Blog

  • ED’s Problematic “Professional Degree” Definition (opinion)

    ED’s Problematic “Professional Degree” Definition (opinion)

    In early November, following extensive debate by the RISE negotiated rule-making committee, the U.S. Department of Education proposed a definition of “professional degree” for federal student aid that could deter talented students from pursuing health-care careers. The proposed rule, stemming from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would leave students in many fields critical for our future health-care workforce subject to a $20,500-per-year federal student loan cap.

    Physician assistant/associate programs stand to be strongly affected. These programs are intensive, highly structured and clinically immersive. Students complete rigorous professional-level coursework while rotating through multiple clinical sites to gain hands-on experience. Unlike in many graduate programs, PA students cannot work during their studies, as clinical rotations are full-time and often require travel across multiple locations. Within this context, federal student aid is not optional; it is the lifeline that allows students to stay in their programs and complete the training they have worked for years to achieve. Without it, some students will have no choice but to abandon the profession entirely.

    The financial gap under the department’s proposal is striking. Tuition alone —not including expenses like housing, food and other needs—for PA programs often exceeds $90,000 for the duration of the program due to the unique costs associated with health professional education, such as simulation technology and clinical placement expenses. Under the department’s proposal, federal student aid would only cover a fraction of this amount. For students without access to private resources, the gap will likely be insurmountable.

    These challenges are not hypothetical. A student accepted into a PA program may face a choice to take on crippling private debt or leave the career track entirely. Students in nurse practitioner, physical therapy and occupational therapy programs face the same reality. Each of these programs combines intense academic and clinical requirements, preparing graduates for immediate entry into practice. Federal policy must recognize this reality if it hopes to support the next generation of health-care professionals.

    The consequences extend far beyond individual students. PA students, along with other health professions students, are essential to addressing workforce shortages, especially in rural and underserved areas. Every student forced to forgo pursuing a PA program due to financial barriers represents a future provider absent from the health-care system. At a time when demand for care is rising, federal policy that fails to recognize these students risks worsening shortages and limiting access to care for patients who need it most.

    The Department of Education has the opportunity to correct this in the final rule. Explicitly including PA students, along with nurse practitioners, physical therapists, occupational therapists and other professions that meet the statutory criteria for professional degrees would ensure that aid reaches students fully committed to intensive, licensure-preparing programs. Recognition will reduce financial stress, allow students to focus on becoming high-quality health-care providers and maintain the pipeline of skilled professionals critical to patient care.

    Including PA and other health professions students in the department’s final rule is both necessary and prudent. It allows students to complete programs they cannot otherwise afford, protects the future health-care workforce and ensures that communities continue to have access to vital services. The Department of Education can achieve clarity, fairness and meaningful impact by explicitly recognizing these professional students.

    Sara Fletcher is chief executive officer of the PA Education Association.

    Source link

  • Shared Governance

    Shared Governance

    Every college and university president I know has on their faculty the Angry Eight. Or the Furious Five. Sometimes just the Irked Individual. One president told me about an initiative that was resisted but finally passed with all but one vote in favor. That lone no was a victory: If the person had voted yes, it would have signaled compromise of values.

    When I ask whether the Angry Eight are still producing scholarship or doing good work in the classroom, you can guess the answer. After one president at a fancy-pants institution got a vote of no confidence, I read the many pages of materials filed against him. Then I googled each faculty name to check their research activity. Looks like these folks sure had a lot of free time.

    What’s most troubling to presidents, they say, is when the Angry Eight take the floor to rant and everyone else in the room starts looking at their phones or nails. No one stands up to the bullies. It’s hard for faculty to argue for decisions they know their colleagues won’t like; most of us remember being not picked for middle school teams. Plus, we know our peers will be evaluating us when it comes to tenure and promotion. Even when they’re not angry, it still always seems to be the same people doing all the talking. Not a great example of classroom management or collaborative decision-making.

    To be clear, the presidents and chancellors I know respect and admire their faculty. They say that the vast majority take their jobs seriously. They are devoted teachers, they publish, they shoulder the massive workload of helping run a university. This is also my experience. I am grateful to have colleagues willing to staff all the necessary committees. I’ve done enough service to know I’m generally more useful in the classroom and am smarter, nicer and more temperate on the page than I ever was when I served in Faculty Senate.

