Blog

  • 6 higher education experts reflect on COVID’s sectorwide influence

    6 higher education experts reflect on COVID’s sectorwide influence

    In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, grinding life to a halt and severely disrupting instruction across higher education. Colleges are still feeling the effects of the virus five years later.

    We asked higher education experts to look back at the changes made and how the pandemic continues to shape the sector today.

    Their written responses are below, lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    Chief content officer at Coursera

    Marni Baker Stein

    Permission granted by Caroline Bresler

    The pandemic made online learning mainstream in ways that were unimaginable in 2019. A global generation of learners who would likely have not experienced the online classroom now understand its potential, pitfalls, and power. While online learning’s ubiquity didn’t last, its impact on student preferences and university strategy remains. For learners, Coursera research shows that a clear majority of students now want their universities to deliver short-form, job-relevant, for-credit content, delivered digitally. Universities have had to respond to remain attractive, with an increase in micro-credential adoption, and further plans to accelerate uptake among university leaders. Without the economic pressures created by the pandemic, and the exposure to online learning it accelerated, both demand and uptake would have been slower and less pronounced than we see today.

    Back to top

    CEO at National Association for College Admission Counseling

    Angel Pérez

    Permission granted by Melanie Marquez Parra

    We can’t talk about the impact of the pandemic in isolation — multiple converging factors have created a perfect storm for higher education. During the pandemic, we lost over a million students from the college pipeline — a loss the sector has yet to recover from. That blow, compounded by the ongoing FAFSA crisis, demographic shifts, and rising anti-higher education rhetoric, continues to destabilize institutions. Adding to the strain, executive orders and Dear Colleague letters coming out of Washington, D.C., are making it harder for colleges to move forward. Higher education is not just recovering — it’s fighting to remain relevant, accessible, and resilient.

    Back to top

    Vice president for policy analysis and research at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education

    Patrick Lane

    Permission granted by Patrick Lane

    Five years after the pandemic started, data shows that there wasn’t a major impact on high school graduate numbers, though there may be about 1% fewer graduates in the future than previously projected. Whether these students choose to enroll in higher education at the same rates as they did in the past is a different question as the pandemic itself seems to have made some students less likely to pursue higher education. The bigger impact may come from learning loss and chronic absenteeism in K-12. Students who were in early grades when COVID started are facing uphill battles and probably will not be able to make up that ground by the time they finish high school. Postsecondary education (along with employers) will have to grapple with this challenge — on top of overall changing demographics – for years to come. But there are options, including doubling down on developmental ed redesign, enhanced advising, and simplifying postsecondary pathways (among others). 

    Back to top

    Executive director of Commonfund Institute

    George Suttles

    Permission granted by Chandler Stearns

    The pandemic forced colleges and universities to rapidly adopt online platforms for teaching and learning. The shift to remote learning has led to the widespread use of fully remote and hybrid models, combining in-person and online education. Relatedly, the pandemic exacerbated existing inequalities amongst student populations across the country. For example, students from low-income backgrounds faced greater challenges due to housing insecurity, lack of internet access, and limited access to technology. As we continue to learn lessons from the pandemic, it will be important to further leverage technology to enhance teaching and learning, while at the same time taking care of students across the socio-economic spectrum, recognizing that the student experience is just a part of their entire lived experience.

    Back to top

    Head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at University of Tennessee, Knoxville

    Robert Kelchen

    Permission granted by Robert Kelchen

    A key lesson that higher education leaders remember from the early days of the pandemic is that cash is king. Colleges that had financial flexibility were able to avoid layoffs and budget cuts, while institutions that were unable to access funds had to make painful cuts that permanently scarred their communities. The financial state of American higher education is more uncertain right now than even in the darkest days of March 2020, and colleges are starting to implement cost-cutting measures in order to avoid having to make even more difficult decisions down the road.

    Back to top

    Executive director of WCET

    Van Davis

    Permission granted by Melanie Sidwell

    Even before the pivot to emergency remote instruction, the number of students enrolled in at least one distance education course was steadily rising. If you look at IPEDS data, that number has only accelerated since the pandemic. Many students, and some faculty, discovered that they liked the flexibility and opportunities that asynchronous distance education affords and have continued to enroll in that course modality. Institutions that offered very little distance education now find themselves responding to student demand and increasing their offerings. For many institutions, distance education is now a strategic part of their course offerings.

    Back to top

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Cost of Higher Education – A Lecture Revisited

    Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Cost of Higher Education – A Lecture Revisited

    • This lecture was originally delivered by the Rt Hon John Denham MP, former Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills in Gordon Brown’s Government. He gave this lecture from Opposition in January 2014. More than eleven years later, we revisit his lecture to consider what lessons it holds for today’s higher education sector.

    At the RSA in 2014,  I tried to address the mounting challenges facing the higher education sector:  a system with stressed finances, eye-watering fees,  educationally not fit for purpose in some parts, and in which limited public funds were written off while incentivising the provision of a monochrome one-size fits all teen-focussed education.  The National Accounting rules which framed much of the technical financial analysis have now changed.

    Overseas student fees held the crisis away much longer than I expected, albeit at the cost of financial and reputational vulnerability, but it’s with us now. I’d argue that today, ministers face much the same issues that I discussed.  

    The lecture is clearly a provocation, not a plan, but its key tenets are valid. It is better to use what money you have to teach students and reshape the sector today than write off unjustifiable debts in the future. Ministers should have the courage to incentivise a greater diversity of provision, options for cheaper study, different ways of working and closer relations with employers. Unless a lot more money is to be found, some of these questions can’t be ducked.

    John Denham, March 2025

    RSA Lecture – The Cost of Higher Education

    Good evening.

    Thank you to Matthew for hosting the meeting, Alison for agreeing to respond, and you for coming. You may not agree with me tonight. But if I don’t challenge at least some current assumptions about how we fund and deliver higher education I shall have failed.

    I want to change the terms of the debate, not present a detailed plan for university education.

    What’s the problem?

    But I suppose the first question is, why bother? Isn’t everything going very well?

    UCAS figures show the largest ever number of admissions last September, there’s further progress, in widening participation, and even a small increase in free school meal students going to the 35 most selective universities.

    And the Chancellor is apparently so flush with money he can lift the cap on student numbers, funding an extra 60,000 a year.

    I’m sure researchers and the UCU will say it’s no bed of roses, but cash from new fees means university life has been a lot more congenial than life in local government or the NHS for the past three years.

    The private cost is eye-watering but haven’t the high fees been accepted by parents and students?

    The problem, of course, is that the whole system of university finance for English students is sliding slowly but surely off a cliff.

    •  The £9000 fee is declining in real value
    • Capital spending has been slashed, pushing more universities further into debt driven investment
    •  The science budget will have fallen by 20% in real terms by 2016 – undoing the huge impact of Labour’s ten year investment
    •  The system runs so hot that a small misjudgement about student numbers creates a huge hole in the BIS budget. So we have ministers arguing about whether to cut research or support for poorer students
    •  The NAO have highlighted the black hole of unrecoverable loans, including those to EU students
    •  The cost of debt cancellation– the so-called Resource Account Budgeting or RAB charge – is rising steadily.
    •  The Chancellor’s new expansion – apparently based on the same accounting principles as Merdle’s Bank – has many questions about its sustainability.

    Across universities you hear the same story. ‘We might get through the next few years. But it can’t go on like this for long’.

    We already have the world’s most expensive public university system yet most proposals for change are variations on the theme of asking graduates to pay even more.

    But that’s not the end of the bad news.

    Quality and relevance

    English universities have huge strengths, of course. Our international research reputation is outstanding; we remain a magnet for international students; there is much excellence in our teaching.

    But concerns about what parts of higher education deliver simply won’t go away. Despite improvements, many employers remain deeply critical of the employability of too many graduates. One quote is not evidence, but it’s not hard to find ones like this one:

    ‘Despite our best efforts we have come to the decision that we would prefer to be understaffed than hire poor-quality applicants,’ said Bryan Urbick, founder and CEO of the Consumer Knowledge Centre. ‘As the economy rebalances, we will need more highly-skilled employees, particularly for young people with science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) degrees, but businesses are struggling to recruit good graduates from the UK.’

    And

    ‘Strong overall performance on higher skills participation must not be allowed to mask the skills shortages already impacting upon key sectors of the economy, which point to a mismatch between supply and demand’ said Katja Hall, Policy Director at the CBI.

