Blog

  • Colleges Spend Heavily on Lobbying

    Colleges Spend Heavily on Lobbying

    As President Trump’s broadside attacks on higher education continue, few institutions have shown a willingness to push back publicly. But behind closed doors, the sector has already pumped millions of dollars into federal lobbying efforts this year to plead their case in Washington.

    An Inside Higher Ed analysis of federal lobbying data shows that some of the universities in Trump’s crosshairs have dramatically increased spending this year compared to the first quarter of last year, hiring advocates on the Hill to represent their interests to lawmakers. Northwestern University, for example, has already spent more than $600,000 on federal lobbying this year, compared to $110,000 in the first quarter of 2024. Among individual institutions, Northwestern has spent by far the most on lobbying this year.

    Northwestern is one of multiple institutions that the Trump administration has taken aim at in recent months, abruptly freezing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding over alleged incidents of antisemitism on campus connected to a pro-Palestinian encampment last spring, or the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports.

    (Northwestern did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

    Here’s a look at what institutions, namely research universities, have spent on lobbying in the first quarter of 2025, and what issues they have emphasized.

    Lobbying Expenditures

    Since the analysis is focused on research universities, many of which have come under attack by the Trump administration, Inside Higher Ed reviewed the lobbying expenditures primarily by members of the Association of American Universities. Together, they’ve spent almost $9 million this year.

    Areas of focus, according to lobbying disclosures, include federal caps on indirect research cost reimbursements, endowment taxes, the upcoming appropriations bill, international student visa issues, athletics and various pieces of legislation, including the College Cost Reduction Act.

    Several institutions targeted by the federal government are among the highest spenders, including Columbia University, which mostly yielded to a list of Trump administration demands in March. Now federal officials wants more from Columbia, including a possible consent decree. While Columbia has publicly conceded on many fronts, it has quietly worked through back channels in Congress, spending $270,000 on lobbying in the first quarter of 2025. Among the lobbying activities listed: “Outreach and monitoring related to … NSF Funding, and NIH funding, generally.”

    Last year, the university spent $80,000 on lobbying in the first quarter and a total of $350,000 for 2024. Given Columbia’s spending so far this year, it is likely to surpass that in 2025.

    “Columbia values its relationships with our delegation and other officials across all levels of government,” a spokesperson wrote in an emailed response to Inside Higher Ed. “We are eager to tell our story on the vast impact Columbia research and contributions have had on improving lives and generating solutions to society’s most pressing challenges.”

    Other Trump targets, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, and Harvard University, have also increased lobbying expenditures. Both Penn and Yale spent $250,000 in the first quarter of 2025, followed closely by Harvard at $230,000. Those are noticeable increases from last year, when Yale spent $180,000 on lobbying in the first quarter, Penn spent $150,000, and Harvard spent $130,000.

    Other Top Spenders

    While the focus of Inside Higher Ed’s analysis was AAU members, a few universities outside that organization also cracked the top 10 in lobbying expenditures for the first quarter of 2025.

    After Northwestern, the University of Phoenix has been the top spender on federal lobbying efforts this year, shelling out $480,000 in the first quarter. However, unlike at many other institutions, that number does not represent a significant increase of typical spending.

    Last year, Phoenix, a for-profit institution, spent $1.8 million on federal lobbying.

    Priorities for the university, according to a lobbying disclosure, include such issues as “change of control, and related regulatory requirements.” Phoenix has been lobbying on change of control since at least the spring of 2023 amid efforts to sell the university, which have yet to materialize.

    Northeastern University, which is a research institution but not an AAU member, is also among the country’s top spenders; it laid out $270,000 for lobbying in the first quarter. But that number mirrors what the university spent in each quarter last year as it racked up more than $1 million on lobbying.

    “Like all major research universities, Northeastern engages with the federal government at many levels,” Renata Nyul, Northeastern’s vice president for communications, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “We work to increase funding for our expanding research enterprise, shape federal policy that affects higher education, and maximize support for student financial aid.”

    Some small liberal arts colleges have also hired federal lobbyists for the first time.

    Is It Working?

    Experts find the increase in lobbying expenditures unsurprising for two reasons. First, there is typically an uptick in lobbying efforts in the early days of a new presidential administration. Second, sectors tend to lobby heavily when presented with new opportunities or major change.

    “Many of the Trump administration’s actions pose existential threats, so universities should be working to address those threats in any way possible. That includes lawyers, appeals to public opinion, all of it, because there have been so many things that affect universities in the first 100 days,” said Beth Leech, a political science professor and lobbying expert at Rutgers University.

    Leech pointed to research funding cuts; rescinded grants; Trump’s broadsides against diversity, equity and inclusion programs; and attacks on academic freedom as key concerns for higher ed institutions.

    She noted that colleges hire lobbyists not only to better understand emerging threats but also to engage lawmakers in conversations about what legislative proposals would mean for higher education.

    “A lot of lobbying is informational, and it’s informational on both sides. The lobbying organization needs to monitor potential threats—not just the Trump administration, but everything that affects an organization, a company, or whatever,” Leech said. “They need to be able to communicate about the impacts of potential threats, because sometimes things come up [in legislation] and lawmakers are just not aware of what some of the implications of some plan might be.”

    Universities are spending heavily on lobbying at a time when the Trump administration appears to be at war with higher education, slashing federal research funding—often without informing institutions—and punishing universities before investigations are concluded. But is it working?

    “They have to try,” Leech said. “They can’t just stand aside and let whatever happens happen.”

    Source link

  • Trump Sends Mixed Signals on Apprenticeship and Job Training

    Trump Sends Mixed Signals on Apprenticeship and Job Training

    President Trump issued an executive order last month instructing federal officials to “reach and surpass” a million new active apprenticeships. It was an ambitious target that apprenticeship advocates celebrated, anticipating new federal investments in more paid on-the-job training programs, in new industries and via a more efficient system.

