog anymore because maybe the business had changed or what they were doing with the organization had changed. And so it was really easy for me to pull my original writing, which I didn’t have a good copy of, and put it back on my website so it could still help people. And when I did, I still put a little note at the bottom that said this has originally appeared on this place because I still want to honor that original purpose for the writing. And it’s really interesting to see how we can create afterlives for the things that we’ve written and created. So I love that.
Jen: Yeah, I will say one thing for folks to know, at least in my experience, the Internet Archive kind of crapped out after a few years. So if you’ve got stuff from like 20 years ago, well, is it even alive after 20 years, I don’t know. But anyways, just do it now. You know, put an hour or two in your calendar, do it now. Don’t wait for five years.
Jennifer: Yeah, right. Pull the content now and you can always do something with it later.
Jen: Yep. Yeah, it really only took me an hour or two-
Jennifer: Perfect.
Jen: And I didn’t have your father-in-law’s archive, but you know, I had a few years of stuff.
Jennifer: There was actually more than I expected in a good way, in the sense that like it really created new life for those pieces of writing that were just lost in the Internet Archive. Now, I’m curious about how your website has kind of changed over time, because the website is 2012. That’s a long time to have a website and actually add new things to it. Like, that’s a lot of new things. So what’s it been like to have a website for that long?
Jen: Whew, boy. Yeah. And for most of that time, I, and only I was the one doing all the things and you could tell. That’s okay, but you know. I always used a free WordPress. So it’s always been a WordPress and I, it’s always been on WordPress.org, is that right?
Jennifer: Yeah, that’s correct for you.
Jen: Yeah. And it’s always been connected to my domain FromPhDtolife.com. Anyways, I’m veering from your question. What was it, a year and a half ago that I hired you? Two years ago?
Jennifer: Yeah, something like that.
Jen: And you, so we’ve done this in two or three stages now. Which has felt manageable, you know, both financially and also in terms of my own need to do some homework, pre-work.
Jennifer: We only have so much capacity to do things for our own websites and stuff.
Jen: Yeah. So that was, I think that’s really a key point because I had not an outrageous number of pages, but it’s not, it’s not just a one page or two or three page website. There’s a few more pages than that. And for the most part I think my pages were ones that I wanted to keep, but they just over, over time they get longer like an academic CV, right? I’m thinking of like one or two pages in particular that they just, they just grow. You know, as if I was some sort of like tenured professor. So it was really good to say, “Okay, let’s focus on this page and this page and then let’s stop.” And then six months later, “Okay, now I’m ready to do this and this,” right? So that was, so yeah, it just made the process a lot more manageable. And now if you go to my website now, unless I’ve messed it up, unless I have messed it up, it’s looking so much more in-, it’s just more inviting and welcoming, easier for people to use and get at the information that will help them. Yeah, so that I can help them, whether they’re just looking at my website or wanting to take another step or two into working with me.
How to work with Dr. Jen Polk
Jennifer: Yeah. Like what, what does that look like? Like what if someone does come to your website and they want to take those next steps to work with you? How can PhDs, professors, researchers thinking of leaving academia, you know, work one-on-one with you, work in a group with you? How does that work?
Jen: Yeah. So folks that are like raring to go. They have options to just pay me money and start working with me immediately. Of course, that’s not going to be most people, especially if you’ve never heard of me before. The main thing that I recommend, so this is for individuals who are interested in their own job search, right? You know, getting another job. There is a free webinar, it’s a video on my website and then there’s like a yellow button kind of all over the place. So I recommend starting with that. You can sign up, you can watch this whenever, you can put it in your schedule and watch it later. It’s got captions and you can press pause, all that good stuff, right? So that I really recommend because it is a, a rich intro to what I teach my clients and the step-by-step process that I recommend everybody go through from like, “Uhh” to “Okay!” You know, I have a great offer and I’m starting a job. Yeah, and then at that point, what most folks do is of course, they feel more confident and more ready to, and they just have a sense of, “Okay, I’m going to stop doing that approach and,” you know, shift my energies more in this direction. And they can go off and do it on their own. There’s a couple of options after that. Individuals can sign up for a one-on-one with me, over Zoom, phone if you want and we can go more in depth for an hour on, you know, your particular issue, whether that’s networking or LinkedIn, or I don’t even know what I should be doing for the rest of my life. Or even better, depending on the person, I have a program. It’s an online course plus, plus other stuff, right? I called a PhD Career Clarity Program and that’s really great for professors, postdocs, other PhDs who are ready to leave academia and leaving academia can mean that you are right now working in academia, or it can mean like in some way you still identify with that profession even if you don’t currently work there. I often get clients who already got a job outside of academia, but that’s not the right fit. So anyways, that’s a very long answer. Start with the free thing and then take it from there.
