The University of Tasmania (UTAS) is set to cut 13 full-time staff as it proposes a massive shake-up of its humanities, social sciences, creative arts, and media schools amid declining student enrolments.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
On 23 May 2023, then home secretary Suella Braverman announced a package of measures to damp down the higher education sector’s contribution to net migration. The removal of the right for taught postgraduates to bring dependants dominated the headlines, and has loomed large over arguments about international recruitment ever since.
One of the other changes that attracted less publicity – indeed, it was welcomed by the sector – was the elimination of international students’ ability to switch out of the student route onto a work visa before their studies have been completed (with the exception of PhD students, who would still be allowed to after 24 months, in recognition of the fact they may be employed by their university).
This new policy was brought into effect by a statement of changes to the immigration rules on 17 July 2023. As set out by paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum, the ban on “switching” came into effect at 3pm that same day, counter to usual practice of leaving at least 21 days before immigration rule changes apply. “The Government considers this departure from that convention to be necessary and proportionate,” it is noted, in order to “reduce the possibility of a large number of applications for […] switching being made in the 21 days usually available between Immigration Rules changes being laid and coming into force.”
A petition opposing the change was launched, eventually gaining 15,579 signatures:
We want Government to postpone the rule implemented on 17 July 2023 which prevents existing students from moving to a Skilled Worker without completing studies. We believe this rule should only be implemented on new students starting in January 2024.
We believe this change is unfair and unjustified as when students came the rules allowed them to switch onto the Skilled Worker visa route without completing studies and existing students should not be prevented from switching in this way. The rule should be implemented to new students starting from January 2024.
There should be no retrospective effect on law, it should be implemented on new students coming from January 2024 onwards.
The Home Office was unmoved, saying in its response that “the student visa is for study” and that “we needed to crack down on broader abuse of the system and prevent people using the Student route as a backdoor to looking for work.”
On the charge that this was a “retrospective” application of the law, the response said:
When someone is switching immigration routes, the rules that apply are those in place at the time they switch, not the rules in place when they first entered the UK under a different route entirely.
One student affected by the change was Ashraful Islam, from Bangladesh, who had come to the UK on a student visa in January 2023. On 20 July of that year – three days after the statement of changes – he applied to switch to a five-year skilled worker visa, with a plan to work in the care sector. He had a certificate of sponsorship from an employer dated 16 June.
His application was rejected by the Home Office – and he applied for a judicial review. This was refused in both January and April 2024, so he went to the Court of Appeal. The case was rejected for a final time in April of this year.
His case rested on a line in the new rules which said:
An application which does not meet all the validity requirements for a Skilled Worker may be rejected as invalid and not considered.
The argument was that the presence of may within the rules (“may be rejected”) left discretion to the Secretary of State to make a decision. He also pointed out that his certificate of sponsorship had been issued before the rule change, the rapid implementation of the new rule departed from convention, the application was made very shortly after the change came into force, he had not been aware of the change’s effect, and that he met all other criteria. Given these facts, were the Home Office empowered to exercise discretion there were a variety of reasons why it should choose to do so.
The judges agreed that this was not a correct interpretation of what the word may was doing in this context – rather, the “natural and ordinary meaning” was that the Home Office is entitled to reject a non-compliant application “without any consideration whatever of the underlying merits of the application.”
The court did however rule that the Home Office was not able to claim its legal costs from the appellant, as it had failed to submit an argument to the court until 17 March, two weeks before the hearing, despite permission to appeal having been granted in July 2024.
The final tossing out of Ashraful Islam’s persistent attempts to get redress through the courts is probably the last glimmer of attention to a piece of immigration policy that nobody really cared about.
You would get long odds on switching from student to work visas ever being allowed again in any future migration rules. In the run-up, Universities UK International spoke for most of the higher education sector when it said:
We would welcome the proposals to end switching from student and work visas where students have not completed their course. This would close an unhelpful loophole and ensure that international students that choose the UK finish their programmes before they are able to move into full-time employment.
Universities’ work was greatly complicated by international students who had seemingly applied solely in order to get to the UK and then immediately look for employment. There are a whole host of incentives to seek to prevent this from happening, from tuition fees being paid in instalments to UKVI compliance metrics penalising institutions with lower completion rates. And it somehow goes further than this, striking at a sense of what university study is for.
It’s hardly good for students either, who are paying enormous amounts of upfront tuition fees, visa charges, and in many cases commission to recruitment agents, relative to the worth of the education they receive during a shortened time as a student in the UK.
But you couldn’t quite imagine a world in which home students were legally prevented from dropping out of university and going into employment (though admittedly a regulatory focus on continuation along with a completely inflexible student finance system put plenty of pressure in the system to prevent this from happening). The government’s whole framing of international students in recent years has become dominated by a tension over whether or not they are supposed to be finding employment. Like this, not like that. And equally in the higher education sector, the change in tenor around an institution’s relationship with its international students that the reintroduction of post-study work permissions engendered has still not really played out in full.
The corresponding rise in importance of international recruitment agents and sub-agents is a big part of this. The Financial Times’ splash last weekend on how students are being “lured” to the UK was a welcome bit of attention to the issue. One student had been told that they would be eligible for indefinite leave to remain after five years on the student and graduate route – neither qualifies. Another felt she had been misled over the availability and remuneration of part-time work. We’ve covered stories of much worse practice on Wonkhe in the past.
Recruitment agents (and a wider ecosystem of peers, advisors and influencers) are undoubtedly encouraging and facilitating young people in other countries who would like to work in the UK to find ways to take advantage of student visas. One commentator is quoted over on University World News this week in pretty stark terms:
One agent once told me that the student visa route, despite upfront tuition payments, was ‘cheaper and less risky than paying a people smuggler’.
The Home Office’s approach to policymaking has become a whack-a-mole for these instances of unintended consequences – with the result that the majority who would actually like a fulfilling university experience followed by a successful professional life, whether in the UK or elsewhere, are constantly having their experiences made more tawdry and more unfair. And this is to say nothing of the fact that constantly changing how the visa system works creates a perfect state of flux, confusion and misinformation for unscrupulous actors to take advantage of.
If it was just about switching, that would be one thing. But the changes to the post-study work landscape have proliferated in the last three years – and despite what the government may protest, it is one retrospective change after another if you are an international student.
From 6 February 2024 the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) main rate rose from £624 to £1,035 a year, a 66 per cent increase. This had at least been announced in July 2023 – with the rationale of funding an NHS pay rise – along with an increase to visa fees. The cost of a graduate visa, for example, rose by 15 per cent to £822.
In neither case did we see quite the level of haste from the Home Office that had been the case with banning switching. But there is still a clear “retrospective” element to it, given that many students moving onto post-study work would have already signed up for their student visa before the changes had been made – in some cases, long before. It doesn’t really make any odds whether those on student visas are given a handful of hours, or 21 days, or several months – they are a captive audience.
The increase in visa fees and health surcharge also applied to the skilled worker route (with the exception of certain healthcare occupations for the IHS) – again, those moving from study or graduate visas into work visas were charged far in excess of what they could have expected would be the case. For those with dependants, yet more. The IHS is an annual charge, but all years are payable in advance.
If we consider an international student’s time at university and subsequent entry into the labour market as one “product”, then this would be a clear example of drip-pricing – showing the purchaser an initial price and then including additional, unavoidable charges later in the purchase process. Elsewhere on Wonkhe, Jim has written regularly about how universities themselves are required to avoid this in their marketing and contractual arrangements with students, especially under more stringent CMA guidance which is in effect as of this year.