    “After years of shuffling Americans through an economically unproductive postsecondary system, President Trump will refocus young Americans on career preparation,” federal officials wrote in a fact sheet on the order. They also emphasized that the federal government spends billions on the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, and Career and Technical Education, but “neither of these programs are structured to promote apprenticeships or have incentives to meet workforce training needs.”

    Ryan Craig, author of the book Apprenticeship Nation, managing director of Achieve Partners, co-founder of Apprenticeships for America and an occasional contributor to Inside Higher Ed, said it was the first time a president set a goal for the number of apprentices in the U.S., as far as he’s aware.

    Apprenticeships are “one of the few, perhaps the only area of education, of workforce development, where this administration has said, ‘We want more of this,’” he said shortly after the executive order dropped.

    But the excitement for an expanded apprenticeship model in the U.S. might be short-lived. Craig and other apprenticeship advocates worry that Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 doesn’t reflect the executive order’s vision. The proposal doesn’t promise any significant new investments in apprenticeship and slashes workforce development spending over all.

    “The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing here,” Craig said. “It’s not the sea change that the executive order promised.”

    Mixed Signals

    Among many highlights for advocates, the order also calls for a workforce development strategy with a focus on scrutinizing workforce programs’ outcomes, which currently aren’t carefully tracked.

    Federal officials were given 90 days to review all federal workforce development programs and come out with a report on strategies to improve participants’ experiences, measure performance outcomes, identify valuable alternative credentials and reform or nix ineffective programs. The executive order also generally called for more transparent performance outcomes data, including earning and employment data, for such programs.

    Trump’s skinny budget makes good on his promise to consolidate workforce development spending and cut programs the administration deems ineffective, but it also offers apprenticeships a small slice of that shrinking pie.

    The proposal includes a $1.64 billion cut to workforce development funding under the Department of Labor and eliminates Job Corps, a free career training program for youth, and the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which offers job training and subsidized employment for low-income seniors. The administration also proposed a new program called Make America Skilled Again, or MASA. States would be required to spend 10 percent of their MASA grants on apprenticeships. Almost $3 billion, including WIOA funding, remains to fund the program, down from $4.6 billion, Work Shift reported.

    The budget promises to “give states and localities the flexibility to spend workforce dollars to best support their workers and economies, instead of funneling taxpayer dollars to progressive non-profits finding work for illegal immigrants or focusing on DEI.”

    Craig supports offering states more flexibility and cutting “train-and-pray programs that have little to no connection to employers or employment outcomes”—but he hoped money saved from those cuts would go toward apprenticeships, which are “by definition good jobs with career trajectories and built-in training.”

    He said a mere 10 percent of block grant funding directed to apprenticeships feels “inconsistent” with the bold goals laid out in the executive order. He had high hopes Trump would consider radically changing how apprenticeships are funded, moving away from time-limited, individual grants to a more robust federal funding structure. At the very least, he believes apprenticeships should get the “lion’s share” of workforce development funding.

    “My hope is it’s just the budget proposal and that things get worked out [to be] more consistent with the executive order,” he said, “but it was disappointing to see that.”

    Vinz Koller, vice president of the Center for Apprenticeship and Work-Based Learning at Jobs for the Future, said he similarly felt hopeful about the executive order’s messaging, in particular its commitment to “further protect and strengthen” registered apprenticeships.

    The wording represented a shift in approach.

    During Trump’s previous term, the president sought to create industry-recognized apprenticeships, an entirely separate apprenticeship system to sidestep what he viewed as inefficiencies in the current system and excessive federal regulation. Koller was glad to see Trump interested in reforming and investing in the current system this time rather than making plans to “throw out the rule book.”

    But the proposed budget isn’t “backing it up,” he said.

    His organization recently put out a policy blueprint for expanding and improving apprenticeship—including calling for stronger incentives for employers and more investment in intermediary organizations that offer programs’ support—but those strategies aren’t possible without more federal funding, Koller said. The policy blueprint points out that in fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent at least $184.35 billion on higher education, while the Department of Labor’s apprenticeship budget was just $285 million.

    But Koller also doesn’t believe slashing higher ed spending is the answer, and he’s worried about the proposed cuts to workforce training and to higher ed in the administration’s proposal. He said the goal is to give learners “choice-filled pathways,” including apprenticeships and other forms of work-based learning, not to “rob Peter to pay Paul.”

    Grant consolidation and streamlining can be “positive,” he said, but “we just want to make sure that the support is there to actually do what is needed on the ground,” across program types. “We don’t want to dismantle the other aspects of a healthy educational workforce infrastructure as we build the new parts.”

    Kerry McKittrick, co-director of the Project on Workforce at Harvard University, said the budget poses a double threat to workforce development funding. Not only would the proposal cut more than a billion dollars, but the budget would also dole out the remaining funds in block grants to states, a funding structure that has been shown to lack oversight and generally decrease funding over time.

    The project’s research found “governors do want more flexibility,” she said. “At the same time, we continue to hear from them that the lack of resources is really the biggest problem with the workforce system and meeting workforce needs … There’s no way we’ll see an expansion in apprenticeship with such a massive cut.”

    Lingering Hopes

    Some apprenticeship proponents remain optimistic.

    John Colborn, executive director of Apprenticeships for America, agreed the skinny budget doesn’t seem like “a recipe for substantial growth of apprenticeship,” but he isn’t giving up on the possibility of bold changes just yet.

    He noted that the budget makes no mention of other possible funding sources for apprenticeship mentioned in the executive order fact sheet, such as career and technical education funds, so there may be plans for other funding streams in the works.

    The proposed budget also alludes to a “reallocation” of adult education funding struck from the Education Department to “better support the innovative, workforce-aligned, apprenticeship-focused activities the Department seeks to promote,” though it doesn’t go into further detail.