    As an assistant professor, I kept my big fat mouth shut in Senate. Before I had tenure, I knew I needed to learn the culture of the professoriate. But after a few years sitting silently through meetings wondering why so much time was devoted to copyediting policies and procedures and also hearing colleagues rant about how the administration was doing wrong and terrible things, I thought, Oh! This is how we were supposed to behave. Distrust and don’t bother to verify! Accuse and rant! So I learned to speak out. And never shut up.

    I wish I could blame my previous bad behavior to youthful arrogance or on a life spent in school without exposure to professional work, where you have supervisors and are expected to deliver. But nope. I came to a faculty role in my early 40s with plenty of “real world” experience. When I was staff as a university press editor and in an admissions office, I knew if I didn’t do my job, I could and should be fired. Post-tenure? Party time!

    Over time I was enculturated into an attitude of you’re not the boss of me. When administrators asked for reports, colleagues shrugged: We’re not going to do that. The reasoning? They always ask; nothing happens; it’s a waste of effort. Forget it.

    I’ve seen faculty members who, once promoted, stopped even pretending to do the scholarly work that had earned them promotion and just spent time on committees doing the “whatever it is, I’m against it’ dance.

    Which brings me back to shared governance, the thing that makes academe both fascinating and baffling to outsiders. Curriculum must be controlled by subject matter experts, otherwise you end up with, say, a health official who believes long-effective vaccines are harmful. Expertise matters. No physicist should decide which books writers read and no writer should be teaching organic chemistry.

    But neither should I be telling the basketball coach who needs more playing time (though I think I know) or the CFO which budget model to use. Sure, I worked in admissions a long time ago, but the enrollment VP knows more than I ever did.

    And yet, we faculty members often think we know more than we do about, well, everything and feel like we can express that in Faculty Senate.

    It would be an interesting experiment to ask everyone on a campus for a definition of “shared governance.” Like “Foucauldian,” it gets tossed around with more bravado than clarity. One former president told her faculty, “Shared governance is not the same as co-management.” Too often the Angry Eight are up in arms about things that are clearly outside their lane.

    And too often, free speech and academic freedom get conflated (though both may be a thing of the past, as we’ve been seeing in recent weeks). Faculty must have control over what goes on in the classroom. And we need leaders who will fight against legislators who’d prefer we include in our syllabi things like phrenology and pastafarianism.

    Here’s what scares me: That threat may not be as crazy as it seems. While most presidents are swept up tracking the deluge of doo-doo coming out of D.C. (and the states), faculty members tend not to keep up with general higher ed news and don’t realize how dire things are beyond their campus walls.

    Why? Because faculty are focused on doing their jobs (and doing them well, even as all of us are being asked to do more with less). Most don’t have the time, bandwidth or interest to track higher ed policy shifts, public distrust or enrollment crises. Most have not paid attention to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its evil policy spawn. Many don’t even know how their own budgets work, clinging to the naïve belief that cutting football would rain millions down on academic affairs. Every campus has its magic-money-tree myth.

    And those who have been around a few blocks feel like they’ve heard this song before. Administrators come and go but we’ve been here and we’ll outlast you. The last guy who came in said we were broke. So did the guy before him. Whatev.

    Um. No. Right now things are pretty freaking dire.

    Presidents’ hardest task may be educating their campuses on these realities without scaring the bejesus out of everyone. How to convince people who have never really had to worry about job security that the sky is in fact falling? That the world has changed and we’re no longer respected? That not everyone thinks college is worth it and they’re showing that by not showing up? That AI has already changed everything?

    Our roles as teachers and scholars are more essential than ever, and we need to protect and defend higher ed to keep doing what we do best. It’s not the time to be fighting in Faculty Senate meetings about where the recycling bins should be placed on campus or if there are dust bunnies in offices or which departments, with four tenured faculty and three students, need to be preserved.

    Shared governance is an important way of keeping each other accountable. Yes, there are presidents who do hinky things. There are careerist and craven provosts. Some deans operate out of self-interest or play favorites. Many administrators never learned to be good managers. A system of checks and balances used to be built into our nation’s government is essential.