    47% of new graduates, and a third of those who graduated five years ago, don’t work in graduate jobs. They’re in debt and its not the reason many went to Uni in the first place.

    There’s some big questions here about the links between higher education, the economy and economic growth.

    Social Mobility

    Despite steady progress in widening participation we are still miles away from a genuinely meritocratic, lifelong higher education system. The change in the most selective institutions has been small and there has been a sharp fall in mature student applications and a collapse in part time student numbers. These are the routes which have previously allowed talented individuals to enter higher education later in life.

    Austerity

    And austerity has not gone away.

    £25bn of more cuts, says the Chancellor. Labour may not have signed up to those sums, but every pound will be closely scrutinised.

    As a country, we actually spend too little on higher education. But we can’t even open the case for more until we’ve scrutinised every current pound we spend.

    And that’s not just the public money.

    The cohort of students who started in September 2013 will pay back £7.8bn over the years ahead. You can’t ask people to pay sums like this if you can’t prove it will be well spent.

    Getting more from current spending is not alternative to higher investment. It’s the essential precursor to it.

    My aim tonight

    I will argue that of the £bns taxpayers spend on higher education, hardly anything is spent directly on teaching students.

    I’m going to ask a radical question – what would universities look like if the state actually spent all it could on teaching students things.

    I will argue that we have foolishly turned our backs on modes of higher education which, for the right students, would be more cost-effective and better tailored to the economy’s needs, and do more for real social mobility.

    I’ll ask what a more cost-effective university system would look like.

    I will argue that the £bns that graduates will pay are inflated by all sorts of costs which are not their responsibility, the system lacks transparency and which, despite all the talk of choice, is actually narrowing many of the options students used to enjoy.

    I’ll ask what a fairer, more diverse university system might look like.

    And finally, I will argue that current spending does far too little to foster the real partnerships with employers that would benefit students, business and the wider economy.

    I’ll ask how we could use taxpayers more effectively to boost recovery and growth.

    Taken together, I’ll show how these changes will widen student choice, reduce the costs of higher education and improve social mobility

    I want to change the terms of the debate, not present a detailed plan for university education.

    The independent policymaker faces many obstacles.

    BIS [The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills] doesn’t allow independent access to their higher education finance model so we have to rely on their crude ‘ready reckoner’ published some time ago. An updated version promised before Christmas arrived on Tuesday – too late for today. We have, for example, had to assume a RAB charge of 35%, not the 40% which now seems likely.

    I have drawn heavily on the incomparable Paul Bolton in the House of Commons Library. But I’ve asked Paul to make so many heroic assumptions and approximations that the responsibility for using the figures is mine, not his.

    Higher Education finance

    Let’s take a quick look at the public finance of higher education

    On the government’s figures, by 2015-16 (and ignoring for now the sketchy announcement in the Autumn Statement):

    •  Of the £6.7bn of tax-funded spending, just £700m will be spent directly on teaching grant
    •  Of the rest £4.2bn is spent on debt cancellation (RAB charges)
    •  £330m goes on supporting more disadvantaged students to successfully complete their courses, and £1.5bn goes on maintenance grants to low-income students.

    Taxpayers now spend £6 on debt cancellation for every £1 they spend on teaching students anything.

    Defenders of the current system will say I just don’t understand the system.

    It is fees that pay for teaching costs, they say. And that’s made possible by RAB charges which are a progressive policy which protects graduates from degrees which turn out to be of limited economic value.

    The reality of course is that RAB charges are not so much a progressive policy as a simple recognition of the political reality that you can’t get blood out of a stone.

    According to David Willetts, perhaps 50% of this September’s students will not repay their loans in full.

    Half of all today’s students will pay 9% of all their income above the repayment threshold for the next 30 years and they still won’t clear their debts. And that takes no account of bank loans, credit cards and any other debts that mount up while studying

    We do have to hope that the mind-broadening, growing up, parts of their degree are worth it, because economically it hardly looks a good deal for them, taxpayers or the wider society.

    The RAB charge was 28% under Labour’s fee system, a projected 32% when the new system was introduced, now ministers say it is 40% and many independent experts say it will be higher.

    It’s not just that rising RAB charges are a problem for the government and the public finances.

    Debt write off also forces up everyone’s fees by top-slicing money which could have been spent on teaching, so keeping fees down.

    So it’s equally true to say that every time the RAB charge goes up it means fewer and fewer successful graduates paying off the debts of more and more economically less successful graduates.

    Or to put it another way,’ if your son didn’t go to that unsuitable course at that weak university, my daughter could pay lower fees for her degree at her more prestigious college.’

    That may not be an issue in English politics today, but it will be.

    Ever rising fees will lead more and more students and parents to ask what and who they are paying for.

    I don’t know of any progressive principle which thinks it is a good idea to induce people, generally from lower income backgrounds, to take on huge loans, demand big payments, and then to tell them they don’t have to pay after all. It’s not how progressive parents bring up our children, and the state shouldn’t do it to them either.

    Of course, some people will die, fall ill, devote themselves to their children or do what I did and spend 18 years after graduation working in low paid jobs in the voluntary sector.

    But a sound, progressive, politically sustainable system would have loans sufficiently affordable that the great majority pay them in full. If we want wealthy graduates to pay more we should tax them fairly.

    The economic and political costs of a high fees policy

    If you look at HE funding again, something else may stand out.

    Look at how many elements were the consequence of introducing a high fee market system. They are either economically unavoidable, or politicians had to introduce them to allay public concerns about high fees.

    A high cost of debt cancellation is simply unavoidable, but the repayment threshold also reflects a political calculation.

    The £150m a year National Scholarship Programme which flared and died in just three years was otherwise known as the Save Nick Clegg’s Face fund.

    In one of the largest politically driven programmes, the Office of Fair Access requires universities charging more than £6000 to plough around £700m of their fee income into bursaries, fee remission and the like of little proven benefit. The cost-effective AimHigher scheme was scrapped by the coalition

    The maintenance grant was increased by Labour and again by the Coalition to offset criticism of fees – even though there is little logical connection between the two.

    Received wisdom is that this spending is politically untouchable.

    But we must dare to think differently. Crude politics has created too many bad policies in the past.

    Let’s start by taking the radical step of putting all this money into teaching. And then, put back, working from first principles, the programmes that are really needed.

    Positive feedback

    As you put more money into teaching the cost of fees comes down. As fees fall, RAB charges fall, and the % of debt repaid increases. So you plough these RAB savings back into teaching, fees fall, RAB charges come down, you put the money into teaching and so on. The effect is striking.

    In our model, which also builds in some other changes I’m going to outline, spending on teaching rises from £700m to £4800m – a seven- fold increase. The spending on debt cancellation falls from £4,200m to £2,200m. In other words we have transferred £2bn from debt cancellation into the education of students!

    My first aim was to see what happens if we put all public funding into teaching. It turns out it would nearly halve current fees.

    But I’ve explored other changes which, though they contribute to reducing the cost of fees further, are really there because they are inherently desirable.

    In my view our university system would be stronger if it offered more choice to students who cannot or do not want to spend three years full time studying for a degree; if it gave students more choices of ways to reduce their living costs; if it made it easier for employers to partner universities in the delivery of degrees; and if it freed up other resources for re-investment.

    Cutting fees and debt repayments will ease the burden on graduates. The more immediate problem for most students is surviving while they study.

    Recent NUS research shows a £7000 shortfall per year between student living costs and the maximum income from grants and maintenance loans.

    I don’t want to sound like a party hack but the term ‘cost of living crisis’ comes to mind here.

    There’s just no prospect of finding the sort of public money which could make a significant impact on student incomes. The only way is to give students more choice of less expensive modes of study, whether

    studying more intensively for a less time, mixing part-time and full time education, combining work and study, or studying from home.

    Yet we seem to be going in the opposite direction.

    A one size fits all university system?

    Even the most fervent advocates of Labour’s 50% target would surely be surprised that it has been achieved almost entirely through the most expensive mode of higher education – the three year degree studied away from home.

    Part time education is collapsing. The number of two year honours degrees has barely changed. Labour’s employer backed degrees have been dropped. Fewer mature students are applying.

    Higher education is becoming ever more a one size fits all approach.