    He said, based on the executive order, federal officials still have time to draft a plan, and he’s going to wait until they do before arriving at any final conclusions about how apprenticeships will fare under a second Trump term.

    “It’s probably a mistake to look at the skinny budget as a blueprint for the funding of an apprenticeship growth initiative,” he said. He plans “to take it seriously, because it’s a statement of intent from the president, but to not look to it as a constraining document for how we might be thinking about growing apprenticeships going forward.”

    Shalin Jyotishi, managing director of the Future of Work and Innovation Economy Initiative at the left-wing think tank New America, emphasized that “any administration’s policy direction on apprenticeships should be judged on actions, not only words.”

    He pointed out that multiple executive orders, including a recent one on artificial intelligence education, have called for expanding apprenticeships, but some such programs have also undergone cuts under Trump. He wants to instead see renewed investments, like those Trump made in degree-connected apprenticeships during his first term, and argued the field is “ripe” for such efforts.

    “It’s heartening to see the administration emphasize the importance of registered apprenticeships,” Jyotishi wrote to Inside Higher Ed, “and education and workforce leaders will be looking for follow-through through actions, implementation, and resources.”

    Source link

  • Five colleges Impacting Black Student Achievement

    Five colleges Impacting Black Student Achievement

    A recent report from the Campaign for College Opportunity notes strategies and programs that support graduation outcomes for students from historically underrepresented backgrounds.

    Tashi-Delek/E+/Getty Images

    Higher education can be an agent for positive change in students’ lives, providing personal, intellectual and socioeconomic growth opportunities. But not all of these outcomes are realized by every student.

    An April report by the Campaign for College Opportunity outlines some of the challenges Black students face in pursuit of higher education, as well as measures that colleges can take to address disparities in completion and persistence rates.

    What’s the need: Since fall 2019, Black enrollment in higher education has declined more rapidly than that of other races. Black students currently make up about 10 percent of all undergraduates enrolled in the U.S., but roughly 14 percent of the total U.S. population.

    Once enrolled, Black students are also less likely to complete a degree compared to their peers, which students of color say is tied to high costs, a lack of support and forms of racial discrimination, according to a 2023 survey.

    Among U.S. adults, about 32 percent of Black Americans have completed some college but have yet to earn a bachelor’s degree—four percentage points higher than the average American (28 percent) but roughly the same as people belonging to two or more races (32 percent), Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (32 percent), and American Indian and Alaska Native populations (34 percent).

    Despite the challenges students of color face while pursuing a degree, most learners say college is worth it in the long run for their careers. Still, balancing academics and other obligations, strains on mental health and feelings of isolation can be unexpected costs associated with college, according to a 2024 report from the Pell Institute.

    DEI Under Attack

    Since Trump retook office in January, his administration has sought to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion practices. A Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education to colleges and universities sought to issue guidance on which race-based practices besides those used in admissions—which the Supreme Court struck down in 2023—would no longer be permitted. The letter cited scholarships and programs that were exclusively available to students based on their race. An FAQ page from the department notes that race or cultural heritage education or celebrations are not prohibited, so long as they are open to everyone on campus.

    Federal courts blocked enforcement of the Dear Colleague letter in April.

    Recommendations: Based on existing research, the report authors outlined six strategies to improve Black student outcomes.

    1. Demystify the college experience. High school partnerships and pathway programs, including summer programs and dual-enrollment opportunities, can positively impact Black students’ college trajectories.  
    2. Improve transfer. Invest in two-year colleges as access points and transfer launchpads for Black students who may want to earn a bachelor’s degree at four-year institutions. Additionally, strong partnerships between two- and four-year colleges can address culture gaps and ensure the four-year institution is equipped to help Black and other transfer students thrive.  
    3. Address college affordability. Institutions should invest in avenues and resources to ensure Black students, and others, can pay for tuition, fees, technology, supplies, living experiences and other costs associated with college. “Having a robust portfolio of grants, scholarships and other financial support for Black and low-income students is essential,” according to the report. Students of color are also more likely to report basic needs insecurity, so creating holistic financial resources that ensure students have suitable food, housing and transportation is critical. 
    4. Invest in representation. Establishing “Black-affirming” spaces, including resource centers, honors colleges, studies programs and media and art collections can improve students’ sense of belonging on campus, as well as counter negative stereotypes regarding Black students. Similarly, ensuring Black students have a seat at the table for decision-making processes allows them opportunities to advocate for their needs. 
    5. Prioritize faculty development. Centers for teaching and learning can provide educators with resources and guidance on how to best serve underrepresented minority groups, including Black students. 
    6. Create co-curricular learning opportunities. Faculty-led research, pre-apprenticeship programs and workforce development programs can engage Black students on campus and give them the necessary skills to launch their careers.  

    Examples of success: In addition to highlighting initiatives that can promote student success, the report also names five institutions that have developed effective programs to improve Black student outcomes.

    1. Compton College provides no-cost food to students through a variety of ways, including an on-campus food pantry, a partnership with the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank and free meals at the Everytable Cafeteria on campus. The college also broke ground on its first student housing facility earlier this year, creating more opportunities to minimize the risk of housing insecurity or homelessness for vulnerable students.
    2. Last year Sacramento State University established the Black Honors College, which provides wraparound support for students interested in learning about Black history and culture. The program, which is open to all students, celebrates Black excellence through mentorship by hand-selected faculty and staff, designated housing and personalized support for participants.
    3. The City University of New York created the Black Male Initiative in 2005, an inclusive 15-project initiative focused on improving enrollment and graduation rates of students from underrepresented populations. Most recently, the program has evolved to include wellness and career development.
    4. Spelman College invested millions of dollars in promoting holistic student wellness, in part by creating a new fitness center and introducing fitness classes, cooking demonstrations and mental health workshops. The initiative is designed to address health concerns that disproportionately impact Black women, including high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer and strokes.
    5. The University of California, San Diego, is home to the Black Academic Excellence Initiative, which strives to improve the experiences of Black students, faculty and staff members on campus. The initiative provides scholarship funds for students and has established a hub for historically Black fraternities and sororities, called the Divine Nine.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • So You Want to Be a Disrupter (opinion)

    So You Want to Be a Disrupter (opinion)

    The need for higher education to be disrupted is felt everywhere. The demographic cliff, profound changes to financial models, emergence of artificial intelligence, the public’s loss of confidence and leadership challenges are all commonly cited reasons as to why business cannot continue as usual. Yet, there is usually little discussion of what disruption means and how it feels to actually do it.