    The average tenure of a president has gone down from six years to about 60 days. When a president “resigns abruptly,” it’s not usually because they were embezzling or sleeping with students, but because they are caught between boards who want change and faculty who do not. They are faced with a number of seemingly insurmountable challenges from the outside. Before we take votes of no confidence or dig in for a fight about dust bunnies, it might be helpful to remember we can’t keep going through leaders like Kleenex during flu season if we want our institutions to survive.

    Given how many institutions are closing, merging or getting rid of faculty, I’m grateful there are still a few people who are willing to step up in higher education so I can just focus on my students and feel fortunate to still have a job.

    Though really, if I’m being honest, I still think that little point guard deserves more minutes.

    Rachel Toor is a contributing editor at Inside Higher Ed and the co-founder of The Sandbox, a weekly newsletter that allows presidents and chancellors to write anonymously. She is also a professor of creative writing and the author of books on weirdly diverse subjects. Reach her here with questions, comments and complaints compliments.

    Source link

  • Widening participation cold spots: why we can’t afford to wait until they turn 16

    Widening participation cold spots: why we can’t afford to wait until they turn 16

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Emily Magrath, Director of Programme Development and Impact at IntoUniversity.

    After fielding a flurry of questions from the classroom of 7 and 8 year olds – ‘what is my favourite colour?’, ‘Is this a university?’, ‘Do staff sleep in the building at night?’ – we settle together to explore the question: ‘what is a career?’ Today, this looks like high-vis jackets and hard hats for civil engineers to plan the needed infrastructure for a town; paleontologists codifying discovered fossils; and foley artists creating a soundscape for a forest epic. The students identify the skills they have used and tell me their many ambitions – the room includes possible footballers, doctors, engineers, nurses, lawyers, fashion designers, a taxi driver (like his dad) and a mathematician. This is a starting point, one which gives them years to think about their future possibilities and, more importantly, to build the knowledge and skills to make them future realities. 

    The potential for talent is everywhere

    Geography has become a primary driver of inequality in the UK. Despite initiatives to widen access to university and despite increases in higher education progression rates, areas remain where progression rates and education outcomes remain persistently and stubbornly low. As recently articulated by Alan Francis OBE, Chair of the Social Mobility Commission, this continues to ‘waste talent and limit potential’ across the UK. 

    Mounting evidence is stark in emphasising the particular challenges of these areas, so-called cold spots, which are, in reality, places systematically starved of opportunity with intersecting barriers: geographical isolation; lack of or expensive transport options; lack of teacher quality; and a lack of graduate jobs. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who want to pursue higher education in these locations face hard choices, often commuting to university, struggling to pursue their chosen career in their local area or having to leave it behind. It is not a surprise then to see the UPP Foundation’s inquiry on Higher Education attitudes in Doncaster this year determining that for many young people university is seen as a “bad bet.”

    In the face of these challenging intersections, starting widening participation work at 16 or 17, (or even 14 or 15) is too late. Interventions beginning at these points ultimately have failed many students in these regions – approaches must be anchored from primary age. 

    Why start at primary age?

    It is clear that students from disadvantaged backgrounds face additional educational barriers. Their starting point often shows significant gaps to more advantaged peers, and without intervention, these can become entrenched well before secondary school. In 2023, the Education Policy Institute estimated the disadvantage learning gap at age 5 to be 4.6 months. This was wider than it had been prior to the pandemic. Furthermore, in some areas of deprivation, 50% of young people begin school with delayed language development.

    There are no easy solutions, but earlier intervention is essential for building learning progress, fostering positive educational experiences and supporting students to acquire necessary qualifications for progression to higher education. 

    I would like to study accounting. I want to be rich and I love maths. I would like to study at Oxford university because it’s one of the best universities 

    Year 6 student, IntoUniversity

    Alongside academic development, the implicit and explicit messaging young people hear is key. Young people are full of aspirations, but they need to hear not only how to connect these to actual pathways, but also that they can achieve them. Otherwise, their beliefs can become fixed – often in early teenage years – that university is not for ‘people like them’.