Feeling hope with the PhD Clarity Program
Jennifer: I love that. And one of the things that we talked about when we were working on kind of the sales page for the PhD career clarity program is that feeling of hope that people have when they are joining this group and feeling like, “Oh, okay, now I can have that support.” What is the emotional journey for some of these people who are going through your program?
Jen: Yeah, it’s really interesting because I asked one of my clients a while back, asked somebody that was in the program like, “Why did you join?” And what my, the things that I thought that she would share or that I think sort of in general people share is that they’re feeling kind of like, despair. Maybe not completely, but like there’s some moment of, there’s some feeling of, “I can’t do anything. I’m no good for anybody. Nobody’s ever going to pay me money to do anything. I can’t do it.” And I think sometimes that’s relatable for some people, not everybody.
Jennifer: Yeah, yeah.
Jen: There are certainly other people that are like, “No, I’m feeling confident. I know I have something to offer. I don’t know what it is outside of academia. And so it’s not that I feel bad about myself. It’s that I need to figure out like, what is this called elsewhere?” So those are kind of two things that I had in mind, depending on the person. I mean, maybe you can tell resonated more personally with the first one.
Jennifer: I think my husband did too. He’s also a PhD who felt some despair. Yeah.
Jen: Yes. So okay, you’re in good company. If you consider me to be good company anyways.
Jennifer: Yes!
Jen: So there was a third option that I found when I asked my own client who was in the program. And, I think of course she probably felt both of those two things. And a third thing, which is the moment that she decided to join the program, she felt hope. Right? It was like, okay, I don’t know. I don’t know what it is that I’m going to do. Right? I don’t, I’m not entirely sure about my place in the world and what I have to offer and how to tell people about who I am and all of that stuff. But I’m hopeful and I’m going to invest that hope, that energy, that time, some money into moving myself forward. And I really, I love that, right? Cause that’s actually, that was I think a missing piece in my understanding of where people were at. Because yeah, I want you to bring some energy, some hope into this, which is not to downplay any of the other emotions: good, bad, ugly. But I think there’s some . . . Yeah, I think that’s a good, that’s a good, helpful thing to have and a hard thing, a hard thing, right?
Jennifer:The PhD Career Clarity Program has like a core course, it has workshops and resources. It also has a community. I’d love to hear a little bit more about that community aspect and how people from all these different fields are coming together and like actually finding support within their job search process?
Yeah. So the community I would say tends to exist, communities are amorphous things, but I would say it comes alive for the most part during our live meetings. And I, there’s two types of live meetings. One is the small group coaching sessions, which these days I do three times a month for an hour. Those are drop-in, you know, bring yourself and whatever’s going on. And then three of those a month. And then once a month, you mentioned I do live workshops. That’s really where the community comes alive, yeah? And it’s really great because the question that sometimes folks ask me is, “Oh, have you ever worked with, you know, a biochemical engineer, right? Or have you ever worked with somebody who goes into like X specific company, right? And the answer could very well be yes, but then the second part of the answer is it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because it’s really magical what happens when people with disparate backgrounds and career trajectories and, you know, knowledge, expertise and skill areas. In fact, we have a lot in common and that there are differences really enrich the discussions that we have because of course, we’re all different. We’re all different men, women, trans folks, like we, you know, life is different: mothers, fathers, people without kids, et cetera. But it really, it’s really great what happens when we’re together sharing updates and commiserations and strategizing and putting our eyeballs, you know, on each other’s resumes and LinkedIn profiles. I think it really helps people feel much more confident. Academia can be so siloed within disciplines that it can be difficult to imagine yourself stepping into a professional world where you’re not surrounded by other chemists or other anthropologists or whoever, right?
Jennifer: Yeah.
Jen: So in a way this is like part of growing your confidence, is interacting in a semi-professional space with people from different backgrounds.
Jennifer: I think it sounds really warm. I think that I’m someone who personally had avoided community or group type things in the past and it was only in the last like five years or so that I have found not just comfort, but like comfortableness within myself because of group programs. Like because I feel more comfortable in smaller communities where we can actually get like a surprising amount of stuff done, whether it’s like emotional relationship building or whether it’s like really getting down and working on strategy and doing something harder. But like my resistance to group programs is like something that, I’m so glad that I have left behind because it really opens up my world to new things. So I’m glad you said that. Yeah.