    Disruption is a fundamental change in the way an institution operates, ideally motivated by a desire to reposition in order to take advantage of future opportunities. It is inherently controversial because it changes the status and welfare of existing stakeholders in favor of others. If the politics were not so difficult, the reforms would likely have already been undertaken. Budget cuts, while sometimes necessary, are usually not disruption because they are often responsive to immediate shortfalls without reflecting a forward vision. The hiring freeze, one of the most common tactics when addressing fiscal challenges, is the very antithesis of the disruption ideal, because retaining those who happen to be employed at the moment and not bringing in new people only acts to preserve existing structures at the cost of change.

    Higher education is not accustomed to disruption. Since World War II, colleges and universities in the United States have been in the enviable position of meeting most challenges by expansion—adding new faculty, departments, institutes and schools—because of enrollment growth, generous support from donors, government aid and the international standing of U.S. schools. Now, all that is under threat.

    Like many administrators, I have been involved in many difficult decisions to deny tenure, institute layoffs and cut budgets. However, I have also had the opportunity to participate in two truly disruptive exercises from which I learned much.

    In 2006–07, as provost of Miami University in Ohio, I helped lead the effort to abolish the School of Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS), have its faculty reassigned to other academic units, end its residential component and create a new academic unit in the College of Arts and Sciences. The SIS had been an excellent idea when established in the early 1970s, as interdisciplinary studies was relatively uncommon. However, by the mid-2000s, the need for research and teaching that breached traditional disciplinary barriers was widely understood, and there were ever-increasing examples at Miami and elsewhere. In addition, the age structure of the faculty meant that we would have needed to hire a significant number of new professors in a relatively underenrolled university division for it to remain viable.

    The decision was certainly controversial, as we were bombarded by letters of outrage, faculty resolutions, seemingly endless hostile cartoons in the student newspaper and outbursts during ceremonies. During the years when the program was taught out, SIS students at graduation made sure they told me how little they thought of me as we shook hands on the platform.

    As president of American Jewish University in Los Angeles—a position I just stepped down from after seven years—I helped lead the process in which we sold our Bel Air campus to a local school in 2024. The campus was situated in a beautiful neighborhood, but, especially after the pandemic, we were no longer hosting a residential undergraduate program, and our graduate programs had either gone online or could be better located in another part of Los Angeles. Rising property insurance, increased security costs and the prospect of having to expend significant funds on deferred maintenance propelled us to sell the campus so that we could use the university’s assets for better and more productive purposes.

    This decision was also very controversial. The campus had been the site of the university for decades and many in the community had fond associations with it, even if they had not visited for many years. The original buyer was a private educational company, and there was dismay that we were not selling to another Jewish institution (although we eventually did when the first buyer pulled out). The local community was vociferous in its reaction to the initial sale, and many of our supporters, including major donors, were very critical of the decision.

    It was hardly a surprise that I was the target of a significant amount of criticism given that I was the leading public proponent of both disruptions. University administrators may not like incessant public disparagement, but it comes with the job and the salary. Still, it was a considerable adjustment from my previous life as a professor. Many businesses prepare their leaders for conflict through very intentional professional development. Higher education does little to nothing to prepare leaders for the very real aggravations of public fights.

    It is therefore important to have your own kitchen cabinet to not only get good advice and serve as a sounding board, but also to provide the necessary emotional support when things get difficult. Harry Truman said about Washington that if you want a friend, get a dog. However, on campuses and in communities, there will be wise people who are willing to be friendly advisers and will, in fact, appreciate being consulted.

    I was surprised at the collateral damage. Faculty and board members who were proponents of the decisions also received threats and public criticism. I felt bad that allies who had stepped up because they also thought it was the right decision were hurt. I’m not sure that there was a way around it. Still, insulating, to the maximum extent possible, those helping to enable the disruption is not only the right thing to do, but critical to promoting further disruption in the future.

    Others were afraid of becoming collateral damage. I remember asking one faculty member at Miami who expressed enthusiasm for our decision if he would support me in public. He replied that he, and many others, would not, even though they knew it was the right decision, because they did not want to antagonize their colleagues who were also their neighbors, fellow church members and parents on their kids’ Little League team. Administrators who are trained to believe that the most logical, best-supported argument will win the day have to recognize that the social bonds of the university community—one of an institution’s greatest strengths in most circumstances—will mean that they will have less support than they think they should have on the basis of who is right.

    The communications challenges of disruptive change are also immense. In both instances, we thought that we had perfectly logical arguments about how to use scarce resources—faculty and money—in far better ways. We told ourselves and the world that this is exactly what universities should be doing. However, those who would be hurt, either directly or because their association with the school or campus would be cut, were enraged, and both easily identifiable and mobilizable.

    In contrast, the “winners” were future students and faculty who did not even know what was being done on their behalf. A good communications strategy is critical, but you should be under no illusions: You may lose, or seemingly lose, the public battle, at least judged by the volume of complaints. It is critical to remember that the biggest process challenge in many disruptions is that the reforms are being done on behalf of those who at the moment have no voice. The public conversation should be evaluated accordingly.