The counter-argument would then be that study and work are two separate things – going back to the Home Office response to the switching petition, it’s a “different route entirely” – as well as the fact that the government is not selling a product, it’s operating the country’s border system. But as the international education strategy and many other policy papers spell out, post-study work arrangements are designed to attract students to study in the UK, despite all the subsequent handwringing. They are part of the package. The Home Office might be safe from judicial review here, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
The changes last year went far beyond price-gouging. From April the baseline minimum salary for skilled worker visas was increased from £26,200 to £38,700, and the minimum salary specific to particular jobs (the “going rate”) was also substantially increased. Student and graduate visa holders benefit from a discount rate here, but this was still a massive inflation-busting restriction on the jobs that students would be able to get sponsorship for. For many, this was a large part of the reason to come to the UK to study – to progress from university into a career, in the same way that it is for domestic students. For plenty, this was essentially the only reason they had chosen the UK higher education system over international rivals – let’s be honest.
Again, for international students already at university in the UK, and a large swathe of graduate visa holders, the changes were implemented far too quickly for there to be any possibility of them getting onto skilled work routes before the cut-off (let’s remember, “switching” is banned, and morally suspect). James Cleverly’s statement to Parliament in December was clear this was not retrospectively unfair on those already here:
Those already in the Skilled work route, and applications made before the rules change, will not be subject to the new £38,700 salary threshold when they change employment, extend, or settle.
So that’s alright then. Unless you are a student, or a graduate route visa holder not yet in a position to find permanent long-term employment.
The raised salary threshold was well in excess of the average salary for typical graduate roles in many parts of the UK. It’s unsurprising that both the Scottish and Welsh governments have been hammering the point that two years of graduate route (unsponsored) work is unlikely to allow young people to progress to a point in their careers where they are being paid enough to qualify for the skilled worker visa, given average wages in both nations. The same is true in many parts of England. If you wanted to design a policy to encourage graduates to head to London (and, longer-term, to start their educational journeys at random newly-opened branch campuses in the capital), it would probably look a lot like this.
So now international students will be paying much more in immigration charges than they could have realistically expected upon coming to the UK to study. And the kinds of work available to them for longer-term settlement have completely changed, as has its geography. Could it get any worse?
The latest round of proposed changes to migration policy, as heralded in last Monday’s white paper, represent a new low in terms of changing the rules of the game while it’s already in motion.
We don’t yet know when the reduction in length of the graduate route will come into effect (for UG and PGT) – next January feels most likely if you had to guess. The detail remains to be seen, but it feels wholly plausible that many students currently studying on courses which finish after this date will see themselves with a smaller post-study work entitlement than they expected when they signed up.
But as much as this change and the prospect of a fee levy may have caught the sector’s attention – for their as-yet-unknown impact on recruitment and institutional finances – there are much more flagrant examples of rug-pulling in what the government’s proposing.
Really it’s a cumulative effect. Labour’s overall plan to link up skills and migration is premised on a lot of additional charges and eligibility changes for work visas. For example, the Immigration Skills Charge which employers must pay when sponsoring a skilled worker visa is being hiked by 32 per cent to more than £1,300 a year (for medium and large employers). This (further) discourages companies from sponsoring anyone on the graduate route – ironically, students going directly to the skilled worker visa on completion of their course are exempt, further calling into question how the graduate route is being conceptualised.
Visa thresholds for skilled work, already massively hiked in 2024, are likely to rise further in many professions that international graduates might have been planning to go into. The planned abolition of the immigration salary list, which provides salary discounts for certain occupations, will see to this – though we don’t know the detail yet. Many occupations will be removed from eligibility altogether. The Migration Advisory Committee has also just said that it would like to further review the “new entrant” discount rate for students (and presumably graduate visa holders):
The impacts of arrangements for new entrants since the 2024 salary threshold increase are uncertain and would be worth reviewing in more detail.
All these policy measures and the question marks hanging over them greatly complicate the ability of current students to plan where they are going – and represent a fundamental break with how the system was working when they signed up to study in the UK.
Worst of all is the change to routes to citizenship and indefinite leave to remain – again, ill-defined and uncertain in its exact implementation for the moment. But the white paper promises that in the future it will take 10 years to qualify for settlement, rather than the current five. For one thing, indefinite leave to remain brings with it eligibility for home tuition fees – groups like Hong Kong Watch are already highlighting how this may mean young people on BN(O) visas needing to wait an extra five years to qualify. In England, at least – the Scottish government has already changed the rules to allow them to qualify after three years’ residency.
And for all the young people from around the world who at some point in the last few years made the decision to plan for a long-term career in the UK? One graduate route visa holder greeted last Monday’s white paper announcements with the following post on social media:
It’s official: UK graduate visas are a £3000 worth scam. To anyone who’s reading this and pondering about where to study out of the European countries: do not repeat my mistakes and waste your time, energy, and money on boosting the UK economy for nothing in return.
£3000 is roughly the graduate visa fee plus two years of the immigration health surcharge. The particular policy change that had spurred the post was the change to long-term residency:
I’m so mad at myself right now! I spent a huge amount of money and time on looking for a sponsored position in this country only to find out that I won’t be able to do it and that if I do land a sponsored role, it won’t mean my whole life isn’t in a precarious situation for 10 YEARS.
They go onto say that they now regret having studied in the UK, and that they will now do their best to warn off other prospective students and graduates (as well as hoping to “magically land an incredibly high-paying job” in the window before further changes come into effect).
Plenty of international students will be confused right now – or furious. Most if not all international applicants will not be sure about exactly what they would be getting into if they came to the UK to study in the next year.
Into the information void inevitably swoops networks of recruiters and advisors, many acting on slices of commission from higher education institutions, to over-promise and distort what post-study work in the UK is like – or at least to act as if they have the answers.
Universities are stuck in the middle. Agents will still be keen to “lure” students to the UK, and in the worst parts of the industry this will continue to involve outright deception. And the government is once again making changes to post-study work that retrospectively affect students, in ways that would have affected their decision-making if they had known. There will be a generation of graduates going back to their home countries with cautionary tales of how international education is not how it was promised to them.
This isn’t to say that the higher education sector is entirely divorced from both these acts of misselling. The behaviour of agents should be within the sector’s gift to improve, and some steps appear to be being taken, though without more transparency it’s hard to know to what extent it’s just talk. As for the Home Office, it would be nice if the impact of changes on current students would feature much more prominently in the sector’s lobbying efforts, as compared to hypothetical applicant numbers.
But practically, the next few years look set to have continued moral challenges for universities around international students, not just financial ones. UKVI might be cracking the whip, but increased scrutiny of international students’ attendance and progress cannot be allowed to become an intrusive refrain echoing through their lives on campus. The graduate route has changed and could change further, and realistically will not be a route into permanent work in the UK for many – so universities need to think how their graduates can actually get something fulfilling out of it, and evaluate whether this is working.
International students and applicants alike will need clear, honest advice about how the visa system works – from the university itself, rather than those with a financial stake in the ensuing decisions – as well as honesty when things are shit and honesty when what’s coming down the line is not clear.
Readers of Wonkhe need no reintroduction to the storm surge of bad news that, wave after wave, is washing over the sector’s defences and causing the majority of UK institutions to take drastic financial evasive action.