    It is almost a rite of passage for young people, defended as much for the so-called ‘student experience’ as the quality of education.

    I wouldn’t knock it; I enjoyed it myself.

    But should our universities be so focussed on this single mode of study?

    No one suggests that Open University graduates do not have real degrees, even though they – by definition – eschew the entire ‘student experience’.

    There is second reason for challenging our ever growing reliance on the three year degree study away from home.

    Of all the OECD countries, the UK has the highest percentage of young graduates. And this was before the fall in mature and part time student applications. Today, 90% of full time English students at university are under 25.

    More than anywhere else in the OECD we have made higher education a one-shot deal, for young people to do as early as possible.

    What on earth have we done?

    Our schools system fails more than most in overcoming inequality and social disadvantage by the age of 18 or 19. Yet on top of this inequitable schools system we have imposed the youngest HE system in the world.

    It is is impossible for all young people to compete fairly in such a system.

    Now, I don’t think we should give up trying to get the Russell Group to take admissions seriously. We should support Alan Milburn’s efforts to open up the professions. We should challenge the abuse of interns.

    But for the foreseeable future, a genuine commitment to social mobility will require the construction of routes for the late developers, those who went to weak schools and those whose parents had low aspirations.

    So as part of my thought experiment I’ve looked at the role of more intensive degrees, studying from home and combining work and study.

    Two year degrees

    Two year degrees exist in both the public and private sector.

    The private University of Buckingham repeatedly tops the National Student Survey for student satisfaction.

    We can’t know the real demand for two year courses – current financial rules make it hard for public universities to introduce them. Research for Kaplan, albeit an interested party, suggests an untapped market and good awareness of the pros and cons of intensive study.

    It certainly looks as though some students could study more intensively.

    David Willetts says that students study 5 hours a week less than in the 1960s. On average, students study for 30 hours a week for 30 weeks of the year.

    The Higher Education Policy Institute and Which study highlighted variations between similar courses in different institutions.

    And according to HEPI, EU students on the Erasmus programme find our courses less intensive than in other European countries.

    I have suggested that 30% of courses – half of them employer co-sponsored – should be taught intensively.

    Suggestions of two year degrees always bring out fears of dumbing down. But given their potential to save money both for students and the taxpayer, knee jerk responses are irresponsible unless soundly evidence based.

    In my model I’ve assumed a two year intensive degree – say 39 weeks of study a year– would cost 20% less to deliver than a three year degree. This is based on both public and private sector charges.

    But I’ve also set out to graduate the same number of students – three two year cohorts every six years rather than two three year cohorts if you like.

    So at any one time, teaching costs are about 7% less than at present, and there are 10% fewer students in the system.

    But I’ve also designed the system so that overall university income remains unchanged.

    So we have fewer students at any one time, lower costs, and the same resources. Better student-staff ratios. Less pressure on facilities. New options for research time and staff sabbaticals

    There is no reason at all why standards should fall.

    The key thing here is the use of intensive periods of study.

    Someone in work could work four intensive half years over a four year period. Someone else might do a couple of part-time years at a local college followed by an intensive full year at another university.

    Intensive study may not be for everyone. It will require commitment and a maturity of approach. In fact, perfect for the somewhat older student with work experience who needs a route into higher education but neither wants nor can afford a leisurely three year degree.

    ‘Studying from home’

    In our model, the public finance effect of more students studying from home is relatively small and not enough to justify taking choice away.

    My real motive in raising this issue is to challenge the lazy assumption that it does not matter if vast numbers of students have to leave home to study a suitable course. If anything, the current competitive regime has forced more universities to trawl a national market, not their more local communities.

    The effect is to impose quite avoidable costs on students which inevitably hit the poorest hardest. A new social divide is opening between those students who can only afford to study from home and those whose family gives them the choice to study away.

    We should give students a real choice to study from home because it is much cheaper and is the only realistic way of bridging the gap between the maintenance system and the real costs of studying.

    I’ve assumed that 60% of students might choose to study from home if they could.

    We can’t make students study from home. Many couldn’t for personal or geographical reasons.

    But we are a densely populated largely urban society with many universities; there is a network of FE/HE colleges already delivering respected degrees; it should be possible to offer the vast majority of students a real, quality, choice of courses within reach of their own homes.

    It is a scandal that, too often, that choice does not exist and universities in the same locality barely talk to each other.

    I’ve no illusions about how challenging this is.

    On the one hand, it would be big cultural shift in the way many young people and their parents see university education.

    On the other, it would be an even bigger cultural challenge to universities.

    It would actually mean – heaven forbid –suggesting that they sit down together at local or sub-regional level; Russell Group members and Million+; Alliance and GuildHE, to actually cooperate and collaborate on the delivery of courses. Real flexibility of study would enable students to study mutually recognised credits at universities within their locality.

    Some may think this is where my thought experiment breaks down completely!

    But shouldn’t we challenge universities to change their insular attitudes?

    Employer sponsored degrees

    Finally let’s look at the end product of all this.

    Of course, university education is not all about getting a job; etc; etc.

    But, you know, for many students the idea of getting a decent job is probably in there somewhere.

    The ONS figures tell us that nearly 50% of new graduates, and a third of those who graduated five years ago, don’t work in graduate jobs. Things have got steadily worse during the recession, but they were not great before the banking crisis.

    The figures don’t prove we are educating too many graduates. They do show that producing more graduates doesn’t automatically increase the demand for graduates – the drivers for that lie in research, development, innovation and the incentives for long term business investment.

    But they probably also tell us that employers are not wrong when they say many graduates lack the employability which would make employers to want them in graduate jobs.

    ‘One way to address this is to develop more partnership-based provision, with greater levels of business involvement in colleges and universities, as well as boosting apprenticeships. But the market in ‘learn-while-you-earn’ models – such as higher apprenticeships and more flexible degree programmes like part-time study – is underdeveloped.’

    CBI Tomorrow’s growth: New routes to higher skills (2013)

    So my final proposal is to subsidise employers to put their employees – current employees or potential students they recruit – through university. I’ve aimed for 50,000 a year – that’s half the total number of intensive two-year degrees.

    I would base this on the workforce development programme I introduced at DIUS [Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills] which after just three years was creating 20,000 places a year with employers paying wages and an average of £3000 towards the course costs. I’m not proposing a rigid system. We already have some companies, like JLR at Warwick, who pay the full fee costs. Others could not pay much at all. It’s the principle that matters.

    Employers and universities would work together to design the right course. Big companies can do it for themselves. Smaller companies will need to work together, but that may be a real strength if employers, perhaps under the umbrella of the Local Economic Partnerships, come together to shape provision in local universities.

    Bringing it together

    I have looked at four changes.

    • We put as much money as possible into teaching.
    •  We use public and private contributions more effectively by encouraging more intensively taught degrees
    • We ensure that more students can minimise the cost of study by providing a genuine choice of quality courses within reach of home, and that there are more routes for older students
    •  And we incentivise new collaboration between employers and universities.

    A brief financial overview

    It may be helpful to run back over the key changes this makes to HE finance

    These tables will repay a longer look when I publish this lecture, but they’ll give some idea of what is going on.

    The approximate financial impact shows how we have switched resources into teaching and away from RAB charges. By putting money from widening participation and maintenance grants into teaching, and by shortening courses, with more students studying at home, and employer backed courses, we make an initial savings of £2.3bn. The second and third round impact on RAB charges releases an additional £1.2bn.

    The next slide shows that we have kept public sector spending on higher education constant – at £6.730bn.

    And the next slide on institutional steady state income shows that the total university income also remains constant – allowing for rounding errors – at £9.430bn.

    Institutional income remains the same even though we have more students on cost-effective intensive courses and fewer students in the system at any one time. That’s why, as I mentioned earlier, student-staff ratios improve and there are resources to invest in teaching quality.

    Not shown almost £700m OFFA tells universities to spend on widening participation. With fees slashed, the case for such central dictation falls away. If you end this requirement, the money available to universities rises to £10.1bn.

    We shouldn’t overstate the case.

    One of the quirks of my model is that, while graduate numbers remain constant in the first few years, overtime they would decline.

    Clearly, we don’t want this to happen. The first call for more investment would be on the spare capacity built into our model and the second on the current OFFA spending. The next model will address this but here is more than enough money in the system to deal with it.