    In the end, governing boards make the final decision, and I was gratified that both my boards endorsed the disruptions I had helped engineer. Ensuring that the eventual deciders are fully informed of the logic of the proposal and are willing to face public opprobrium is absolutely critical. Trustees usually do not sign up for being central players in very public, fraught dramas where they are yelled at in public and insulted at parties and at their country club. A component of the attraction of being on a board is to be part of a bucolic academic community with which one has close personal ties. However, boards are demanding that colleges change, and trustees will have to understand that they will be in the fray during very public disputes.

    Napoleon said, “If you start to take Vienna, take Vienna.” It is possible to win big fights even if you feel personally distraught at the abuse you have taken, if your friends and people you care about are battered, and if your very logical public arguments are dismissed. Higher education can overcome the challenges to disruption and we can engineer paths to much brighter futures. That is, in the end, what will save us.

    Jeffrey Herbst is president emeritus at American Jewish University.

    Source link

  • Higher Education franchising is not the problem. Rogue providers and regulatory gaps are

    Higher Education franchising is not the problem. Rogue providers and regulatory gaps are

    • By Charlie Tennant, Vice Principal at the London School of Science & Technology.

    Higher education franchising is once more in the limelight for the wrong reasons, as many in the sector again question its benefits, the risks it poses to public funds and the use of it by niche, emerging and/or for-profit higher education providers. However, the stories and discourse miss the key factors that have allowed for abuse of the franchise model. It is gaps in higher education regulation that have led to franchising being scapegoated for what is, at its core, abuse by rogue providers that do not represent the vast majority of those engaged in franchising.

    Franchising is a model through which UK universities have delivered higher education for over two decades. Internationally, this forms part of many forms of Transnational Education (TNE), that as seen in Universities UK International (UUKi)’s Scale of UK Higher Education Transnational Education reports, continues to grow in scale. Locally, providers have adopted the franchise model since the mid-2000s, although since then, the market for many of those providers has changed from international students to local students. This change meant the number of students at these providers who were eligible for Student Loans Company (SLC) funding has grown. The model allows institutions that have found new approaches, differentiated courses, or cold spots of higher education to develop and expand their provision, with a significant portion of them hoping to one day gain their own Degree Awarding Powers (DAPs).

    However, the regulation of domestic franchise provision has not been as robust as it could be. The onus has rightly been put on the universities that are franchising their courses to ensure academic quality and standards of the franchise delivery, although there is currently no direct regulation of higher education franchise providers. Therefore, while some blame can be apportioned to universities engaged in franchising, it can be argued that the Department for Education (DfE) and policymakers’ approach to regulating higher education franchises has led to gaps open to abuse by rogue providers. Furthermore, routes for franchise providers to gain DAPs have been prolonged and made complex by the pause in processing of registration applications by the Office for Students (OfS). Now, the abuse of SLC funding by particular providers of the franchise model, reported by the Sunday Times in an article on 22nd March 2025 and in several articles since then, has brought the reputation of all franchise providers into disrepute, and connected the abuse to use of recruitment agents and the settled Romanian population in the UK.

    In a January 2025 press release for their consultation on franchise provision regulations, the Government outlined the benefits of franchising when done right, and its intention to crack down on rogue higher education providers. Professor Nick Braisby’s HEPI blog published in response to the consultation, rightly welcomes the Government’s new proposals, but asks for the sector to remain critical. This blog therefore proposes three ways in which to ensure the Government and the OfS achieve what they hope to through the crackdown.

    Firstly, the DfE, policymakers and the OfS need to enable quicker routes for franchise providers to join the regulator’s Register. This will allow greater scrutiny at an earlier stage in the lifecycle of an emerging higher education provider (which make up the majority of providers delivering franchised courses) and introduce a focus on their governance structures. Since the set-up of the OfS Register, providers have experienced long lead times for joining the Register, and on top of this, from December 2024, the regulator paused applications for the Register, DAPs and changes of registration category, thus exacerbating the issue of missing opportunities to directly regulate more franchise providers. This is counterintuitive given the OfS’s remarks around the risks associated with an over-reliance by both universities and franchise providers on partnership provision in their Insight Brief regarding subcontractual arrangements in higher education published just two months prior to the pause. The OfS’ Register of providers has the potential to be a great tool for transparency, but the current lead times and design of the approach lead to gaps in regulation that can be exploited by rogue providers.

    Secondly, instead of considering an outright ban, the DfE should implement a robust quality framework for domestic student recruitment agents. As a blueprint, they should draw from the established Agent Quality Framework (AQF) developed by the British Council, Universities UK International (UUKi), and the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA). As with international student recruitment, the unregulated use of agents for domestic recruitment presents significant risks. By adopting a structured quality framework, the DfE and OfS can mitigate these risks and foster greater transparency and accountability. Agents, when operating under clear ethical guidelines and quality standards, can play a crucial role in widening participation, particularly by reaching communities historically underserved by traditional university outreach, for example, the UK’s settled Romanian population. A tailored framework can help to ensure transparency, effective governance and the establishment of professional standards of agents.

    Finally, the DfE, policymakers and the OfS need to engage more with franchise providers and their university partners jointly. So far, engagements have been disjointed, with either a university or one of their partner franchise providers engaged separately. This creates barriers to collaboration, which would otherwise aid in the pursuit of greater transparency, oversight and the maintenance of academic quality and standards. Bringing both universities and franchise providers together when engaging will enable the Government to find ways to both demonstrate the benefits of franchise provision, as well as develop regulatory approaches and guidance collaboratively with stakeholders. This joint engagement with universities and their partner franchise provider could pave the early steps towards a sector-wide code of practice, an idea discussed in HEPI and Buckinghamshire New University’s Debate Paper on franchising. This could then sit alongside collaboratively developed regulations that would ensure rogue providers cannot abuse regulatory gaps. It will also help to establish a more balanced burden of regulation between universities and their franchise provider partners, and safeguard the reputation of franchise provision.