Given that the government’s response to the growing financial crisis in UK higher education seems to be “let’s do a ranking of vice chancellor salaries compared to graduate salaries” and “let’s introduce an international student levy that the Australian Government decided was a bad idea,” it also seems pretty clear that the sector isn’t exactly cutting through with its political affairs arguments.
In other words, the sector has to generate our own solutions to the problems we face.
On 25 June The Venn University Leaders Forum will convene senior academic and professional service leaders from across the sector to provide them with the space, inspiration and facilitation needed to help develop these solutions.
The Venn will feature interactive sessions focused on geopolitical scenario response, unconferences, challenges “from the vice chancellor’s desk” and perspectives from North America and from outside higher education. Most importantly it will take the conversations in the margins’ of conferences that so many of us find the most valuable part of these forums – and provide the space and format for that to happen during the main programme.
In adjusting to permacrisis, one of the challenges universities and the sector has as a whole is that we risk spending all our time and energy raising the shield to fend off each individual wave of issues; and wielding the sword only in a defensive, reactive measures to trim staff numbers, cut courses and reduce expenditure.
There are two risks to this approach. First, institutions can’t “take a breath” to think about how they adapt to the new reality, leading to constant reactive churn, burnout of staff, and leadership feeling under siege. This reminds us of that moment in about February 2021 when the adrenaline of dealing with successive Covid impacts and new variants started to seriously ebb away from those within universities, and institutional leaders started to think longer term about how to turn ‘crisis-response mode’ into ‘crisis-as-usual’.
Second, the sector misses the tsunami lurking on the horizon and fails to invest in measures that either avert or prepare for a much larger impact. Given that on almost every occasion in the last decade we’ve said, “oh, that couldn’t possibly happen” only for the Darkest Timeline to be victor – it’s now odds-on that a Farage-Badenoch ticket will sweep to victory in the next General Election. How is higher education preparing for this possibility?
When I was in the US recently as part of the CASE Global Leaders Programme, a senior representative from one of the US university associations said they had a shared bingo card with their colleagues that they used every time a university president said “we just need to tell our story better… we need a ‘Got Milk’ campaign.” But we’ve been trying versions of that for a while, and nothing has changed. It’s no longer sufficient for higher education to “tell” better. It needs to “do” better.
For universities, the question is now no longer “how do you do more with less?” Instead, it is becoming “how do you do less with less?” – and what do you stop doing entirely? As difficult as the current situation may seem, the sector still has the resources, political capital and ingenuity to make bold, impactful choices about what it does differently. This includes new models of delivery that might change the public and political narrative, shift the dial financially and maybe even divert the worst case scenario. Critically it has the opportunity to look at what is happening around the world – most strikingly in the US – and learn what to do (and what not to do).
This article is published in association with The Venn – find out more about The Venn and apply to attend here. Wonkhe is partnering with The Venn to create a dialogue between the event and our upcoming Festival of Higher Education on 11–12 November – early bird tickets are now on sale.
“The Government will explore introducing a levy on higher education provider income from international students, to be reinvested into the higher education and skills system. Further details will be set out in the Autumn Budget.”
35 words that have put the sector into a spin, spun out tens of thousands of words of analysis and rebuttal, and set into motion a shared panic that the government is not only going to reduce the number of international students but tax the students that universities manage to recruit.
The only things that we know about the levy is that the government has used a six per cent tax on international fees as an “illustrative example” in its technical annex, the government assumes this cost would be passed on to international students, and that passing on these costs will depress international student numbers by around 7,000. In terms of the levy design there is the promise that the money will be ringfenced for higher education and skills but which parts and how is not defined. It is of course also not guaranteed.
The sector’s response has been to point out that reducing the number of international students and devaluing the unit of resource they bring with them will put additional financial pressure on universities. The impact will also be uneven with the largest recruiters of international students paying the highest levy.
The government has made a hugely consequential policy signal with no details, scant impact assessment, and no analysis of the consequences. However, if a levy of some form is going to happen the sector should think carefully about which kinds of levy they believe would be preferable. Not all levies are built equally.
The idea for a levy seems to have come from the Australian Universities Accord. The UK government does not seem to have noticed that the idea was heavily edited and caveated in the final report but in the interim report it was noted that:
The Review notes various submissions support establishing a specific fund that could be used for future infrastructure needs, as well other national priorities. This could include consideration of a levy on international student fee income. The use of this revenue for sectoral-wide priorities could reflect the collaborative nature of the sector in building a strong and enduring system. The Review notes further examination is required, including consideration of some level of co-investment from governments.
There is a little bit more detail here but not much. Like the UK version the fund would be hypothecated toward higher education and used to fund things on a system wide basis. The politics on the face of it appear progressive that the institutions that benefit most from private capital, the flow of international students, pay a proportion of it back to fund public goods in the wider higher education system. The less progressive element is that international students pay once to their institution, they would then pay a levy which their provider would pass on to them in increased fees, and they then prop up an education system of a nation in which they are not permanently resident.
The University of Melbourne did some follow up work looking at the implications of such a levy. Some of the issues they picked up are whether this would be a levy on all international students in all kinds of education, whether it is reasonable to distribute funding from high income to low income institutions, whether the idea of a levy in and of itself would dampen demand, and whether the impact of taxing income from individual providers is more harmful than the collective benefits they may receive from a shared fund.
Depending how the government chooses to apply its levy we would expect to see very different results. An Australian model which redistributes funding from the wealthiest institution to the least wealthy would have a very different set of consequences to a levy which took a six per cent flat tax and put it into a general fund for infrastructure. It feels odd within a market based higher education system to make one provider dependent on the success of another. It also feels odd to make international students who are studying at a specific institution responsible for the health of the wider sector.
Some would see an intra-university levy as a recognition that the success of the system is the success of each provider. Some would see it as an unjustifiable tax on the most financially successful institutions.
Australia’s Antipodean partner already has a form of student levy.
New Zealand’s Export Education Levy is charged as a proportion of the fee international fee-paying students pay to their providers. Depending on the kind of institution this is charged at between .5 per cent and .89 per cent of tuition fees.
The levy has a direct relationship between funders and beneficiaries. Although it is a tax on learners, and by extension a tax on providers, the funding is used for the development of the export education sector, a recovery scheme should a provider be unable to continue teaching, the administration of the international element of The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and InternationalLearners) Code of Practice 2021 (this includes a range of safety, wellbeing and advice support), and the funding of the International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme (a scheme for students to resolve disputes with their providers on contracts and financial issues.)
This system has been in place with some variations and the occasional suspension since 2002. The international education system is much smaller in New Zealand than the UK and the amount of funding the levy raises is modest at close to three million dollars in 2022/23. The model in operation here is a relatively small tax to fund things which providers have a shared interest in. It’s not a direct cash transfer between providers but a collective pot to reinvest into the economic commodity of international education. The scheme was suspended during COVID-19 as a measure to support the sector, so its financial impacts are clearly not negligible, but post COVID-19 international enrolments are recovering strongly. Whether they would have recovered even more strongly without a levy is impossible to know.
This is a light-touch, shared endeavour, we all should have some investment in international education, kind of a levy and it is not the only levy New Zealand has.
The Student Service Levy is a fee applied to all student fees to fund non-academic services. The University of Auckland surveys students every year on what they would like their fees to be spent on and in 2024, in descending order by amount, funding was spent on sports, recreation and cultural activities, counselling services and pastoral care, health services, child care services, clubs and societies, careers advice, legal advice, financial advice, and media.