    An antidote to this is to start conversations early and normalise university spaces. I have seen powerful examples of how sustained work can make a difference: a widening participation officer telling 10 and 11 year olds that the local university was “their university,’ they were welcome to ask questions and find out what happened there; seeing toddlers at ease climbing over benches in a lecture theatre at a family learning day; and the 18 year old who told me they just assumed they would go to the city’s university because ‘you took me there every year since I was little’. 

    Building place based ecosystems

    Just after the pandemic, I met a father photographing his son in a graduation gown and mortar board at one of our primary graduation trips to a university – the culmination of a programme where students have imagined a university future for themselves. He proudly showed me photos of his older children in previous years (fortuitously aged so that none had missed out during the pandemic). This engagement with the university was a touchstone for each child and for the family.

    The children go through the programme in Year 4, 5 and 6, and so they know it’s coming, and their siblings know it’s coming. They have an aspiration, and they know about what’s next. It’s a clear message for our school. Education is a journey, it continues in Secondary school and beyond and opens up opportunities. Because it is built into our curriculum, university feels like an entitlement for them. It is available for them.

    Primary School Headteacher about IntoUniversity primary school programme

    The recent Ruskin Institute for Social Equality’s report on coastal cold spots this year similarly emphasised geography’s critical role in higher education access. It showed that, accounting for similar backgrounds, young people can experience as much as a fivefold difference in their likelihood of progressing to HE based on where they live. The report argued that a move away from ‘collaborative, place-based, cross-sector approach’ to one emphasising individual universities’ targets has not served these areas well. 

    Consistent, long-term, sustained work from an early age is the only path forward when countering the entrenched challenges of cold spot areas. These are not challenges that can be solved by one intervention, one school, one charity or one university. Young people in these places need ecosystems of sustained support and opportunities available from an early age. That is how we can shift the dial on persistently low progression rates and ensure equitable access to higher education for all young people, regardless of where they live. 

    Source link

  • Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Given the likely media habits of Wonkhe’s astute and cerebral readership, you’ve probably had a good fill of Andy Haldane in recent days.

    The former chief economist of the Bank of England has hardly been off the news and current affairs shows. First describing the pre-budget speculation as a “fiscal fandango,” and then continuing his sharp critique by lamenting the prospects for economic growth following the announcement last week.

    Haldane is best known for his economic analysis but as the author of the Levelling Up white paper (RIP) he is also a thoughtful commentator on all things related to “place” and has taken a keen interest in the civic university agenda. If you are not feeling too over-saturated with Haldane content, it is worth revisiting his essay for the Kerslake Collection last year. In it he celebrated the impact of the civic movement within the sector and the great practice it has fostered, but politely pointed out that the Civic University Commission that Lord Kerslake chaired, and its aftermath, had very little impact on policy.

    A place to call home

    This government, like the last one, has often spoken about the importance of place. Whether we think of geographical inequality or “left behind places,” across the political spectrum it is recognised that this complex issue is behind much of the political instability we have seen over the last decade. When it comes to why this matters Cabinet Office minister Josh Simmons put it well the other day when he said “Everything we do in policy should focus on place. We all experience the world through where we live and who we live with.”

    Policy action has not always matched the rhetoric but to be fair to this government, while critics may argue there is a lack of much needed radicalism when it comes to place, there have been a range of welcome place-based initiatives announced during the budget and over the last few months including the Pride in Place strategy, place-based budget pilots, and local economic growth zones.

    For higher education policy specifically, the government has of course included civic engagement as one of its five priorities and the industrial strategy highlights universities as “engines of innovation and skills” that are key to driving economic growth. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that civic engagement is a priority the Whitehall machine is struggling to get to grips with. Universities are inherently policy-domain-spanning institutions – and yet policy ownership of their “civic mission” is restricted to one Whitehall department (Education), where the much more expansive role of universities in driving economic and social growth within their cities and regions is not considered alongside their role in skills and education.

    It is not just the fact universities are often thought of as “big schools” by government which limits their role in place-based policymaking, but, as the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA)/Civic University Network outlined recently there is a “profound fragmentation in both policy and place.” The siloed nature of government departments adds complexity and can limit ambition and potential for unlocking the role of universities in supporting their place. As the NCIA report outlines, the different layers of devolution also presents a fragmented landscape in which universities work.