    Ultimately, effective regulation of the broader higher education student journey, streamlined registration, and collaborative engagement are crucial. By addressing these systemic gaps and promoting transparency, the policymakers, DfE, OfS, and the higher education sector can restore faith in franchising and ensure its legitimate benefits are realised.

    Source link

  • Euro visions: In Poland in May, cities belong to students

    Euro visions: In Poland in May, cities belong to students

    Gara (problem-solving abilities), Urra (wisdom and creativity), Raga (courage and resilience), Zargo (health and success) and Czarodoro (overcoming personal limitations).

    Oh, and Jarga (the cleansing of negative energies) and Jarun (karmic balance).

    No, it’s not Poland’s graduate attributes framework – it’s a set of new age “agmas” that Polish Eurovision entrant Justyna Steczkowska starts chanting in the final 30 seconds of her song “Gaja”.

    It says here that it’s a song about primordial Earth goddess Gaia from Greek mythology, narrating a transformation from pain to empowerment while symbolizing both sorrow and the cleansing of past wounds.

    It may well be, but made up words is really just a remixed Eurovision trope – it’s Diggi-Loo Diggi-Ley or Wadde hadde dudde but in a minor key with a straighter face.

    In this year’s Wielki Finał Polskich Kwalifikacji (“The grand finale of the Polish qualifications”), I was rooting for the much more interesting Lusterka, performed by “Podlasie Bounce” act Sw@da x Niczos.

    It’s sung entirely in Podlasian – an East Slavic microlanguage that’s a mix of Belarusian and Ukrainian which at one stage caused Belarusian authorities to label the act as “extremist” over promoting cultural narratives counter to the regime’s ideology:

    If you’ve been to our concert, you know that our music is about dancing out emotions that are shared by all people, regardless of language, skin color or worldview.

    Sadly rather than travelling to Basel on May 17th, they’ll be headlining the Gdańsk Juwenalia – the biggest student festival in northern Poland, where the SUs from six universities join forces to organise two huge nights of music, along with a “talkStage” featuring engaging interviews with notable guests, a “Student Zone” where the public can learn about students’ projects and research, a massive public barbecue and an “integration of faculties and organizations zone”.

    The big student cities of Lublin, Wrocław and Kraków have their own earlier in the month – and now having seen a couple in action, they really are astonishing.

    Bawcie się dobrze!

    Every May, pretty much every university town and city in Poland has a Juwenalia. Loosely translated as “festival of youth”, it’s a cultural institution that balances celebration with resistance, tradition with innovation, and individual expression with collective identity.

    And its evolution over the years mirrors Poland’s own journey – from medieval scholarly tradition through communist oppression to contemporary democratic renewal.

    Across four zones scattered around Kraków, students will have the opportunity to hear their favorite artists live, compete in various sports competitions, and integrate with new friends through a whole range of other activities and projects.

    What makes it fascinating isn’t just its scale, or how long it’s been around, but how it both reflects society and kicks off change. When free expression was dangerous, Juwenalia gave students a space where they could voice critique through metaphor, satire, and symbolism. And when tragedy struck – like when anti-communist student activist Stanisław Pyjas was murdered in 1977 – it transformed into a powerful way for students to stand together against injustice.

    You can trace Juwenalia back to medieval Europe, where universities functioned as semi-autonomous communities with their own customs and rituals. In Poland, that first took shape in the 15th century at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, where students would organise processional performances featuring musicians and mimes.

    Breve regnum erigitur is a song from the mid-15th century, sung by students in Kraków during their annual week of student rule, where there was a reversal of hierarchy – students elected their own “king”, took over the university and abolished lectures.

    But the modern form of Juwenalia really came together in 1964, during celebrations marking the 600th anniversary of Jagiellonian. That year, students processed from Wawel Castle to Kraków’s Main Square under the slogan: “From Casimir the Great to Casimir the Better” – a nod to both the university’s founder, King Casimir the Great, and the institution’s then-rector, Professor Kazimierz Lepszy. And it quickly spread both around the city and the country.

    What always interests me about the student traditions we see across Europe is how they mix elements from multiple traditions, and from both the past and the present. In Juwenalia you can see echoes of ancient Roman festivals like the Bacchanalia and Saturnalia, medieval carnivals with their temporary suspension of hierarchy, and academic ceremonies reflecting the special status of university communities throughout European history.

    It gives Juwenalia a really interesting cultural vocabulary – one that proved pretty adaptable during each of Poland’s complex political transformations. Hence during the communist era, when public expression was tightly controlled, the festival’s traditional elements provided a framework within which students could engage in subtle forms of resistance and critique.

    That Juwenalia survived and thrived under communism tells us a lot about its cultural significance. The regime, wary of student gatherings, recognised the political cost of suppressing a beloved tradition. Students, meanwhile, used the festivals as opportunities for creative dissent, embedding political commentary in performances, costumes, and slogans that were just ambiguous enough to escape censorship.

    Universities are always caught between tradition and change – and the tension between celebration and dissent reached its peak in 1977, when a tragedy transformed the nature of Juwenalia and kicked off a new phase in student resistance to communist rule.

    Stanisław Pyjas and the Black March

    On 7 May 1977, Kraków awoke to shocking news. Stanisław Pyjas, a 24-year-old student of Polish literature and philosophy at Jagiellonian University, had been found dead in a tenement stairwell at 7 Szewska Street in the city centre. His body lay in a pool of blood, and officials quickly declared the death an accident – claiming Pyjas had fallen while intoxicated.

    But students knew better.