Jen: You know, when I started my business, I was doing one-on-one coaching and that’s like the typical model for someone with a coaching approach. And I sometimes do that now, but the coaching I do for the most part is group coaching. And it’s facilitation, group discussions, And that I think is, yeah, is just really powerful and fun. You know, I’m happy to chat with anybody who’s interested but concerned because I know that, there are concerns that people have like, “Am I going to be drowning in all of these other people? Am I going to be the odd person out with nothing in common with anybody else,” etc. But let me know. Let’s chat about it. It’s not for everybody, but I think it’s probably for you.
Big sigh, last words
Jennifer: I appreciate you, Jen. I’m so glad you came back on The Social Academic. Is there anything else you’d like to add before we wrap up?
Jen: Big sigh. You know, I think there’s still connection to be made online. There’s still good people out there trying to make a difference in the world in the ways that they can, including online.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Jen: There’s still value in sharing what you’re about. Even if right now in some circumstances, you might choose to be a little bit more circumspect. There’s still value in that. And in the meantime, you may build community in other ways and that’s okay too. You know, you don’t owe your social media followers. Can I say this? You don’t owe them anything, right? You don’t owe them your presence. You don’t, you can choose to pause your activity and you don’t have to stress about it. I mean, what would you say?
Jennifer: Yeah, I think that’s really good. I think that last year, personally, I leaned into more of the pause in the sense that like, I didn’t put as much effort into social media. I really tried to be more relaxed about it. And that meant I was posting less. It meant I was taking some long breaks, sometimes weeks. And it made a difference for my mental health, but it also made a difference for like my brain and what I was able to focus on instead. Letting go of some of that need to post was helpful for me. But on the flip side of that, if you’re someone who struggles to post, being conscientious, being cautious does make sense, but also know that there’s other ways that you can have a strong online presence, whether it’s filling out your LinkedIn profile, creating a simple personal website or portfolio website. There’s so many options for you. And it’s okay if social media isn’t where you want to be spending your time.
Jen: Yeah, it’s great when people reach out and they write because they found you somewhere.
Jen: Thank you. Always, always nice to chat, even if it’s a bit formal like this.
Jennifer: And for everyone who’s listening, I’m going to drop the links to Jen and I’s past interviews on informational interviews and on what is networking so you can check those resources out too.
Jen: Can I say one more thing?
Jennifer: Yeah.
Jen: Just anybody who is thinking about hiring my friend JVA to help with your online presence, writing a bio, you know, let me be more specific, getting your website looking a little better, maybe a lot better. Do not hesitate. Act now. Run, don’t walk.
It’s been really, really fun to work with you, Jennifer. And we’re going to do it again. I’m warning you now. We’re not done.
Jen: Thank you. I love it. I love it. Thank you so much for coming on the Social Academic, Jen.
Dr. Jennifer Polk’s Bio
Dr. Jennifer Polk, photo by Nadalie Bardowell
Jennifer Polk, PhD, is a career coach and expert on PhD careers. Since 2013, she’s worked with graduate students and doctoral degree holders based in Canada, the United States, the UK, Australia, and elsewhere. Jen created her PhD Career Clarity Program to help PhDs navigate their career paths with confidence.
Jen has spoken on university campuses and at academic and professional conferences throughout North America on issues related to graduate education and career outcomes for PhDs. Jen regularly facilitates professional development workshops (now online) and delivers presentations for graduate students and postdocs. In addition, she currently serves on the board of directors for CAGS, the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies.
Her writing has appeared in University Affairs, Inside Higher Ed, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Globe and Mail, and Academic Matters. Her University Affairs blog (2013–20), “From PhD to Life,” won three gold awards at the Canadian Online Publishing Awards. She’s also contributed essays to three books: Moving On: Essays on the Aftermath of Leaving Academia (2014), Reflections on Academic Lives: Identities, Struggles, and Triumphs in Graduate School and Beyond (2017), and How to Get Your PhD: A Handbook for the Journey (2021). Jen was also an expert panelist for the 2021 Canadian Council of Academies report, Degrees of Success, on the challenges PhDs face transitioning to employment.
Jen was co-founder of Beyond the Professoriate from the company’s founding until her departure in January 2020. Between 2014 and 2019 she co-produced and -hosted several online conferences attended by hundreds of graduate students, PhDs, and career education professionals. For several years she also ran Self-Employed PhD, an online network of freelancers, independent consultants, entrepreneurs, and small business owners. She hosted #withaPhD chat, a twice-monthly Twitter discussion, for three years.