    Investment in widening participation by the most selective universities remains essential. But even so, I believe substantial sums could be freed up for research.

    The model has considerable flexibility.

    If you feel I have pushed for too many intensive courses, aimed for too many home students, been over optimistic about employer contributions, or the student

    Estimated institutional steady state income directly connected to full time English undergraduates: higher loans fully replace grants for low income students, and 15% premium

    premium is too low, then we can draw on these funds to adjust the system or make relatively modest changes to the level of the student entitlement and fees.

    I’ve pushed change as far as I can – partly to show what could be achieved, and partly because, frankly, I think it is essential to free up resources for research if we possibly can.

    We could deliver this system in different ways, but I think we need a fresh start; as clear, transparent and fair as it can be. So let’s make a radical break with both the current system and that left by Labour.

    The student entitlement

    I suggest that every student accepted on an honours degree course attracts a flat rate student entitlement which goes to their university. Flat rate, irrespective of institution, course, length of course or current fee level charged.

    So, you take the £4.7bn we have now allocated to teaching. You top slice, of course, the extra money required to support science, engineering and other high cost courses. And then you divide the rest amongst the students.

    In the simplest form, this produces a student entitlement of £14,800 per student.

    The fee now payable is the difference between the current cost of a degree and the value of the entitlement. It would be financed and paid back as at present.

    The total fee cost of the average three year degree – and remember that in my model the great majority of degrees, 70% – would be three year degrees or longer – the average total would be less than £10,000 – about the levels fees were at when Labour left office.

    And the total fee cost of a full cost university – currently £27k – would fall to about £12,000.

    The total fee cost for a two-year degree would be less than £5000.

    For those on employer sponsored degrees of course, there would be no fees and they would receive a wage as well.

    There are many different routes through this system. But this example – a three year degree studied away from home (so the most expensive option) – show how total debt falls, total payment falls, and the % repaying in full increases.

    The second example is a two-year degree – but again, assuming study away from home, so the most expensive choice – shows an even more marked difference.

    Students get a lot of choice. Money follows the student.

    But it is an entitlement, not a voucher.

    It is high time we set aside the childish fad which said that every public service reform had to be expressed in the banal and vacuous language of consumer capitalism.

    If my proposal were adopted it would be because the people of England had decided to establish an entitlement for their children to go to university, and that’s how it should be described.

    Support for low income students

    Significant fee reductions come from investing in teaching, rather than the political and economic costs of a high fee system.

    But some students from non-traditional backgrounds do need more support to complete their courses successfully. Students from poorer homes do have to live while they study. So we need to ensure these needs are still met.

    I doubt that the OFFA-mandated money has much effect. Bursaries may shift students between institutions, not get them to apply in the first place. Fee remission is simply inequitable in a system of graduate repayments. Much of this money could be better spent either on teaching or on research.

    The needs of students who need extra support are real as Million+ have argued. We could simply retain the current widening participation spending or student opportunity as it is now called.

    But I would rather create an additional student entitlement, a student premium if you like, which would clearly make disadvantaged students financially more attractive to universities. My model builds in a 15% enhancement to the student entitlement.

    My model replaces the student grant with a loan. By doing so we ensure that the low income student has just as much money to live on as at present.

    While their maintenance debt will go up, their fees have fallen dramatically, and it is the total debt – fees and maintenance – which determines how much graduates have to pay back.

    In all the modelling we have done, low-income students will end up owing less money and paying back less money on every single mode of study and length of course. But still have as much to live on while they study.

    This is such a radically different picture to the one we have today – lower fees, lower debt, lower payments, as many graduates, and new money for research and teaching – that you might be forgiven for thinking there is some sleight of hand. Mistakes aside, there isn’t.

    All I have done is ask a few basic questions about using money better.

    What George Osborne should have done

    In the Autumn Statement George Osborne announced that he would put money from the sale of the student loans book into creating 60,000 additional student places. He says it will cost £700m a year.

    There’s too little information to incorporate it into our modelling.

    But all other things being equal, if George had invested £700m in this system, he could have created as many additional graduates, at lower cost, and had money left over to invest in teaching quality or research.

    A few closing thoughts

    I’ve packed a lot into a short lecture, so I want to allow time for Alison’s response and your questions.

    But in closing, let me touch on a few other issues

    Firstly, we have cut private repayments by £2.4bn without reducing university income. I wanted to lower the private cost of a degree.

    But this does also substantially reduce payments by the wealthiest graduates; would that be fair?

    The option is there to introduce a free standing graduate tax. A 1% tax above the threshold would produce £1bn a year after 20 years and £2.5bn in the longer term. It would take time to start as you wouldn’t want anyone to be paying more than the current 9%. But it soon be generating useful funds.

    My model doesn’t depend on it. But it may be part of the longer term answer of generating new, hypothecated income for our universities.

    Second, no one is going to price a part-time degree higher than a full time degree, so part-time degree costs will fall. So we can trigger a renaissance in part time education.

    Thirdly, you would really want to integrate these reforms with higher level apprenticeships and the real problems of taught masters. We can at least see the analogies between higher level apprenticeships and employer co-sponsored degrees, and it’s worth noting that an integrated masters degree, with intensive teaching, would cost students less than a current three year degree.

    Fourth, It won’t be long before the most research intensive universities – come along and ask ‘can we put our fees up now please?’. This is indeed more politically feasible than under the current model.

    But we shouldn’t rush into it. We’ve raised university spending by £700m, largely by reducing obligations on the more expensive universities. So we need to know more about the impact of these reforms on different types of university.

    But, in any case, tough conditions would have to be met. We would need a self-limiting clawback mechanism of the type proposed by Browne; universities would have to take responsibility for any additional fee loans and write-offs; they would have to demonstrate collaboration with other local universities on courses and mutual recognition of credits; and they would have to deliver progress, not aspiration, on widening participation.

    Fifth, I’ve not looked at implementation. But I would note that if we started now we could take advantage of the current demographic decline and reduce the number of three year degrees more than the proportion of students taking them. We could build demand for intensive courses, beginning by ring-fencing money for the growth in employer co-sponsored degrees.

    Several people have already asked whether this is about to become Labour policy.

    I certainly hope Labour will look at this, but I hope others will too.

    The modelling is crude, the assumptions broad, the approximations considerable. It’s not a detailed plan for higher education and it’s in no state to go into anyone’s manifesto!

    We’ve had enough damage done by enthusiastic politicians working on the back of envelopes already.

    Wouldn’t it be good if BIS now took this concept, put it in their more sophisticated models, and informed a genuine public debate? But that would take Ministers who don’t feel personally or ideologically wedded to the current system.

    Source link

  • Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

    Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

    Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong’s resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

    Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

     

    Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

    Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

    The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

    In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university’s Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

    Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

    A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

    Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

    In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

    Columbia’s Future Amidst Political Turmoil

    The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

    Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

    As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

    Conclusion

    The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.

    Source link

  • Five regulatory process points you may have missed from the University of Sussex decision

    Five regulatory process points you may have missed from the University of Sussex decision

    We’ve covered elsewhere the implications for policy related to academic freedom and freedom of speech stemming from the Office for Students’ decision to fine the University of Sussex for breaches of ongoing registration conditions E1 and E2.

    The publication of a detailed regulatory report also allows us insight into the way in which OfS is likely to respond to future breaches of registration conditions. It is, effectively, case law on the way OfS deals with concerns about higher education providers in England – and while parts of your university will be digesting what the findings mean for academic freedom policies, others will be thinking more widely about the implications for regulation.

    The University of Sussex, perhaps unsurprisingly, wishes to challenge the findings. It is able to challenge both the regulatory decisions and the amount of the fines at a first tier tribunal.

    As always, appeals are supposed to be process based rather than just a general complaint, so the university would have to demonstrate that the application of the registration conditions was incorrect, or the calculation of the fine was incorrect, or both. As above, there is no meaningful defence of the way the fines were calculated or discounted within the judgement so that would feel like the most immediately fertile ground for argument.

    Here’s some of the points that stood out:

    How and why was the decision to investigate made?

    We are told that, on 7 October 2021, the OfS identified reports about an incident at the University of Sussex. This followed the launch of a student campaign at the University of Sussex the previous day – which involved a poster campaign, a masked demonstrator holding a sign, and a hashtag on social media – calling for Kathleen Stock (a professor in the philosophy department) to lose her job.