    Pyjas and his friends were literature enthusiasts with countercultural leanings who had connections to the KOR (Workers’ Defence Committee). They gathered signatures defending arrested workers, and organised little protests against government repression. That activism had put Pyjas under intensive surveillance by the Służba Bezpieczeństwa (SB), the communist secret police, who had begun monitoring his movements and issuing threats.

    The official explanation for his death didn’t add up for those who knew him. One of his friends bribed a morgue worker to view the body privately – and what he saw confirmed his suspicions:

    I saw the face of a man who’d been beaten to death. Staszek’s death changed everything.

    News spread rapidly throughout Kraków’s universities. Within hours posters appeared in dormitories with an appeal – urging students to wear black, observe mourning, and convert the upcoming Juwenalia festivities into protest. The result was the “Black March” or “Czarne Juwenalia” of 15 May 1977.

    CURSED (MURDERERS) You murdered the innocent student S. Pyjas with knives. You submissive donkeys, Russian lackeys – out of Poland, back to your Russian motherland! It was the SB (Security Service) that murdered him! Cracovians, listen to “Radio Free Europe” and learn the truth! Long live the Student Solidarity Committee!

    Instead of the traditional carnival, thousands of students dressed in black flooded the streets following a memorial Mass at the Dominican church. They processed in silence through Kraków’s Old Town, many wearing black armbands and carrying small black flags.

    As bystanders watched the procession, the public spontaneously joined in. Marchers made their way to Wawel Hill, where Staszek’s friends publicly denounced the official cover-up and demanded justice. And as speakers said the word “solidarity,” someone in the crowd shouted, “Solidarity with whom?!” The reply: “Solidarity with ourselves!”

    That night, ten students founded the Student Committee of Solidarity (SKS) – the first independent student organisation in communist Eastern Europe, predating the broader Solidarity movement by three years. The regime had intended Pyjas’s death to intimidate students into silence – but instead it triggered a new phase of resistance:

    Staszek’s death was meant to scare us, but it created a different reaction – a process of overcoming fear.

    It all puts a particular spin on “by students, for students”.

    Przez studentów, dla studentów

    Today the scale of these things is astonishing – in Kraków alone, over 500 students are directly involved in organising the festival, almost all of which do so as unpaid volunteers, and tens of thousands of students and guests will take part.

    Making that happen across the city’s ten universities was not easy, but in 1997 the Porozumienie Samorządów Studenckich Uczelni Krakowskich established a structure for coordinating volunteer efforts across multiple institutions – and has gone on to be a vehicle to enable civic participation in the city.

    Each SU appoints a student Juwenalia Director responsible for partnerships and logistics, and then specialised teams handle everything from stage management and artist relations to security and waste management. The MS Patrol from Miasteczko Studenckie AGH, for instance, assists with security, logistics, and clean-up – developing skills in crowd management and emergency response that you just won’t get from an exam or a group project.

    These are real, authentic learning experiences where students manage budgets, negotiate contracts, coordinate teams, and develop sophisticated crisis management protocols. It also brings students together across different departments, years, and even universities:

    For those few days, we’re not competing – we’re all just students celebrating together. It’s like the walls between our universities come down.

    Talking to some of the organisers, there’s a strong sense that unlike many university traditions that reinforce existing social hierarchies, Juwenalia creates opportunities for participation across academic disciplines, year groups, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The temporary “student republic” established during the festival allows for experimentation with new social roles, relationships and responsibilities.

    As well as multi-stage concerts, a clutch of side projects and peripheral events populate the Juwenalia calendar and expand the opportunities for connection. In Krakow right at the start of the month, students put on a light show that transforms their dorm windows into a visual spectacle, after which there’s a quiz, a Disco Roller Rink and a Karaoke competition. Students can join the Blacksmith’s Run, a race from the main building to the 12th floor of Student Hall No. 1, or the Sports Festival at the Green Zone, which includes volleyball, handball, and strength challenges.

    A few days later the OSPK Day combines a BBQ, outdoor cinema, and mechanical bull riding, while the Juwe City Game sends teams racing through the Old Town to complete puzzles and challenges. There’s also an Outdoor Cinema, a chess tournament, the JuweCanDance competition, an Artistic Evening offering painting, crocheting, and ceramics, and the big Juwe Parade sees students from all universities march through the city in costume, all starting with a hearty polish Juwe Breakfast at one of the student venues.

    And every single event is run by student volunteers.

    The keys to the city

    At each Juwenalia, power reversal is both practical and symbolic. The central ritual – where the Mayor hands over the city’s keys to students – embodies what Mikhail Bakhtin called the “carnivalesque”, a temporary inversion of established hierarchies that simultaneously challenges and reinforces social order.

    That ritual traces its lineage to medieval traditions where the world was “turned upside down” during carnival periods, with fools crowned as kings and ordinary rules suspended. In contemporary Juwenalia, the inversion takes multiple forms – colourful processions disrupting urban space, symbolic control of city centres, and temporary transformation of university and civic leadership roles.

    During the communist period, the ritualistic inversions carried critique – the “taking of the keys” was a metaphor for broader democratic aspirations. Under democracy, the same ritual continues, but it’s now a celebration of student autonomy within an accepted constitutional order. The country – at least for the month of May – believes in its students, and gives them control.

    In most cities, a huge student parade following the key thing features students in elaborate costumes that can carry satirical or political messages. During the communist period, these often took the form of what James Scott called “hidden transcripts” – messages encoded in performance, costume, and symbolic gesture that conveyed political critique while maintaining plausible deniability:

    Cabaret humor dominated and allusiveness and metaphor were everywhere. Every gesture, slogan, and inscription referred to the political reality of the time.

    In today’s democratic Poland, the politics takes more overt forms – there’s bits of environmental activism, support for social causes, and commentary on current political debates – particularly in protest at the populist government in the last decade. The temporary claiming of urban space also turns streets and squares into sites of student expression – asserting the right of young people to help shape public debate.