This is a general levy but the principle has broader applications. It would be entirely possible to levy international student fees to pay for non-academic services. For example, university access budgets are effectively paid for by a levy on fees. This system seems fairer in some ways than a general levy. The place where a student studies is the primary beneficiary of their fees. From a policy perspective it would allow the government to move institutional behaviour toward things they care about by stipulating what the fee could be spent on. However, given that international student fees subsidy much of university work already it would again feel like they are paying twice. Additionally, if providers didn’t have to redistribute their funding on a national basis the providers with the most international students would be able to spend the most on non-academic elements.
It is also worth stating the government’s proposed levy would not function like the Apprenticeship Levy. The Apprenticeship Levy is a tax on employer’s payroll but employers are able to access the funds they contribute to spend on apprenticeships with any underspend clawed back by the government. Plainly, if government allowed providers to access the fees they contribute to the levy for the education of their own students there would be no point in having a levy in the first place beyond giving universities the political coverage to raise fees. Presumably, not an outcome the government is intending.
The argument against a levy of international student fees will dominate the sector for months to come. Should a levy come to pass universities would be well disposed to think of which kinds of levy they might prefer. A model which redistributes funding across providers and if so which providers and for what projects. A model which internally redistributes funding toward student support. Or, likely the least popular, a model which allows the government to reinvest the funding broadly and perhaps outside of higher education.
In making the case of the harm a levy could cause the sector may also win over more sympathy if it can explain which kinds of levies in which places have what kinds of effects depending on how they are applied. A levy may generally be a bad idea but some versions are much more harmful than others.
There’s not many in the higher education sector that would have welcomed any part of the recent immigration white paper.
The reduction in the graduate route time limit would have been difficult enough. The BCA changes to duties on providers in order to sponsor international students will cause many problems. The possibility of financial penalties linked to asylum claims for those on student visas was as unexpected as it is problematic.
But it is the levy that has really attracted the ire of UK higher education.
On one level it is simply a tax – on the income from international student fees, which is one of a vanishingly few places from which universities can cross-subsidise loss-making activity like research and teaching UK-domiciled students.
Yes, the funds raised are promised variously to “skills and higher education” or just “skills”, and the suggestion seems to be that the costs will be passed on entirely to international students via rises in tuition fees. There’s not any real information on the assumptions underpinning this position, or credible calculations by which the proportion of students that may be deterred by these rises and other measures has been estimated.
But details are still scant – the government has, after all, only promised to “explore” the introduction of a levy – and used the idea of a six per cent levy on international tuition fees as an “illustrative example”. We have to look forward to the Autumn statement (not even the skills white paper – remember joined-up, mission-led, government?) for more – and do recall that the white paper is a consultation and responses need to be made in order to finesse the policy.
There’s no reliable way to assess the impact of this policy with so little information, but we do know a lot about the exposure of each university to the international market.
For starters here’s a summary of provider income from overseas fees since 2016–17 – both for individual providers and (via the filters) for the sector as a whole.
The story has been one of growth pretty much anywhere you care to look – with only limited evidence of a cooling off in the most recent year of data. Some institutions have trebled their income from this source over the eight years of available data, with particular growth in postgraduate taught provision.
In considering the financial impact of a potential levy I have used the most recent (2023–24) year of financial data – showing the total non-UK fee income on the vertical axis and the proportion of total income represented by the value of the levy on the horizontal. By default I have modelled a levy of six per cent (you can use the filter to consider other levels).
In the majority of large universities the cost of levy is equivalent to around two per cent of total income. In the main it is the Russell Group that sees substantial income from international fees – the small number of exceptions (most notably the University of Hertfordshire and the University of the Arts London) would see a levy impact of closer to three per cent of total income.
What we can’t realistically model is university pricing behavior and the impact on recruitment. Universities generally charge what the market will stand for international courses – and this value is generally higher for providers that are better known from popular league tables.
Subject areas and qualifications also have an impact (the cost of an MBA, for example, may be higher than a taught creative arts masters – a year of postgraduate study may cost more than a year of an undergraduate course), as does the country from which students are arriving (China may be charged more than India, for example).
Some better off universities in the middle of the market may choose to swallow more of the cost of the levy in order to increase their competitiveness for applicants making decisions on price – this would put pressure on the currently cheaper end of the market to follow suit as well as direct competitors, and may lower the overall floor price for particular providers (though, to be fair, private providers are still better positioned to undercut should they have access to funds from investment or other parts of the business).
There is an obvious impact on the quality of the provision if providers do cut the amount of fee income – and this as well could have an impact on the attractiveness of the whole sector. For more hands-on courses in technical or creative subjects, provision may become unviable overall – surrendering the soft power of influence in these fields.
It’s not often that we see a policy proposal on university funding launched with so little information. Generations of politicians have learned that university funding policy changes are the equivalent of poking a wasps nest with a sharp stick – it may be something that needs doing but the short term pain and noise is massive.
It could be that it is a deliberate policy to let the sector (and associated commentariat) go crazy for a month or so while a plan is developed to avoid the less desirable (for ministers) consequences. But the idea that international students will gladly pay more to support an underfunded sector is one that has been at the heart of university activity for decades – the only real change here is that the government feels it can put some of the profits to better use than some of our larger and better-known providers.
In all of this there appears to have been little consideration of the fairness of putting extra costs onto the fees of international students – particularly where they personally don’t see any value from their additional spend. But this has been an issue for a good few years, and it seems to have taken the possibility of a tariff (which could be considered unfair to cash-strapped universities too) to drive this problem further up the sector’s agenda.
As I type, a UK-EU “reset” summit is due to be held in 24 hours’ time, and in the face of “Brexit betrayal” and “surrender summit” commentary from the likes of former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, the government is out on the media rounds talking up Europe.
As such, it could probably have done without our Eurovision entry getting the dreaded “nul points” from televoters across the continent on Saturday night.
The Swiss are especially upset about a voting system that saw them come second with juries but share our “nul points” with televoters – although the commentary there is characteristically introspective.
It’s probably for the best that UK journalists filed all of their stories after the full UK televote was published in the night. We always tend to vote for Malta and Israel – but we also gave points to Poland, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia and Albania, which was almost certainly more about the size of their diaspora in the UK than the quality of their entries.
Meanwhile our televoters managed to give “nul points” to eventual winners Austria – whose singer Johannes Pietsch is a “soprano” countertenor at the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna.
Rehearsals in Basel means that JJ missed out on placing his vote in last week’s Österreichische Hochschülerinnenschaft elections. In Austria, SU elections are held at the same time, using the same platform, nationwide at three levels – the federal level (BV), the university level (HV), and field of study (STV).
Traditionally, the ÖH gets less interest in private universities, where significantly fewer students vote, and only one “list” tends to compete at the university level. In the federal election, political parties’ youth wings’ involvement means that the process picks up considerable national press coverage – and students’ participation in it at least involves national debates about higher education rather than who’s giving out the best lollipops.
It also means that politicians are much more likely to have been involved in student representation and university governance than in the UK – a decade or so ago, current higher education minister Christoph Wiederkehr was chair of JUNOS (Junge liberale Studierende), the liberal student faction affiliated with NEOS, which is sort of like the Lib Dems, just without the weird stunts.
But despite the level of influence, given the political situation in Austria, rectors likely feel like JJ in “Wasted Love” – despite having much to give, his love ultimately goes to waste because the recipient isn’t willing to fully engage.