    This was widely covered in the media at the time, and sparked commentary from interest groups including the Safe Schools Alliance UK and the Free Speech Union. The OfS subsequently contacted the university seeking further information, before starting a full investigation on 22 October 2021. However, despite significant public interest, the decision to start an investigation was not made public until a statement by an education minister in the House of Lords on 16 November (when we were told that the Department for Education was notified on 11 November).

    Kathleen Stock resigned from her role at the university on 28 October – six days after the start of the investigation, and substantially before the public announcement. She noted that “the leadership’s approach more recently had been admirable and decent”, while the university claimed to have “vigorously and unequivocally defended Prof Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech, free from bullying and harassment of any kind”.

    What’s not clear from this timeline is the nature of the notification on which the Office for Students was acting: the regulatory framework in place at the time suggested OfS would take action on the basis of lead indicators, reportable events, and other intelligence and sources of information. There are no metrics involved in this decision, and we are told the provider did not notify the OfS so there was no reportable event notification.

    We are left with the understanding that “other sources of information” were used – these could be “volunteered by providers and others, including whistleblowers”. Perhaps it was the same “source of information” that caused then Minister Michelle Donelan to shift from backing the university response on 8 October to calling for action on 10 October?

    We also know that – despite OfS’ insistence that it “does not currently have a role to act on behalf of any individual” – it appears that the only person to submit a “witness statement” to OfS was Stock. If OfS was concerned generally about the potential for a chilling effect on academic speech, would it not want to speak to multiple academics to confirm these suspicions? Doesn’t speaking to just one affected individual feel a little like acting “on behalf” of that individual?

    Finally – sorry to bang on – we don’t know who at OfS made the decision to conduct an investigation or on what basis. Can, say, the director of regulation just decide (based on a story in the press, or general vibes) to investigate a university – or is there a process involving sign-off by other senior staff, ideally involving some kind of assessment of the likelihood of a problem being identified within a reasonable period of time? If I were an internal auditor I would also want to be very clear that the decision was made using due process and free from political or ideological influence (for instance I’d be alarmed that someone was content for then-chair James Wharton to posit an absolutist definition of free speech in the Telegraph) shortly after the investigation started.

    Why did it take so long to investigate and make a decision?

    The only clue we are given in the regulatory report is that this is a “complex area”. OfS requested a substantial amount of documentation from Sussex – it even used a “compliance order” to make sure that no evidence was destroyed. However, it does not appear that OfS ever visited the provider to speak to staff and students – in other regulatory investigation reports, OfS has been assiduous in logging each visit and contact. There is none of that here – we don’t know how many interactions OfS had with Sussex, or on how many occasions information was requested. Indeed, OfS appears not to have visited Sussex at all. Arif Ahmed told us:

    “There may have been occasions where the university wanted to meet in person and communication was done in writing instead

    Various points of law are referred to in the regulatory report : it is notable that none of this is new law requiring additional interpretation or investigation (the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act had not even left the House of Commons committee stage at this point). It shouldn’t really take a competent lawyer that knows the sector more than a few weeks to summarise the law as it then stood and present options for action.

    The investigation into the University of Sussex was mentioned in the Chief Executive’s report from the 2 December 2021 Board meeting, and it turned up (often just as an indication that the investigation was ongoing)

    If OfS was able to fine a university for a breach of an ongoing registration relating to academic freedom, why do we need the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act?

    Well, quite. On our reckoning, the Act would have made no difference to the entire affair, save potentially for a slight chilling effect on students being empowered to exercise their own freedom of speech, and a requirement for both providers and OfS to promote free speech. The ability of the OfS to reach the conclusion it reached, and to instigate regulatory consequences, suggests that further powers were not necessary to uphold freedom of speech on campus – despite the arguments made by many at the time. There is nothing OfS could have done better, or quicker, or more effectively had the Act been in force. Sussex, in fact, had a freedom of speech policy at the time, something that the regulatory report fails to mention or take account of.

    It is curious that the announcement of the investigation came at the start of a long pause in parliamentary activity on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act – at that time we were keenly anticipating a report from the House of Commons committee stage, but we got no action at all on the bill until it was carried forward into the next session of parliament.

    How was the amount of the fine arrived at?

    There is a detailed account of the process by which it was decided to fine Sussex £360,000 for a breach of registration condition E1, and £225,000 for a breach of registration condition E2. It appears thorough and convincing, right until the point that you read it.

    OfS appears to be using a sliding scale (0.9 per cent of qualifying income for “failing to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom governance principle”, 0.5 per cent of qualifying income for “a failure to have adequate and effective management and governance arrangements in place”, an additional 0.2 per cent for not reporting the breach, a 0.2 per cent reduction for taking mitigating action…) and although Regulatory Notice 19 takes us through the process in broad terms we don’t get any rationale for why those proportions apply to those things.

    It’s all a bit “vibes based regulation” in truth.

    It is to be welcomed that OfS reduced its initial calculation of a £3.7m (1.6 per cent of qualifying income) fine to a more manageable £585,000 – but why reduce to that amount (by a hair under 85 per cent) purely because it is the first fine ever issued for this particular offence? What reduction will be applied to the next fines issued under registration conditions E1 and E2? If none, why not – surely “sufficient deterrence” is possible at that amount so why go higher?

    The documentation covers none of this – it is very hard to shake the impression that OfS is pulling numbers out of the air. When you compare the £57,000 (0.1 per cent) fine issued to the University of Buckingham for not providing audited accounts for two years (something which would have yielded something altogether nastier from Companies House you do have to ask whether the Sussex infractions were 1.5 percentage points more severe at the initial reckoning?

    Are the wider implications as the regulator intends?

    There are so many questions raised that will now be hurriedly posed at universities and higher education all over England – and my colleague Jim Dickinson has raised many of them elsewhere on the site. He’s had enough material for four pieces and I’m sure there will be many more questions that could be explored. Why – for example – should the regulator have a problem with “prohibiting the harmful use of stereotypes”? Is there a plausible situation where we would want to encourage the harmful use of stereotypes?

    It would also be worth noting the many changes to the policy that appears to have caused the initial concern (the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement) between 2018 and 2024. Perhaps these changes demonstrated the university dealing with a rapidly shifting public debate (conducted, in part, by people with the political power to influence culture more generally) as seemed appropriate at each point? So why is OfS not able to sign off on the current iteration of this policy? Why is it hanging a hefty fine on a single iteration on what is clearly a living document?

    There’s also a burden issue.Is it the position of the regulator that every policy of each university needs to be signed off by the academic council or governing bodies? Or are there any examples of policies where decisions can be delegated to a competent body or individual? A list would be helpful, if only to avoid a burdensome “gold plating” of provider-level decision making.

    Beyond the freedom of speech arguments

    There are 24 ongoing conditions of registration currently in force at the Office for Students – a regulatory report and a fine (or other sanctions) could come about through an inadvertent breach of any one of them. Many of these conditions don’t just apply to students studying on your campus – they have an applicability for students involved in franchised (and in some cases validated) provision around the world.

    We should be in a position where the sector can be competently and reliably regulated, where providers can understand the basis, process, and outcomes of any investigation, and that these are communicated promptly and clearly to the wider public. On the evidence of this report, we are a long way off.



    Source link

  • Feds Investigate Stanford, UC Campuses’ Admissions Offices

    Feds Investigate Stanford, UC Campuses’ Admissions Offices

    The Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at four California universities on Thursday night, accusing them of flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling banning affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

    The “compliance reviews,” as the department called them, will target Stanford University and three University of California campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles and Irvine.

    In a statement announcing the investigations, the Justice Department wrote that the investigations are “just the beginning” of their efforts to “eliminate DEI” in college admissions.

    “President Trump and I are dedicated to ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity across the country,” U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi wrote in the statement.

    It’s unclear what prompted the investigations or what evidence the department has to support its suspicions of illegal racial preferences in admissions at the targeted institutions. Some affirmative action opponents have suggested that institutions that enrolled higher numbers of minority students last fall, the first class admitted after the Supreme Court decision, may have done so illegally.

    Berkeley, UCLA and Irvine all reported upticks in the number of Black and Hispanic students enrolled in the Class of 2028 last fall: 45 percent of students who enrolled at a UC system campus this fall were underrepresented students of color, a 1.2 percent increase from 2023 and a record for the system.