    Civic 2.0

    So, what can we do about it? Following the NCIA programme we want to build on the success they have had in developing great practice in the sector. We are delighted that the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement has agreed to host the Civic University Network, convene a national community of practice, and maintain the assets of the Civic University Network and National Civic Impact Accelerator. This ensures continuity for the sector and provides a platform for sharing knowledge and accelerating civic leadership.

    In addition to sector-practice we want to start making a difference to policy and overcoming the Haldane critique! A group of universities and funders – the universities of Birmingham, Newcastle and Queen Mary alongside Midlands Innovation and the NCCPE – have got together to establish a programme to develop policies and ideas which would enable universities’ place-based role to grow.

    We are at the start of this journey but our intended approach is to be both ambitious and pragmatic. What this means in reality is that we do not anticipate a radical departure from the current system in the near or medium term. While we recognise the higher education market and the way research is funded is often at odds with the place agenda, the fiscal environment and challenges faced by government means there is little appetite for structural change.

    Instead, we want to identify significant themes universities could play a role in tackling, such as social cohesion and rebuilding institutional capacity in local communities, as well as a small number of policy shifts or ideas across different parts of Whitehall to ensure universities are enabled to be more active players in supporting local growth and civic engagement over the next few years.

    In turn this will also help us to provide the sector with additional momentum, leadership and representation on the civic/place agenda – ensuring greater visibility, highlighting excellent practice, developing spokespeople and case-studies for policy makers to engage with and to facilitate partnerships between university leaders, other sectors and national/ regional policymakers.

    We are starting out as a small group of universities and funders committed to the civic agenda, but we recognise there are many other institutions from across the country with different missions and specialisms who really care about the role they play in the places they are part of.

    We would welcome you to join our programme, with the intention that over time we will be able to build a sustainable entity which wouldn’t just look at “civic wins” for the medium term but could also explore the system changes we need to better serve our places for the decades to come.

    More information on the Civic 2.0 programme can be found here.

    Source link

  • More 4-year colleges offer 2-year degrees to reach new groups of students (PBS NewsHour)

    More 4-year colleges offer 2-year degrees to reach new groups of students (PBS NewsHour)

    About one in four college students is both first-generation and from low-income backgrounds, making the path to a college degree especially challenging. At Boston College’s Messina College, a new, two-year, fully residential associates degree program, a wide range of support is helping change that. John Yang visited the campus to learn more as part of our ongoing series, Rethinking College.

    Source link

  • Side hustles, moonlighting, resting actors, and multiple jobholding in creative work

    Side hustles, moonlighting, resting actors, and multiple jobholding in creative work

    How do creatives sustain their careers?

    We used large UK datasets to map how careers work in creative occupations, showing how having a second job is twice as prevalent in key creative jobs than occupations; mixing creative and non-creative jobs is normal, especially outside London; and having a non-creative main job and a creative “side hustle” rarely leads to a single full-time creative job.

    Having multiple jobs isn’t a stepping-stone into full-time creative work. It is how creatives sustain their careers.

    Who has two jobs?

    We used the UK Labour Force Survey (2015–2021) to look at occupational and social patterns, and Understanding Society (2011–2019) for longitudinal transitions. We used the DCMS definition of creative occupations, rather than industries (so graphic designers working in retail are in, accountants working in theatres are out). We also developed a typology of multiple jobholding: portfolio (both jobs creative); main creative (creative main job plus a non-creative second job); side creative (non-creative main job plus a creative second job).

    We found that having a second job is almost twice as common for core creative workers, (arts/culture production such as music, performance, visual arts, publishing, museums/libraries, film/TV/photo) compared to the rest of the workforce (6.8 per cent, against 3.5 per cent) but less common (3.2 per cent) for non-core creative jobs (advertising, architecture, crafts, design, IT). Some roles are extreme outliers, with relatively high proportions of actors (14 per cent) and musicians (12.8 per cent) having second jobs.