Until a decade or so ago, the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) (the centre-right, Christian democratic party) was in a “grand coalition” with the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) under Chancellor Werner Faymann, holding key ministries but facing criticism for slow reforms.
The ÖVP’s approach to higher education had typically balanced market-oriented perspectives with traditionalist values. Under Education Minister Martin Polaschek (an ÖVP appointee), they had focused on “stabilising university funding” while simultaneously introducing more restrictive admissions policies.
But like a lot of European countries, populism was on the march, and in 2017 it switched leader and formed a hardline coalition with the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) – although that collapsed in 2019 when the FPÖ’s leader was caught on camera discussing potentially corrupt deals with a woman posing as the niece of a Russian oligarch (the so-called “Ibiza scandal”).
Despite all of that, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) secured the largest vote share in last September’s federal election – and its stance on higher education was all about national identity, cultural conservatism, and scepticism towards progressive influences. Its manifesto was strong on the promotion of the German language and Austrian cultural values within universities, opposed “woke” ideology and “gender diktats”, and even proposed the reporting of mechanisms to flag “politically active educators”.
It topped the polls with nearly 29 per cent of votes – not quite enough to form a government, so the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) attempted to form a government with the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and the liberals (NEOS) to block the FPÖ.
When those talks collapsed in January 2025, President Van der Bellen tasked FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl with forming a government – leading to five weeks of negotiations between FPÖ and ÖVP, during which leaked documents revealed plans to significantly increase tuition fees, slash student representation in university governance, and tighten controls on academic freedom – as well as plans to restrict international student admissions, prioritise “native Austrian” applicants in competitive fields like medicine, and impose stricter oversight of academic content to curb what the FPÖ described as “leftist indoctrination.”
Eventually, Austria returned to a centrist coalition, with the ÖVP and SPÖ including NEOS in their new coalition, forming a government in March 2025 under Chancellor Christian Stocker (ÖVP). It’s quite a spread of views – the conservative ÖVP champions efficiency, market discipline and selective admissions with an eye toward business alignment, the centre-left SPÖ calls for open access, generous student grants and democratic governance as vehicles for social mobility, and the liberal NEOS promotes structural modernisation, flexible learning pathways and income-contingent loans to balance access with sustainability.
As in the UK, there are some major fiscal constraints. Austria’s budget deficit exceeded the EU’s 3 per cent limit in 2024 and is projected to reach 4 per cent in 2025, and so the coalition has agreed to implement cuts of €6.4 billion overall – with the ÖVP pushing for fiscal restraint, the SPÖ advocating for educational equality, and NEOS championing system reform.
And there’s no indication that the government will address the increasing financial pressure on university operations that led providers like TU Wien (Vienna University of Technology) to close its campus for a month as a cost-saving measure in the winter of 2022/23.
Students occupied the main auditorium under the banner “TUbesetzt” – calling it an unacceptable abdication of responsibility by both the government and the rectorate, given it denied students access to libraries, labs and study spaces right before exams.
They also criticized what they saw as conservative, outdated teaching and highlighted the lack of coursework on “societally relevant topics like queer-feminism, the climate crisis, and ethics” in technical curricula.
Occupiers demanded that the university recognize that “technology is not apolitical” and reform its teaching to prepare students for future challenges. On the same day, about 40 students at the University of Graz also occupied a lecture hall, focusing on campus sustainability (they demanded exclusively plant-based menus in cafeterias and more free student spaces) and mandatory climate-protection classes for all students.
Since the protest, TU Wien has launched its “fuTUre fit” initiative, culminating in a 2024 convention on sustainability, student-centered learning, and innovation. Key new initiatives include new courses like “Sustainability in Computer Science” and a sustainable design focus within the Faculty of Architecture.
More widely, in the face of rocketing inflation, Austrian public universities had requested an extra €525 million, but ultimately only got €205 million in the 2024 budget. The government had previously topped up the national university budget by a total of €850 million to buffer rising prices – now a new multi-year commitment will only offset inflation and provide a “solid basis” for the next three years.
For students, an ÖH survey showed that students spend on average 43 per cent of their income on housing alone. Rising rents and utility costs are said to be pushing many into financial hardship, prompting calls for government intervention as private “luxury” student dorms proliferate but remain unaffordable.
The ÖH has urged reintroduction of a nationwide subsidy for student dormitories – abolished in 2011 – noting that since 1994, student grants had risen only about 15 per cent while living costs jumped roughly 90 per cent.
Even campus food has become a flashpoint. In 2024, student “mensas” (cafeterias) in Graz and Innsbruck shut down due to rising costs, while others hiked prices.
It cannot be that students have to go to the nearest supermarket or fast food because the local Mensa is outrageously expensive or even closed.
…argued ÖH chair Sarah Roßmann.
So far the coalition has only committed to maintaining the indexation of student financial aid to inflation, with the additional income limit for student grants already increased, and the value of study grants set to be adjusted for inflation each September.
When student numbers are capped, you can announce, take credit for and target investment – so it is growing study places in high-demand fields, particularly STEM subjects at Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS), with a goal of addressing skills shortages while also increasing the proportion of women in technical disciplines.
Digital transformation is seen as one of the ways out of the financial crisis – and with funding from government, Austria’s Digital University Hub (DUH) is attempting to achieve it via a major expansion in shared infrastructure rather than spend on commercial platforms.
There’s an Austrian University Toolkit (a modular IT toolkit for standard processes), a Digital Blueprint (a “toolbox for tech challenges”), ePAS+ (a national system for digital recruitment), HR4u (a national HR backbone), m:usi (a sports management platform), PASSt (a sector-owned student analytics platform), a Diversity Platform (a multilingual, interactive platform to enhance counseling and information processes), UVI-Sec (IT security enhancement) and uniCHAT (collaboration platform).
The FPÖ’s rise has been a challenge for a sector whose students are used to fighting far-right influence on campus. There have been ongoing protests, for example, against a University of Vienna professor (Lothar Höbelt) known for his far-right affiliations and favourable stance toward the FPÖ.
In 2020 left-wing and anti-fascist student groups repeatedly disrupted Höbelt’s lectures, eventually forcing the cancellation of one under slogans like “No room for Nazis at the university” – as well as protesting student fraternity (Burschenschaft) groups that they say use academic spaces to spread racist or antisemitic ideas.
More controversially, in late 2023 a “Pro-Palästina” protest camp was set up at the University of Vienna’s Altes AKH courtyard, demanding universities cut ties with institutions linked to military funding, including the European Defence Fund and the national defence program FORTE. Eventually, the police were sent in. Given Austria’s complex historical relationship with antisemitism and its post-World War II commitment to supporting Jewish communities and Israel, encampments were much more controversial than in the UK.
Both the university administration and the ÖH strongly condemned the protests, citing concerns over antisemitism, extremism, and the involvement of the BDS movement, and stressed the need for free but respectful discourse. Education Minister Martin Polaschek also called for “zero tolerance” towards hate, arguing that academic freedom should not shield extremism. FPÖ figures cheered the crackdown on the camp, claiming it validated their warnings about imported extremism on campuses – demanding harsher consequences for student protestors who “disrupt teaching” or “insult Austria”.
But probably the most interesting policy shift is one that is starting to recognise some of the limits of massification. While the universities of applied sciences are expanding, traditional universities have been told to tighten admissions for postgraduate courses and introduce more selective entry criteria.