Jen is actively engaged in online conversations about careers for PhDs, especially on social media. Follow her @FromPhDtoLife, or interact with her on LinkedIn and Facebook.
Jen earned her PhD in history from the University of Toronto in 2012, and an MA and BA from Carleton University.
Secondary schools, particularly those in regions with a high density of higher education providers, are inundated with offers of university outreach initiatives.
Meanwhile university widening participation and schools liaison teams, acting (in England) on the principles of their respective access and participation plans (APPs), channel their efforts towards regions, schools, and demographics currently underrepresented in their institution.
The result is a substantial duplication of effort and resources from institutions competing within the HE marketplace.
Variety pack
The typical set of university partnerships for many schools appears to be a local Russell Group university, a local post-92 university, and the designated Oxford and/or Cambridge link college for their region.
Encounters with local universities may be facilitated by a Uni Connect partnership, although a recent evaluation revealed inconsistencies in the extent to which partnerships offered a ‘joined up’ approach to locally targeted outreach. Local universities are undoubtedly convenient. Campus visits require minimal travel time and costs, and widening participation teams may have a strong knowledge of local issues and individual schools.
However, relying on the convenience of local institutions both reinforces the tendencies amongst applicants in many regions to stay close to home for university without considering other options, and risks perpetuating undermatch amongst when local universities do not provide a suitable academic match. For example, the Uni Connect East Anglia partnership, neaco, includes the University of Cambridge, Anglia Ruskin University, the University of East Anglia, and several others.
There exists a large gap between the ABB entry requirements for Engineering at UEA compared to the A*A*A asked for at Cambridge. Students with predicted grades within this gap have a substantial risk of undermatching if they narrow their options in line with the Uni Connect parameters.
Three at the point of use
The three-tiered university outreach provision, sometimes partially supported by Uni Connect, goes some way towards achieving Gatsby Benchmark 7:
encounters with further and higher education appropriate to the needs of each pupil
Yet it seems unlikely that three universities could represent the diverse spectrum of HE offerings across the country, nor truly provide a good match for every pupil.
There are two issues to address here: firstly, that locally-targeted outreach should not be solely conducted by local universities; and secondly, that universities must balance their widening participation and recruitment priorities to avoid duplication of resources and overwhelming target schools.
A university, admittedly with the resources to do so, can offer informed and meaningful regionally-targeted outreach despite not being located in the immediate vicinity of target schools. I am a long-standing proponent of the Oxbridge Link Area scheme, which provides schools with a point of contact at each university, and encourages WP practitioners to develop knowledge about and relationships with stakeholders in specific UK regions.
Most recently, I teamed up with the charity Aspire Liverpool for the latest iteration of the Magdalene College Liverpool Event – a day of super-curricular exploration for 700 Year 10 pupils led by academics and Student Ambassadors, held in Liverpool’s St George’s Hall.
From Cambridge to Merseyside
One of the comments I receive most from pupils when I visit schools in Merseyside and North Wales is that they are surprised, but pleased, that a representative from Cambridge showed up for them. In the case of the Liverpool event, my team arrived determined to show the pupils that a coachload of busy academics took the time to travel to Liverpool, because we think these pupils are worth investing time and resources in, and have the potential to apply to competitive universities should they choose to. With a recruitment hat on, I’m keen to continue to develop the institutional memory amongst our target schools of being the college and university who can be relied upon to deliver high-quality locally-targeted outreach provision.
Working with Aspire Liverpool helps us to target those schools which haven’t historically engaged with our outreach programmes, and helps to address the second issue I put forward, regarding the risk of duplication of outreach offerings from multiple universities. Attempting to collaborate with universities targeting similar groups of students can result in competition for recruitment. Whilst I have rarely delivered activities in partnership with, for example, the University of Liverpool or the University of Oxford, I liaise with their respective WP teams to develop an understanding of what activities students may be receiving from other providers, and to avoid clashes between the dates of our flagship events.
Universities are often more comfortable collaborating with third-sector organisations such as The Brilliant Club, if they can demonstrate quality and value, as promised by successful applicants to the recent Equality in Higher Education Fund. Such organisations can help to scale up activities which are challenging for a single university WP team to provide, such as the attainment-raising initiatives promised in many Access and Participation Plans.
So, where do we go from here?
How can students be presented with a sufficiently wide range of HE options to increase their likelihood of finding a suitable academic match, whilst avoiding the duplication of effort and resources by each individual HE provider? The UCAS Outreach Connection Service, launched to UCAS advisers in 2024, may go some way towards highlighting the range of opportunities available, and allowing teachers to point students in the right direction towards potentially suitable universities and courses.