    These proportions are higher than the general workforce, but they are also lower than popular discourse might suggest. This might be explained by how the data is collected (both jobs need to have been worked at during the same, specified, week). Even with this note of caution, the demographic patterns of multiple jobholding, and changes over time, give important insights into creative careers.

    The type of second job held by people whose first job is creative is important. For those with second jobs, 38 per cent of those jobs are in other core creative occupations- true “portfolio” work. A further 27.5 per cent of those jobs are professional but non-creative roles, especially teaching and corporate training. And 25.5 per cent are non-creative, non-professional roles, for example retail, hospitality and admin roles.

    Even more notable was the size of the core creative workforce whose creative occupation was a second job: there are far more people with a non-creative first job and core creative second job (about 113,000 per year) than there are core creatives with a second job (about 54,000 per year). In other words, where people have two jobs, creative work is more often the add-on rather than the main job.

    What other characteristics have an impact?

    Our analysis compared multiple jobholders to creatives with a single job, and found that combining creative and non-creative work is significantly more likely outside London. Outside the capital, sustaining a purely creative main job looks harder, and mixing jobs is more common.

    Portfolio workers are more likely to be graduates and to come from non-middle class backgrounds than are single-job creatives. Side creatives are much more likely to be employees (rather than self-employed) in their main job, suggesting that it is more about balancing income volatility than it is about enjoying the freedom of self-employment. However, main creatives are less likely to be employees—reflecting the prevalence of self-employment in core creative roles. And side creatives are more likely to be men.

    Part-time work signals both constraint and choice: creatives in multiple jobs are more likely to work part-time because they couldn’t find full-time work—but also more likely to say they didn’t want full-time, suggesting both labour market scarcity and preferences are in play.

    Covid changed things, but did not totally overturn these patterns. In 2021 the share of workers making their living only from creative jobs fell, while main and side creative patterns increased—consistent with pandemic disruption pushing creatives to diversify.

    Does a creative side-job turn into a creative main job?

    After one year, portfolio and main creatives are somewhat more likely to move to a single creative job (45 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively) than to remain in their dual-job pattern (31 per cent and 36 per cent). Side creatives mostly remain side creatives – they rarely report a single creative job after a year. After three years, the pattern hardens: side creatives are still the least likely to have moved into a single creative job. Dual-jobholding looks like a strategy for persisting with a creative career rather than transitioning fully to a single creative job.

    Policymakers should understand that dual jobholding is an endemic and long-lasting feature of creative work. It needs to be incorporated into “good work” policies, rather than removed completely from the creative economy. It can be an important counterbalance to income volatility associated with creative projects.

    This research also has implications for one of the common measures of success for graduates, which specifies a good, skilled, full-time job. Creative occupations are counted as skilled, but the LFS analysis shows how difficult it is to find full time creative work, and that creative work is highly likely to be hidden behind primary employment in a less-skilled occupation. This means that in various places, including regulatory outcomes and league tables, there is a likelihood of positive outcomes for creative graduates being under-reported.

    At the same time, policy must address the inequalities associated with creatives and second jobs. For example, the chances of making a living solely from creative work outside London are substantially lower, and London-centric career pathways are unrealistic for many during a cost-of-living crisis.

    For many creatives, multiple jobholding isn’t a stepping stone on the way to a single steady role, it’s their actual career. It should not be understood as a failure to “achieve” a single creative job. It is a pragmatic but unequal employment pattern, which needs to be accounted for in industrial strategies.

    Source link

  • Experts react to artificial intelligence plan – Campus Review

    Experts react to artificial intelligence plan – Campus Review

    Australia’s first national plan for artificial intelligence aims to upskill workers to boost productivity, but will leave the tech largely unregulated and without its own legislation to operate under.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Students to live, learn with seniors at UC – Campus Review

    Students to live, learn with seniors at UC – Campus Review

    The Australian Capital Territory is set to welcome its first intergenerational retirement and aged care community, to be developed on the University of Canberra’s (UC) Bruce campus.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • How to make lectures more interesting – Campus Review

    How to make lectures more interesting – Campus Review

    Commentary

    A growing number of academics are borrowing from the playbook of top YouTube creators to build content for courses

    A lecture is no longer synonymous with a room full of students and a wall of text. Something new is happening at our universities.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link