It’s being discussed as a more “managed” expansion, in areas deemed to be economically strategic – and while government has tried to balance it all by indexing student grants to inflation and expanding support for underrepresented groups in STEM, the critique is that vocational will seen as the more accessible option, while traditional academic routes become even more exclusive than they are now.
That debate can be obscured in the UK, given the way in which we swedged together everything and called it a “university” back in 1992. But the coalition in Austria is grappling with the same problems that Labour is – Austria needs more graduates, just not that sort and not there. Coalition politics there may well mean it’s more likely to deliver it.
The National Urban League has released a new report examining the progress and setbacks in the fight for racial justice in the five years since George
The report, titled “George Floyd Five Years Later: Was it a Moment or a Movement?” traces the trajectory of racial justice initiatives since May 25, 2020, when Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. It details how initial outrage and corporate pledges of more than $66 billion for racial justice programs have faced increasing backlash, culminating in recent executive orders eliminating federal diversity programs.
“History will judge us – not by how we responded in the days after George Floyd’s death, but by what we are building five, ten, and twenty years later,” said Marc H. Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League. “The fight for justice, safety, and dignity is far from over—and the stakes for our democracy could not be higher.”
The report chronicles how Floyd’s murder ignited what it calls “one of the most significant calls for racial justice in generations,” with protests spanning from Minneapolis to Madrid demanding police accountability and government action to address systemic inequities.
While the initial response was robust – with corporations, higher education institutions, philanthropy, and nonprofits pledging billions to confront systemic racism – the report documents how commitments have significantly eroded. Data revealed that DEI job postings declined 44% from 2022 to 2023, and major companies like Google and Meta scaled back programs supporting Black talent.
The report details a pattern of progress and regression across several administrations. Under President Biden, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, led by Kristen Clarke, convicted more than 180 police officers for civil rights violations and investigated 12 police departments. President Biden’s executive order on safe policing created a national database to track police misconduct and banned chokeholds for federal officers.
In stark contrast, the report notes that the second Trump administration “eliminated all DEI initiatives across the federal government on Day One” and “froze all open DOJ civil rights investigations.”
“Five years after George Floyd’s murder, we are living in a different America,” the report states. “As President Trump began his second term, he signed various executive orders gutting federal diversity programs and efforts. This led to corporations and institutions of higher education abandoning their commitments to racial justice and eliminating their diversity programs altogether.”
The National Urban League’s response has been multifaceted. The organization established a new division, Equitable Justice and Strategic Initiatives (EJSI), to advocate for justice system reforms. It developed “21 Pillars for Redefining Public Safety and Restoring Community Trust” as a framework for police reform and created a “D3” platform based on three principles: Defend Democracy, Demand Diversity, and Defeat Poverty.
In early 2025, the organization convened the Demand Diversity Roundtable, an emergency strategy session to confront threats posed by the new administration’s actions against civil and human rights. With partners, they filed a lawsuit challenging what they describe as “unconstitutional anti-equity executive orders.”
“It is of the utmost urgency that we rise to defend not only the progress made in the years immediately after George Floyd’s murder, but of the last 60 years,” Morial emphasized in the report.
Despite the setbacks, the report presents evidence that public sentiment still largely supports diversity efforts. It cites polling showing 61% of Americans believe diverse employees positively impact organizations, and 75% agree more needs to be done to guarantee everyone is advancing.
“Despite challenges and headwinds coming our way, we are doubling down on the fight for a more equitable and just world, where our classrooms, offices, and boardrooms reflect who America is,” the report concludes.
The 14-page report, designed with a striking red cover featuring Floyd’s name, includes a timeline of events from 2020 to 2025 and offers practical guidance for citizens wanting to protect their rights, including consistently checking voter registration status and supporting organizations fighting for equity.
Morial’s message is clear: “As the moment of 2020 fades for some, we are positioned to lead the movement for a more just America where all Americans can live safe, full lives and thrive.”
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
In 2020 and 2021, the COVID pandemic exposed weaknesses in the United States’ supply chain for key items in American households.
The Biden administration spent millions of dollars through the U.S. Department of Agriculture on new programs that helped farmers sell their produce to local schools, create produce boxes for households and provide more direct food access to their communities.
The Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) and Local Food for Schools (LFS) programs provided incentives for schools and community organizations to buy food from local farmers. They allowed states to create contracts with farmers so schools could purchase their foods and gave farmers the promise of a guaranteed sale when harvest time arrived.
Now, with rocky trade partnerships and tariffs looming, President Donald Trump’s administration has slashed the remaining money for the programs, leaving farmers across the country heading into their growing season unsure who will buy their produce.
“We really figured out how to get local farm product into community spaces under LFS and LFPA,” said Thomas Smith, the chief business officer at the Kansas City Food Hub, a cooperative of farmers near the Kansas City area. “We were making our whole organization around meeting those new needs, because we believe in the government’s promise that they believe in local food.”
The Trump administration canceled about $660 million in funding for the programs that was to be paid out over the next few years. Through the programs so far, USDA has paid out more than $900 million to states and other recipients.
KC Food Hub took on the challenge of helping farmers, school districts and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education work together to streamline the processes under the Biden-era programs. It was almost an instant success.
In 2024, the cooperative brokered more than $500,000 in sales for small farmers in the Kansas City region — more than the group had seen in its first five years of operation.
KC Food Hub hoped that the new partnerships would continue putting money back into farmers’ pockets and was aiming for over $1 million in sales for the farmers they represent. Now, they’re huddling with school districts across Kansas and Missouri to try and keep some of the contracts alive in the absence of the federal money.
The local food programs were an extra pillar of support for small farmers across the country.
USDA data show that since 1980, the number of farms across the U.S. has decreased from about 2.5 million to 1.88 million in 2024. Part of that struggle, Smith said, is like many small-business owners, farmers are forced to take on many different roles.
“What they really want to be doing is farming, knowing their soil, knowing their land,” Smith said. “But because there is no distributor like the Food Hub in most communities, they have to be business people, too. They have to be in the board meetings, meetings with school administrators. And that just puts so much stress onto the food system.”
Over the years, as small farms have dwindled and larger operations have consolidated agricultural production in the United States, the middle market and distributors like the Food Hub have phased out.
When it comes to large-scale distributors, there are plenty of places a farmer could turn to sell their products. But the return for that farmer when selling to a large distributor is much lower.
“You get pennies on the dollar,” Smith said. “No respect to your work, no respect for your worth.”
There are other USDA programs that dedicate money to states through their nutrition assistance programs and set aside funds for seniors and low-income families to buy produce from local farmers.
Studies show ripple effects through local economies when higher quantities of local food are purchased. A 2010 study found that for every dollar spent on local food products, there is between 32 cents and 90 cents in additional local economic activity.
For Mike Pearl, a legacy farmer in Parkville, the programs pushed him to expand faster than he’d planned. Now, without the guarantee of those contracts, he’s scaling back his production plan for the year.
“If you think about it, it was an early game changer,” Pearl said. “We were able to, for the first
time … grow on a contracted basis for a fair price for the farmer, in a way that we never would have been able to do before.”
That encouraged Pearl to increase production and begin making upgrades before he felt completely ready to do so, he told The Beacon. New equipment, growing more produce and hiring more staff were all side effects of the local food purchasing agreements.
“I’m not sure that a lot of vegetable farmers were actually ready for it,” Pearl said. “I wasn’t prepared for it. But we made some changes to grow a bit more and do as much as we can on a short runway. We were set up for a perfect storm.”