And potential reforms to Uni Connect may establish a more defined strategic purpose for the partnerships, and perhaps space in the calendar to deliver campus visits or residentials for other partnerships’ target schools. Without overwhelming students by the sheer number of HE options available, it is doing them a disservice by not making them aware of the range of choices both in their home region and beyond.
It remains crucial to understand the local contexts in which students are making their university choices, and is the responsibility of WP teams to set aside their recruitment angle to some extent, to provide opportunities for students to engage with multiple universities in their search for the perfect match.
It’s a thankless job being a university governor at the best of times.
The structures and hierarchies – established over decades, even centuries – feel impenetrable.
You’re overwhelmed with papers and reading, never completely sure what’s going on at meetings.
Statutes and ordinances, rules and regulations, sub-committees and working groups. And all this you’re doing for free?
But during precarious times for the sector, the job gets even harder. Income lags further behind expenditure. The funding model seems loaded against you.
Doubt sets in. Have you really been holding institutional managers robustly to account? Are those course closures and staff redundancies really unavoidable?
Behind the seens
Governing bodies are the highest authorities in most institutions. Structures vary from one university to the next, as does the language of governance.
But in England, all boards are legally accountable to the sector regulator, the Office for Students, and hold significant powers, up to and including the authority to remove the vice chancellor if they so choose.
However, governing bodies remain a reticent and mostly unseen grouping. Students and staff may occasionally glimpse members at award ceremonies or public events, but closer forms of engagement tend to be discouraged (or carefully managed).
On policies that reshaped the sector in recent decades, like the 2012 fee rise, governors had little to say. During Covid, one commentator was moved to ask if anyone had seen the governing body.
Another had previously dismissed governors as “a small cadre talking amongst themselves.” Until a media exposé in 2018, almost all UK vice chancellors were members of the sub-committee that made recommendations on their own pay.
A 2019 investigation found “significant and systemic” failings in one governing body.
Yet many individual governors continue to invest substantial time and effort into their never-more-important role – lay members can bring vital external expertise to a sector that has too often been inward-looking and naïve, and staff and student members can help institutional managers see the campus from a ground-level perspective.
Last year, the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) conducted interviews with current or former governors at over forty English universities.
While most reported enjoying the opportunity to learn how universities operate, the same issues arose time and time again:
Membership was demographically and ideologically narrow, resulting in “business realist” discourses that privileged the university’s finance and estates over its educational purpose
Chairs were too close to senior managers to bring meaningful “challenge”;
Cliques had emerged, leading to some members’ views carrying more weight than others;
Power dynamics were problematic;
Meetings of the main board sometimes served as rubber-stamping exercises for decisions already taken;
Processes were reported to be opaque, with few governors understanding how the agenda was set, or knowing how to have an item added.
More worryingly, as OfS has increased the burden of regulatory and legal compliance, so governing bodies appear to have become more ideologically compliant. The logic of the market goes unchallenged, and the whims of policy-makers and the sector regulator courteously indulged.
Surprisingly, this critique emerged from lay members as strongly as from elected staff and student governors.
Relevant, useable and inclusive
Now the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) has launched a consultation for its new Code of Ethical University Governance. The sector already has a Higher Education Code of Governance, authored by the Committee of University Chairs (CUC Code) – the new Code supplements this, while presenting a vision of university governance that is more relevant, more useable and more inclusive.
Practical advice is offered to all members on what to expect from governance, how to navigate complex organisation structures, and – most crucially – how to impact decision-making processes.
The consultation is necessary so that the Code can be a co-produced document, capturing as many perspectives as possible. So please consider completing this short survey if you’re a current or former governor, a student, a university employee, someone with other connections to the higher education sector, or someone with no connections at all to the higher education sector.
So far, governing bodies have mostly avoided using their potentially formidable powers to intervene as the sector has been politicised and defunded. Over 10,000 campus jobs are currently at risk, and 40 per cent of universities face budget deficits.
But the aim of the Code is not to look backwards, let alone to apportion blame. It is to help give future generations of university governors the confidence and wherewithal to bring genuine, meaningful challenge.
At a time when higher education needs urgently to reclaim its status as a prized public asset, governing bodies have a duty to surpass the Nolan principles, and operate to the very highest standards.
The CDBU’s Code of Ethical University Governance may be the first step towards nudging governors beyond compliance, and empowering them to speak out. The long-term goal is for governing bodies to see their role as standing up for communities of students and staff, and for the value of higher education to everyone.
The draft Code can be found here, and the consultation here.