    Just hours before the DOJ announced its probe, the Department of Health and Human Services launched its own investigation into admissions practices at UCLA’s medical school, accusing it of illegally considering applicants’ race.

    The UC system has been banned from considering race in admissions since 1996, when the state passed a referendum making the practice illegal at public institutions. That hasn’t stopped anti–affirmative action watchdogs from accusing the system of doing so secretly.

    Last month, the newly formed public interest group Students Against Racial Discrimination filed a lawsuit accusing the system of practicing affirmative action behind closed doors, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective campuses, namely UCLA and Berkeley, and labeling recent admissions policies—like the decision in 2020 not to consider standardized test scores—proxies for affirmative action.

    “Since Proposition 209 banned California’s public institutions from considering race in admissions, UC has implemented admissions practices to comply with it,” a UC spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The UC undergraduate admissions application collects students’ race and ethnicity for statistical purposes only. This information is not shared with application reviewers and is not used for admissions.”

    Stanford, unlike the UC schools, reported a marked decline in first-year underrepresented students last year, according to the university’s Common Data Set, released last month. Black enrollment at the university fell by nearly 50 percent, and Hispanic enrollment by 14.4 percent; meanwhile, white and Asian enrollment rose by 14.5 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

    Luisa Rapport, Stanford’s director of media relations, said the university has not flouted the affirmative action ban, and that following the SFFA ruling, it “immediately engaged in a comprehensive and rigorous review to ensure compliance in our admissions processes.”

    “We continue to be committed to fulfilling our obligations under the law, and we will respond to the department’s questions as it conducts this process,” she wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    ‘Just the Beginning’

    Angel Pérez, president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said he’s heard “extraordinary concern” from admissions officers and deans in recent weeks that investigations could spread to their institutions. They don’t know how to prepare because “we have no idea what these compliance reviews even entail.”

    What they do know, he said, is that investigations could throw their offices into chaos during the height of admissions season.

    “These kinds of reviews are extremely disruptive. They’re also extremely expensive,” Pérez said. “There are some institutions that, you know, may not survive a compliance review given the legal costs.”

    In an interview with Inside Higher Ed last month, Edward Blum, president of SFFA and the architect of the nationwide affirmative action ban, said he expected schools that reported higher enrollment of racial minorities in the fall to invoke legal scrutiny, both from the courts and the Trump administration. He said he believed a number of institutions could be “cheating” the SFFA ruling, including some that were not included in this first round of investigations: Yale, Duke and Princeton.

    “So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.

    Some colleges are withholding demographic information about their incoming classes altogether. On Thursday, hours after the Justice Department probes were launched, Harvard admitted its Class of 2029 but did not release any information—including demographics, acceptance and yield rates, and geographic data—for the first time in more than 70 years.

    In response to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed about what the compliance reviews would entail or how the department plans to pursue its investigations into admissions offices, a Justice Department spokesperson referred to the initial statement announcing the investigations.

    “No further comment,” he wrote via email.

    There are some hints, though, as to what form a federal admissions investigation could take. In a December op-ed in The Washington Examiner outlining a plan that has reflected the Trump administration’s higher education agenda so far with uncanny accuracy, American Enterprise Institute fellow Max Eden suggested Bondi initiate “a never-ending compliance review” targeting Harvard University and others to enforce the SFFA ruling.

    “She should assign Office of Civil Rights employees to the Harvard admissions office and direct the university to hold no admissions meeting without their physical presence,” Eden wrote. “The Office of Civil Rights should be copied on every email correspondence, and Harvard should be forced to provide a written rationale for every admissions decision to ensure nondiscrimination.”

    For the four universities at the center of the investigations, this disruption could be especially pronounced right now, as colleges begin sending out acceptance letters and enter the busiest season for building their incoming classes.

    “This could not come at a worse time. It is April; this is enrollment management season,” Pérez said. “For institutions to take the time, energy and resources to [respond to compliance reviews] means that they’re going to have a harder time enrolling their classes.”

    ‘Absurd’ Accusations

    The Department of Justice is alleging that in the year and a half since the SFFA ruling, colleges have skirted the law by continuing to consider race in the admissions process. Those grounds make its targets particularly confusing, given that the University of California system hasn’t used affirmative action in admissions for nearly three decades.

    In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, banning the practice at public colleges. In the application cycles immediately after, Black and Hispanic enrollment fell precipitously. Pérez said it took many years of experimenting with race-neutral admissions, financial aid and recruitment policies for UC campuses to bring Black and Hispanic enrollment back to their prior rates.

    In the months following the SFFA decision, Pérez said college admissions professionals turned to California for lessons in how to maintain diversity without running afoul of the new law.

    “Officials and admission professionals [at UC] have been helping other institutions across the United States comply with the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “They have actually served as leaders in this space. To accuse them of violating any law is absurd.”

    Source link

  • AI is new — the laws that govern it don’t have to be

    AI is new — the laws that govern it don’t have to be

    On Monday, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed House Bill 2094, the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act. The bill would have set up a broad legal framework for AI, adding restrictions to its development and its expressive outputs that, if enacted, would have put the bill on a direct collision course with the First Amendment.

    This veto is the latest in a number of setbacks to a movement across many states to regulate AI development that originated with a working group put together last year. In February, that group broke down — further indicating upheaval in a once ascendant regulatory push.

    While existing laws may or may not be applied prudently, the emerging trend away from hasty lawmaking and toward more deliberation bodes well for the intertwined future of AI and free speech.

    At the same time, another movement has gained steam. A number of states are turning to old laws, including those prohibiting fraud, forgery, discrimination, and defamation, which have long managed the same purported harms stemming from AI in the context of older technology.

    Gov. Youngkin’s HB 2094 veto statement echoed the notion that existing laws may suffice, stating, “There are many laws currently in place that protect consumers and place responsibilities on companies relating to discriminatory practices, privacy, data use, libel, and more.” FIRE has pointed to these abilities of current law in previous statements, part of a number of AI-related interventions we’ve made as the technology has come to dominate state legislative agendas, including in states like Virginia. 

    The simple idea that current laws may be sufficient to deal with AI initially eluded the thinking of many lawmakers but now is quickly becoming common sense in a growing number of states. While existing laws may be applied in ways prudent and not, the emerging trend away from hasty lawmaking and toward more deliberation bodes well for the intertwined future of AI and free speech.

    The regulatory landscape

    AI offers the promise of a new era of knowledge generation and expression, and these developments come at a critical juncture as AI development continues to advance towards that vision. Companies are updating their models at a breakneck pace, epitomized by OpenAI’s popular new image generation tool. 

    Public and political interest, fueled by fascination and fear, may thus continue to intensify over the next two years — a period during which AI, still emerging from its nascent stage, will remain acutely vulnerable to threats of new regulation. Mercatus Center Research Fellow and leading AI policy analyst Dean W. Ball has hypothesized that 2025 and 2026 could represent the last two years to enact the laws that will be in place before AI systems with “qualitatively transformative capabilities” are released.

    With AI’s rapid development and deployment as the backdrop, states have rushed to propose new legal frameworks, hoping to align AI’s coming takeoff with state policy objectives. Last year saw the introduction of around 700 bills related to AI, covering everything from “deepfakes” to the use of AI in elections. This year, that number is already approaching 900-plus.

    Texas’s TRAIGA, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, has been the highest-profile example from this year’s wave of restrictive AI bills. Sponsored by Republican State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, TRAIGA has been one of several “algorithmic discrimination” bills that would impose liability on developers, deployers, and often distributors of AI systems that may introduce a risk of “algorithmic discrimination.” 

    Other examples include the recently vetoed HB 2094 in Virginia, Assembly Bill A768 in New York, and Legislative Bill 642 in Nebraska. While the bills have several problems, most concerning are their inclusion of a “reasonable care” negligence standard that would hold AI developers and users liable if there is a greater than 50% chance they could have “reasonably” prevented discrimination. 

    Such liability provisions incentivize AI developers to handicap their models to avoid any possibility of offering recommendations that some might deem discriminatory or simply offensive — even if doing so curtails the models’ usefulness or capabilities. The “chill” of these kinds of provisions threatens a broad array of important applications. 