Anything extra Pearl produces will be donated, as his farm is one of the largest donors of food in the Kansas City area. But other farmers are left with questions about what will happen with their crops — and their revenue.
It raises a question of trust that Maile Auterson has encountered throughout her life as a fourth-generation farmer in the Ozarks and the founder of Springfield Community Gardens, which facilitates local produce boxes and the LFS programs in the Springfield, Joplin and Rolla areas.
“We promised the farmers,” Auterson said. “The biggest insult to us is that we cannot follow through on the promises we made to the farmers that we had made with that money.”
The area her group serves was set to get $3 million in federal funds over the next three years. While Auterson is trying to fulfill some of those contracts, the trust that small farmers were building with the government through the program has been severed, she said.
“We talked the farmers into participating and scaling up specifically for this program,” Auterson said. “Then when we can’t follow through, the government has done what they were afraid the government would do, which would be to not look out for the small farmer. It’s a terrible moral injury to all of us.”
Smith said the Food Hub is in talks with its participating school districts — including Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs and Shawnee Mission — to continue their purchasing agreements even without the federal funds.
So far, even with the funding cancellation, 95% of 2024’s produce sales are set to be maintained through this year, Smith said.
“As small farmers, they can’t meet the streamlined industrial agriculture price points, but we can come close,” said Katie Nixon, a farmer and the co-director of New Growth Food Systems, which is affiliated with the West Central Missouri Community Action Agency.
“Our quality is usually a lot higher,” Nixon said. “Lettuce, for example, will last three weeks in the cooler, whereas lettuce coming from greenhouses in God knows where will last a week before they turn to mush.”
The Blue Springs School District saw a 40% increase in the use of its cafeteria salad bars after switching to local produce, Smith said. And school districts often find less waste and more savings, despite the slightly higher price when purchasing the produce, Nixon said.
Research shows that farm-to-school programs, like sourcing local produce and teaching kids about farming, resulted in students choosing healthier options in the cafeteria and eating more fruits and vegetables. Schools also saw an average 9% increase in students eating their meals from the school cafeteria when they participated in farm-to-school programming.
During Trump’s most recent Cabinet meeting at the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kenendy Jr. said the administration is planning a massive overhaul of the federal school meals program.
“It’s going to be simple, it’s going to be user friendly. It is going to stress the simplicity of local foods, of whole foods and of healthy foods,” Kennedy said. “We’re going to make it easy for everyone to read and understand.”
Auterson and Nixon feel that the cancellation of the program is retribution for those who benefited from policies and funds initiated during the Biden administration.
“They’re hurting everyone,” Auterson said. “Everyone is suffering from them being retributional.”
This article first appeared on Beacon: Missouri and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
DAVENPORT, Iowa — The Catholic prayer for the faithful echoed off the limestone walls and marble floor of the high-ceilinged chapel.
It implored God to comfort the poor and the hungry. The sick and the suffering. The anxious and the afraid.
Then it took an unexpected turn.
“Lord, hear our prayer for St. Ambrose and Mount Mercy University,” the young voice said, “that the grace of the Holy Spirit may help us to follow God’s plan for our new partnership.”
The speaker was talking about ongoing efforts to unite St. Ambrose University, where this weeknight Mass was being held, with fellow Catholic university Mount Mercy. Small religious schools in rural states are shutting down at an accelerating rate, a fate these two are attempting to avoid.
“Lord, hear our prayer,” responded the congregation of students in St. Ambrose-branded T-shirts and hoodies.
The heads of both St. Ambrose and Mount Mercy, which is in Cedar Rapids, said they’ve watched as nearby religiously affiliated colleges, athletic rivals and institutions that employed their friends and former colleagues closed.
With falling numbers of applicants to college — especially in the Midwest — “we just don’t have the demographics anymore,” said St. Ambrose President Amy Novak. Now, as fewer graduates emerge from high schools, combining forces is a way to forestall “the reality that we might all see in five or seven years,” Novak said.
For many other small religiously affiliated institutions, time has already run out.
More than half of the 77 nonprofit colleges and universities that have closed or merged since 2020, or announced that they will close or merge, were religiously affiliated, according to a Hechinger Report analysis of news coverage and federal data. More than 30 that are still in business are on a U.S. Department of Education list of institutions considered “not financially responsible” because of comparatively low cash reserves and net income and high levels of debt.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
Some small, religiously affiliated institutions that are not on these lists are also showing signs of strain. Saint Augustine’s University in North Carolina, which is Episcopal, has 200 students, down from 1,100 two years ago, and has lost its accreditation. The 166-year-old St. Francis College in New York, which is Catholic, has sacked a quarter of its staff. Catholic Saint Louis University in Missouri laid off 20 employees, eliminated 130 unfilled faculty and staff positions and sold off its medical practice after running a deficit.
Bluffton University in Ohio, which is Mennonite, is looking for a new partner after a planned merger fell through in February and the president resigned. Catholic St. Norbert College in Wisconsin is eliminating 11 majors and minors and 21 faculty positions. And Georgetown College in Kentucky averted closing only after an alumnus gave it $16 million, which, along with another $12 million in donations, was enough to pay off crippling debt that was costing the small Baptist institution $3 million a year just in interest.
Other religiously affiliated schools are also taking steps to buttress themselves against demographic and financial challenges. Ursuline College in Ohio, for instance, which has fewer than 1,000 students, has agreed to merge with larger Gannon University, 95 miles away. Both are Catholic. Spring Hill College in Alabama and Rockhurst University in Missouri, both also Catholic, are teaming up so they can jointly offer more academic programs, though they will remain independent.
More than a fifth of colleges and universities in the United States, or 849 out of 3,893, are religiously affiliated, according to the most recent figures from the National Center for Education Statistics.
The threats to them are getting new attention. Presidents of 20 Catholic universities and colleges met in November in Chicago at a conference sponsored by DePaul University and held at the offices of the Deloitte consulting firm, which collected data to help them figure out solutions to the challenges they face.
“The intent was to think about a blueprint for the future of Catholic higher education,” including more partnerships, shared services and other kinds of alliances, said Donna Carroll, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. “Survival of the fittest is not the strategy that will advance the common good of Catholic higher education. We have to work together.”
The American Council on Education last year launched a Commission on Faith-Based Colleges and Universities, with leaders of what has since grown to 17 institutions including Pepperdine, Brigham Young and Yeshiva universities and the University of Notre Dame.
The idea of the commission, which is scheduled to meet in Washington in June, is “to increase visibility for the important contributions of religious and faith-based colleges and universities and to foster collaboration” among them.
Some religious colleges and universities are doing fine, and even posting enrollment gains — at least in part because of growing political divisions, campus protests and ideological attacks on secular institutions, said David Hoag, president of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
Parents are “wanting to put their son or daughter at a safe place that’s going to have a biblical worldview or a way to look at challenges that’s not polarized,” Hoag said. “At our institutions, you’re not going to be seeing protests or things that are happening at many of these [other] universities and colleges. You’re going to see them rallying together, whether it’s for a sporting event or for a revival or baptisms.”
Other trends also offer some hope to religiously affiliated colleges and universities. A long decline in the proportion of adults who consider themselves affiliated with a religion appears to have leveled off, the Pew Research Center finds. And while enrollment at parochial schools that feed graduates to Catholic universities fell more than 10 percent from 2017 to 2021, the most recent year for which the figure is available, the number of students at other kinds of religious primary and secondary schools is up.
Even religiously affiliated institutions confronting the realities of falling enrollment and financial woes fill a critically important role, their advocates say. They often serve low-income students who are the first in their families to go to college and are reluctant to enroll at large public universities.
Related: The number of 18-year-olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges — and the economy
Many are in rural areas where access to higher education is more limited than in urban and suburban places and is becoming less available still as public universities in rural states have merged or closed or cut dozens of majors.
Attending a small rural, religiously affiliated institution “is, I think — especially for rural students — a great opportunity,” said Todd Olson, president of Mount Mercy, above the sound of trains crossing Cedar Rapids outside his window. “I know kids from very small towns around Iowa,” like the one where he grew up, Olson said. “This campus is a much more comfortable place for them.”
When Jacob Lange arrived at St. Ambrose from East Dubuque, Illinois, and attended a Mass on campus, “all of a sudden all these new people I had never met were kind of chatting with me and it was really kind of nice. It felt like I was kind of included and I didn’t really think I would be originally,” he said. “You figure, ‘I’m probably going to sit in the back and probably not talk to anyone all night,’ and then I showed up, and I walked out here and all of a sudden they’re, like, ‘Here, come join our group.’ ”
His parents also liked that he decided to go to a Catholic university, Lange said. “You know, you go to one of these big schools with 25,000 kids, and you’re kind of worried about your kid — like, what kind of dumb things is he going to get up to?”
Catholic universities in particular have a slightly higher four-year graduation rate than the national average, according to the Center for Catholic Studies at St. Mary’s University in Texas. Graduates have a stronger sense of community purpose, the center found in a survey. Alumni are 9 percentage points more likely to say they participate in civic activities.
Related: See Hechinger’s list of all college closures since 2008
More students at religiously affiliated than at secular institutions receive financial aid, the American Council on Education says. Three out of five get scholarships from the colleges themselves, compared to fewer than one in four at other kinds of schools. At both Mount Mercy and St. Ambrose, which have about 1,450 and 2,700 students, respectively, 100 percent get financial aid.
But these benefits for students can be vulnerabilities for budgets, said Novak, at St. Ambrose.
“We serve the poor. We educate the poor,” she said. “That is a risky financial proposition at the moment for small, regional institutions that are largely tuition-driven.”
The threats to smaller religiously affiliated institutions in rural areas stem largely from the downturn in the already short supply of high school graduates choosing to enroll. The proportion of such students going straight to college has fallen even more sharply in many largely rural states.
While they’re generous with their financial aid, religiously affiliated colleges are also generally more expensive than many other higher education institutions, at a time when many families are questioning the return on their investments in tuition. Median tuition and fees average $25,416 a year, according to the American Council on Education.
Related: ‘Easy to just write us off’: Rural students’ choices shrink as colleges slash majors
St. Ambrose and Mount Mercy, about 90 minutes away, are teaming up from positions of relative strength. Publicly available financial documents suggest that neither faces the immediate enrollment or financial crises that threaten many similar institutions. But their leaders say that they’re trying to fend off problems that could arise later. By joining forces, each can increase its number of programs while lowering administrative costs.
Reaction among students and alumni has been mixed.
Combining with St. Ambrose “was kind of nerve-racking at the beginning because it’s, like, ‘Oh, this is a lot of change,’ ” said Alaina Bina, a junior nursing major at Mount Mercy.
She picked the university in the first place because she liked the small, hilly campus.
“I came from a small town, so I didn’t really want to go bigger,” she said. “Even when I came here on a tour, people would say ‘Hi’ to each other. You just know everyone, and that’s kind of how it is in a small town, too.”
Students were worried about what name would appear on their degrees (the degrees will still say “Mount Mercy”) and whether sports teams that once competed against each other would be merged. Novak and Olson promised to keep their athletics programs separate and even add a sport at Mount Mercy: football, beginning in 2026.
Combining sports teams “would not be wise at all from a business perspective,” Olson said the two agreed, because they are “a powerful enrollment driver” for both schools.
“Honestly, this was probably the biggest student concern,” said Nasharia Patterson, student government president at Mount Mercy, who was wearing a brace on her wrist from an awkward back tuck basket catch during cheer practice. Keeping the athletics teams “gives us a piece of Mount Mercy specifically to just hold on to.”
Among alumni, meanwhile, “there’s mixed feelings” about what’s happening to their alma mater, said Sarah Watson, a leadership development consultant who graduated from Mount Mercy in 2008.
Still, she said, “I know the great challenges that higher ed is facing right now. It’s not just Mount Mercy. It’s not just St. Ambrose. It’s the bigger schools, too. Enrollment numbers have dropped. The desire to go to a traditional four-year college is just not quite what it used to be.”
For Mount Mercy, which was founded by an order of nuns in 1928, Watson said, “If we don’t do this, what’s the alternative? We want to be around for another hundred years.”
After all, said Novak, the St. Ambrose president, “to watch universities close across the heartland because we can’t make it work will leave our communities fallow.”
Carroll, of the Catholic colleges and university association, said that many other religiously affiliated institutions are closely watching what’s happening at St. Ambrose and Mount Mercy.
“It’s a leap of faith,” she said. “And who better to take a leap of faith than a Catholic institution?”
Alderson Broaddus University, West Virginia, Baptist
Alliance University, New York, Christian
Ancilla College, Indiana, Catholic
B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, Texas, Baptist
Birmingham-Southern College, Alabama, Methodist
Bloomfield College, New Jersey, Presbyterian
Cabrini University, Pennsylvania, Catholic
Cardinal Stritch University, Wisconsin, Catholic
Chatfield College, Ohio, Catholic
Clarks Summit University, Pennsylvania, Baptist
College of Saint Rose, New York, Catholic
Compass College of Film & Media, Michigan, Christian
Concordia College New York, Lutheran
Concordia University, Oregon, Lutheran
Eastern Nazarene College, Massachusetts, Christian
Finlandia University, Michigan, Lutheran
Fontbonne University, Missouri, Catholic
Holy Family College, Wisconsin, Catholic
Holy Names University, California, Catholic
Iowa Wesleyan University, Iowa, Methodist
Judson College, Alabama, Baptist
Limestone University, South Carolina, Christian
Lincoln Christian University, Illinois, Christian
MacMurray College, Illinois, Methodist
Magdalen College, New Hampshire, Catholic
Martin Methodist College, Tennessee, Methodist
Marymount California University, California, Catholic
Mount Mercy University, Iowa, Catholic
Multnomah University, Oregon, Christian
Nebraska Christian College, Nebraska, Christian
Notre Dame College of Ohio, Catholic
Ohio Valley University, West Virginia, Christian
Presentation College, South Dakota, Catholic
Rosemont College, Pennsylvania, Catholic
St. Louis Christian College, Missouri, Christian
St. Augustine College, Illinois, Episcopal
St. John’s University Staten Island campus, New York, Catholic
University of Saint Katherine, California, Orthodox Christian
Ursuline College, Ohio, Catholic
Wave Leadership College, Virginia, Christian
Wesley College, Delaware, Methodist
SOURCE: Hechinger Report analysis of news coverage and federal data.
Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556 or [email protected].
This story about religious colleges and universities was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.
A Notice by the Education Department on 05/19/2025
Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]
AGENCY:
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
DATES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.
OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.
Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.
Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.
Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation’s provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.
Dated: May 13, 2025.
Brian Fu,
Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
[FR Doc. 2025-08857 Filed 5-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Published Document: 2025-08857 (90 FR 21296)