    In Connecticut, for instance, Children’s Hospitals have warned how the vagueness and breadth of such regulations could limit health care providers’ ability to use AI to improve cancer screenings. These bills also compel regular risk reports on the models’ expressive outputs, similar to requirements that were held as unconstitutional under the First Amendment in other contexts by a federal court last year.

    So far, only Colorado has enacted such a law. Its implementation, spearheaded by the statutorily authorized Colorado Artificial Intelligence Impact Task Force, won’t assuage any skeptics. Even Gov. Jared Polis, who conceived the task force and signed the bill, has said it deviates from standard anti-discrimination laws “by regulating the results of AI system use, regardless of intent,” and has encouraged the legislature to “reexamine the concept” as the law is finalized.

    With a mandate to resolve this and other points of tension, the task force has come up almost empty-handed. In its report last month, it reached consensus on only “minor … changes,” while remaining deadlocked on substantive areas such as the law’s equivalent language to TRAIGA on reasonable care.

    The sponsors of TRAIGA reached a similar impasse as it came under intense political scrutiny. Rep. Capriglione responded earlier this month by dropping TRAIGA in favor of a new bill, HB 149. Among HB-149’s provisions, many of which run headlong into protected expression, is a proposed statute that holds “an artificial intelligence system shall not be developed or deployed in a manner that intentionally results in political viewpoint discrimination” or that “intentionally infringes upon a person’s freedom of association or ability to freely express the person’s beliefs or opinions.” 

    But this new language overlooks a landmark Supreme Court ruling just last year that laws in Texas and Florida with similar prohibitions on political discrimination for social media raised significant First Amendment concerns. 

    A more modest alternative

    An approach different from that taken in Colorado and Texas appears to be taking root in Connecticut. Last year, Gov. Ned Lamont signaled he would veto Connecticut Senate Bill 2, a bill similar to the law Colorado passed. In reflecting on his reservations, he noted, “You got to know what you’re regulating and be very strict about it. If it’s, ‘I don’t like algorithms that create biased responses,’ that can go any of a million different ways.” 

    At a press conference at the time of the bill’s consideration, his office suggested existing Connecticut anti-discrimination laws could already apply to AI use in relevant areas like housing, employment, and banking.

    Attempting to solve all theoretical problems of AI, before the contours of its problems become clear, is not only impractical but risks stifling innovation and expression in ways that may be difficult to reverse.

    Scholars Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and co-author Stephen Henriques of Yale’s School of Management expanded on the idea, noting Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act would seem to cover major AI developers and small “deployers” alike. They argue that a preferable route to new legislation would be for the state attorney general to clarify how existing laws can remedy the harms to consumers that sparked Senate Bill 2 in the first place.

    Connecticut isn’t alone. In California, which often sets the standard for tech law in the United States, two bills — AB 2930, focusing on liability for algorithmic discrimination in the same manner as the Colorado and Texas bills, and SB 1047, focusing on liability for “hazardous capabilities” — both failed. Gov. Gavin Newsom, echoing Lamont, stressed in his veto statement for SB 1047, “Adaptability is critical as we race to regulate a technology still in its infancy.”

    Newsom’s attorney general followed up by issuing extensive guidance on how existing California laws — such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act — already provide consumer protections for issues that many worry AI will exacerbate, such as consumer deception and unlawful discrimination. 

    New Jersey, Oregon, and Massachusetts have offered similar guidance, with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell noting, “Existing state laws and regulations apply to this emerging technology to the same extent as they apply to any other product or application.” And in Texas, where HB 149 still sits in the legislature, Attorney General Ken Paxton is currently reaching settlements in cases about the misuse of AI products in violation of existing consumer protection law. 

    Addressing problems

    The application of existing laws, to be sure, must comport with the First Amendment’s broad protections. Accordingly, not all conceivable applications will be constitutional. But the core principle remains: states that are hitting the brakes and reflecting on the tools already available give AI developers and users the benefit of operating within established, predictable legal frameworks. 

    And if enforcement of existing laws runs afoul of the First Amendment, there is an ample body of legal precedent to provide guidance. Some might argue that AI poses different questions from prior technology covered by existing laws, but it departs in neither essence or purpose. Properly understood, AI is a communicative tool used to convey ideas, like the typewriter and the computer before it. 

    If there are perceived gaps in existing laws as AI and its uses evolve, legislatures may try targeted fixes. Last year, for example, Utah passed a statute clarifying that generative AI cannot serve as a defense to violations of state tort law — for example, a party cannot claim immunity from liability simply because an AI system “made the violative statement” or “undertook the violative act.” 

    Rather than introducing entirely new layers of liability, this provision clarifies accountability under existing statutes. 

    Other ideas floated include “regulatory sandboxes,” a voluntary way for private firms to test applications of AI technology in collaboration with the state in exchange for certain regulatory mitigation, the aim being to offer a learning environment for policymakers to study how law and AI interact over time, with emerging issues addressed by a regulatory scalpel rather than a hatchet. 

    This reflects an important point. The trajectory of AI is largely unknowable, as is how rules imposed now will affect this early-stage technology down the line. Well-meaning laws to prevent discrimination this year could preclude broad swathes of significant expressive activity in coming years.

    FIRE does not endorse any particular course of action, but this is perhaps the most compelling reason lawmakers should consider the more restrained approach outlined above. Attempting to solve all theoretical problems of AI before the contours of problems become clear is not only impractical, but risks stifling innovation and expression in ways that may be difficult to reverse. History also teaches that many of the initial worries will never materialize. 

    As President Calvin Coolidge observed, “If you see 10 troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you and you have to battle with only one of them.” We can address those that do materialize in a targeted manner as the full scope of the problems become clear.

    The wisest course of action may be patience. Let existing laws do their job and avoid premature restrictions. Like weary parents, lawmakers should take a breath — and maybe a vacation — while giving AI time to grow up a little.

    Source link

  • What do the massive Education Department layoffs look like? See for yourself.

    What do the massive Education Department layoffs look like? See for yourself.

    President Donald Trump’s promise to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education was long heralded. Dating back to his first term, the vow was loudly and oft-repeated by candidate Trump on the campaign trail in 2024.

    But while the plan went nowhere during his first time in the White House, it has come to fruition through a slew of executive actions since his inauguration in January.

    What began with abruptly canceled education grants in February escalated with the confirmation of U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on March 3 and her promise of “our department’s final mission” that same day. The culmination came in massive layoffs on March 11 and a Trump executive order a week later instructing McMahon to close the department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    A handful of the Trump administration’s actions — including last week’s order — have already been challenged in court. But in the meantime, their impacts are tangible in everything from students’ civil rights protections to funding for teacher grants. 

    K-12 Dive obtained an organizational chart from the Education Department detailing the offices impacted by the March 11 layoffs, as well as a list of about 970 union employees out of 1,300 employees who were let go, which offices they had been employed in and their positions. While the list of employees isn’t comprehensive, it gives a general idea of where cuts were concentrated — and what that might mean for education in the long run. 

    Based on those documents, here are eight visuals to help understand Trump’s multiphased gutting of the Education Department and its widespread impact: 

    By the numbers

     

    $600 million

    Cut to “divisive” teacher training grants

     

    $900 million

    Cut to multiyear research contracts

    The March 11 layoffs were preceded by cuts to over $1 billion in grant funding. Research grants housed in the National Center for Education Statistics were on the chopping block, as were teacher training grants that the administration called “divisive.” 

    The teacher grants impacted include the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program. These cuts would later be successfully challenged through at least two lawsuits. This week, Trump filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the lower court ruling and seeking the immediate cancellation of $65 million in teacher training grants it says advances diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. 

    Former National Center for Education Statistics employees also confirmed to K-12 Dive that research grants related to student assessments were cut — a move that will likely result in a “barebones” approach to congressionally mandated tests like the Nation’s Report Card.

    By the numbers

     

    4,133

    number of employees prior to department’s gutting

     

    600

    number of employees that take buyouts prior to layoffs

     

    1,300

    number of staff fired on March 11

     

    2,200

    approximate number of employees following layoffs

    After the initial cuts to grants — and on the night of McMahon’s March 3 confirmation — employees were given an 11:59 p.m. ET deadline to voluntarily accept a $25,000 separation agreement in an effort to downsize the agency’s workforce. According to a later announcement by the department, about 600 employees took that offer leading up to the March 11 layoffs. 

    The layoffs would bring the total number of employees impacted by the reduction in force — part of McMahon’s “final mission” for the Education Department — to 1,900, or nearly half of its 4,133 count.

    FSA, OCR, and IES hit hard in March 11 layoff

    The data represents the 970 union workers laid off on March 11, 2025, and excludes non-union workers.

    On March 11, the administration laid off nearly 1,300 employees across various offices within the Education Department. Among offices losing the most people were Federal Student Aid, which students depend on to determine their eligibility for federal grants and loans for college. The move is the opposite of a recommendation made by the Government Accountability Office last year — following a botched FAFSA rollout — to “plan for and ensure hiring of sufficient staff to increase capacity” in the FSA office.

    The Institute for Education Sciences, home to the National Center for Education Statistics and oversight for the Nation’s Report Card, was cut down by over a hundred staff and left NCES with a skeletal staff of a handful.

    And the English Language Acquisition office was completely decimated, with all of its some dozen unionized employees laid off, according to the Education Department’s organizational chart. That move came less than two weeks after Trump signed an order making English the official language of the United States.

    Another Education Department arm significantly impacted was the Office for Civil Rights, which enforces laws that protect students’ civil rights. The reduction there comes after the Biden administration pleaded to Congress for an increase in funding and staff to address a case backlog, escalated by Title VI complaints based on shared ancestry or ethnicity in light of the Israel-Hamas war. The Trump administration has acknowledged the backlog but halved the office’s headcount rather than increasing staff.

    7 OCR regional offices closed, affecting half the nation

    The civil rights arm also lost seven of its dozen regional office. 

    OCR is responsible for keeping schools in compliance with civil rights laws and handles investigations that in the past often took months or even years to complete. Those investigations, among other things, ensure equal access to education for sexual assault survivors, students with disabilities and students from all races and ethnicities.

    Attorneys and equal opportunity employees were most common positions cut

    The data represents the 970 union workers laid off on March 11, 2025, and excludes non-union workers.

    Out of hundreds of OCR employees fired, a significant number were civil rights attorneys and equal opportunity employees, leaving the office with a skeletal crew to oversee more than 12,000 currently open investigations. At least 200 employees in total were let go. 

    These attorneys carried out the majority of OCR’s work, including determining case outcomes and sometimes helping to develop policy guidance. 

    Source link

  • Defending free speech: FIRE and Substack partner to protect writers in America

    Defending free speech: FIRE and Substack partner to protect writers in America

    In his farewell address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan remarked that “America is freedom,” and it’s this freedom that makes the country “a magnet” for those from around the world.

    In recent weeks, America has sent a very different message to foreigners residing in America lawfully: You can stay here — but only if you give up your freedom of speech.

    Earlier this week, federal immigration officials arrested a Tufts University student off the street, allegedly for an op-ed she wrote in a student newspaper calling for the university to divest from Israel. If true, this represents a chilling escalation in the government’s effort to target critics of American foreign policy.

    Since our founding, America has long welcomed writers and thinkers from across the globe who come to this country and contribute to the richness of our political and cultural life. Christopher Hitchens was one of President Bill Clinton’s sharpest critics, Alexander Cockburn punched in all directions, and Ayn Rand minced no words in her condemnation of socialism.

    To preserve America’s tradition as a home for fearless writing, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Substack are partnering to support writers residing lawfully in this country targeted by the government for the content of their writing — those who, as Hitchens once put it, “committed no crime except that of thought in writing.” If you fit this category, whether or not you publish on Substack, we urge you to get in touch immediately at thefire.org/alarm or pages.substack.com/defender.

    President Reagan recognized that freedom is “fragile, it needs protection” — and that’s exactly what FIRE and Substack intend to provide.

    Source link

  • University of New Orleans should rejoin LSU system, state board says

    University of New Orleans should rejoin LSU system, state board says

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The struggling University of New Orleans should return to the Louisiana State University system, the state’s higher education board has recommended. 
    • UNO, founded in 1956 as part of the LSU system, transferred to the University of Louisiana system in 2011 amid enrollment declines stemming from Hurricane Katrina damage.
    • Transferring the institution back to the LSU system would require state legislation, which Louisiana’s board of regents voted unanimously to recommend at a meeting on Wednesday. 

    Dive Insight:

    UNO’s enrollment has never fully recovered from the disaster of Katrina nearly two decades ago. The university even grew its student body slightly after the hurricane but has since lost those gains. For the 2023-24 academic year, full-time equivalent enrollment stood at 5,114 students — just over a third of what it was in 2004-05. 

    Accompanying those declines has been financial instability. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2024, UNO’s tuition and fee revenue fell about 20% to $65 million.

    State fiscal support has also collapsed. Louisiana has gone through “one of the largest higher education disinvestments in the nation,” according to a March feasibility study from the regents on returning UNO to the university system. For UNO, state funding has fallen by just under 45% from two decades ago. 

    In addition to cost increases felt throughout higher education, UNO also faces contractual debt obligations such as for bookstore and dining services and a deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $2 billion. 

    The report also laid blame with the university, stating that “UNO’s lack of aggressive action to address these issues immediately as they arose has resulted in a deep budget deficit that must be strategically repaired.”

    Amid all its many revenue and expense challenges — and despite job cuts and other budget efforts — UNO’s budget gap has reached $30 million, according to the study. 

    All of those problems indicate failed thinking behind the university’s transfer into the UL system, according to the regents’ report. Moving UNO into UL’s fold came with an “expectation that new governance would assist in reversing declining enrollment and graduation rates to yield a stronger and more vibrant UNO,” it noted. 

    But things did not turn out as planned. “Instead, the institution’s fiscal condition has deteriorated to its current dire state, challenging UNO’s ability to meet its academic, research and community service missions,” the report said

    Yet the university “plays a significant role in advancing the intellectual and economic development of the City of New Orleans,” the study argued, pointing to well-regarded programs in jazz studies, naval architecture and marine engineering, hospitality and cybersecurity. 

    While the regents voted to recommend the university’s transfer to the LSU system, some board members expressed concern that doing so would just make UNO’s financial troubles a systemwide problem. 

    “I just worry that, when you look at the shortfall, you’re taking the shortfall from one area and transferring it to the other,” Regent Dallas Hixson said at Wednesday’s meeting. 

    The point of transferring the university to the LSU system would be to “unlock the full potential of UNO, fostering regional prosperity while ensuring a smooth and efficient transfer of governance and leadership,” the feasibility study stated. It offered few details, however, for how that would occur. 

    To ensure a smooth transfer, the regents recommended setting up a transition team that would engage the system and UNO leadership. It also called for an in-depth third-party forensic financial audit, as well as program and facilities assessments, to help enumerate and address UNO’s challenges.

    Source link

  • Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement is detaining a Harvard Medical School research associate who’s a Russian native. One of Kseniia Petrova’s lawyers says the government is trying to deport her to Russia, where she faces possible arrest due to her “prior political activism and outspoken opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

    Gregory Romanovsky, the lawyer, said in a statement that Petrova was trying to re-enter the U.S. on Feb. 16 at Boston’s Logan International Airport when a Customs and Border Protection officer discovered she “had not completed the required customs paperwork for a non-hazardous scientific sample she was bringing from an affiliated laboratory in France.”

    “CBP was authorized to seize the item and issue a fine,” Romanovsky wrote. “Instead, they chose to cancel Ms. Petrova’s visa and detain her.”

    Petrova remains in ICE custody in Louisiana. The Boston Globe reported earlier on her detention.

    Romanovsky wrote that “CBP improperly invoked their extensive immigration authority to impose a punishment grossly disproportionate to the situation. This overreach reflects broader concerns about the treatment of international scholars by U.S. immigration authorities.”

    A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Petrova was “detained after lying to federal officers about carrying biological substances into the country. A subsequent K9 inspection uncovered undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits. Messages found on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it.”

    Harvard spokespeople didn’t provide an interview Friday about the situation or answer multiple emailed questions. In a brief email, the medical school’s media relations arm said, “We are monitoring this situation.”

    Romanovsky has sued to restore Petrova’s visa.

    “Ms. Petrova’s 1.5-month-long detention has caused significant disruption to both her professional and personal life,” Romanovsky said in his statement. “As a dedicated and highly respected researcher, her work is critical to scientific progress. We strongly urge ICE to release Ms. Petrova while her legal proceedings are ongoing.”

    Source link