    That cultural and political dimension then extends beyond the festival period through the organisational structures and networks it creates.

    The Student Committee of Solidarity that was founded during the Black March of 1977 evolved into a big political force, with many of its members later playing important roles in the broader Solidarity movement and Poland’s democratic transition.

    Even now, the organisational capacity developed through Juwenalia planning translates into other forms of student activism and civic engagement. The skills in coordination, communication, and coalition-building developed through festival organisation become valuable resources for addressing campus and community issues throughout the academic year – and in later life.

    Economic impact and commercialisation

    For those that were around during communism, it’s all a bit commercial these days. Budgets run into millions of PLN per institution – and so need multiple revenue streams, including university allocations, ticket sales, sponsorships, and partnerships with local businesses on the other side of the excel sheet.

    Wandering around this year’s festival grounds in both Kraków and Lublin, the commercial presence was unmistakable – sponsor logos on stages and barriers, branded merchandise filled the JuweSklep, and promotional activities populated the festival zones.

    But students know how to get the balance right. One of the student “External Cooperation Coordinators” I met rabbitted on about how maintaining an authentic character remained a priority:

    We’re selective about partnerships. We look for sponsors who understand and respect the cultural significance of Juwenalia, not just those with the biggest budgets.

    The economic impact extends beyond the festival itself. It creates significant value for local economies, particularly in cities where the student population forms a substantial segment. Hotels, restaurants, bars, and taxis all experience increased demand during the festival period. The influx of visitors – students from other cities, alumni returning for the celebrations, family members, and tourists attracted by the festivities – creates a huge multiplier effect that benefits the broader urban economy.

    And of course that also all provides valuable learning opportunities for student organisers, who pick up practical experience in budget management, contract negotiation, partnership development, and financial accountability.

    The technical infrastructure alone is impressive. At the UJ Żaczek zone, the main stage is a massive structure – 32 metres wide, 23 metres deep, and 12 metres high – requiring five trucks of equipment including sound systems, lighting rigs, and LED screens.

    And environmental considerations have become increasingly important in recent years – students arrange additional cleaning of streets and sidewalks around campus to maintain good relations with neighbouring communities and demonstrate environmental responsibility.

    You wonder why so many students are involved – but plenty of the Juwenalia volunteers were keen to chat about their personal and professional development. One of the logistics coordinators I met said that having studied project management theoretically, she found herself applying these concepts in real-time, managing a team of 15 volunteers coordinating everything from equipment delivery to artist transportation:

    The theoretical frameworks make sense only when I have to apply them under pressure. The case studies… they cannot replicate the feeling of solving problems when thousands of people are waiting for a concert to start.

    But benefits are never to be confused with motivation. The student who was serving me beer in the bar on her 14th hour at work (for free) (the work, not the beer) at first struggled to understand why I was asking the question. But she was clear about the answer:

    When you first come, you wonder if one day it could be you behind the walls helping it to happen. Everyone looks forward to it. It’s ours.

    The practical education thing extends across disciplines too. Marketing students gain hands-on experience developing promotional campaigns and managing social media platforms that reach thousands of followers. Engineering students apply technical knowledge to stage construction and sound system setup. Economics and management students develop budgeting and financial reporting skills managing six-figure budgets.

    And the experiences often translate directly into career opportunities. Juwenalia volunteers leverage their festival experience to get positions in event management, marketing, public relations, and arts administration. Others apply the leadership and teamwork skills in entirely different sectors, noting that employers value the practical problem-solving abilities developed through festival organisation.

    The professional networks formed during Juwenalia are also critical. Volunteers form connections not only with fellow students but also with university managers, local business leaders, government officials, and cultural professionals, and the relationships persist beyond graduation, creating mentorship opportunities and professional referrals that can rocket boost their career.

    Popping off

    But maybe most importantly, Juwenalia participation seems to help students discover and develop capabilities they didn’t know they had. Watching one of the Promotion Coordinators directing her team, it was hard to imagine that she had once described herself as “very shy”:

    I think that Juwenalia has made me develop communication skills I didn’t think I had. I am thinking about careers I would never have thought of before.

    And for students just enjoying it all, there are emotional and transformative experiences for them too:

    Singing with six thousand people, in beautiful weather, on campus at the best time of their lives – that’s the experience!

    The sentiment was palpable during top pop star and headliner Zeamsone’s set at the UJ Żaczek Zone. As thousands of voices joined in with the lyrics, for many first-year students in attendance, this was probably their first experience of true university community – a powerful flip from the often isolating experience of contemporary academic life.

    Sociologist Émile Durkheim called moments like that “collective effervescence” – a heightened sense of emotional energy and group solidarity that emerges from shared ritual experiences. These are moments that can profoundly alter participants’ sense of identity and belonging, creating lasting emotional connections to both the university community and the broader cultural traditions it embodies.

    What a shame that the only ones left I can think of in UK HE are graduation ceremonies – held once it’s all over.

    Civic dimensions

    I should talk about the civic stuff. Juwenalia has what one of the organisers I met called a “complicated” relationship with their host cities – it transforms urban spaces, disrupts normal patterns of city life, and can annoy plenty of the locals.

    But the symbolic “taking of the keys” is partly about recognising legitimate stakeholders in urban governance. Mayors turn up, do the speech and get the press coverage partly because they were probably in the parade in their youth – and partly because they need the votes.

    In Kraków, festival organisers begin meeting with police, city guards, and fire services months in advance, developing detailed security and logistics plans. The parade, which processes through central Kraków to Plac Szczepański, requires particular attention to traffic management, crowd control, and public safety. They are interactions that create excellent opportunities for students to engage with civic institutions and processes – building their “linking” social capital in the process.

    From the city’s perspective, Juwenalia offers big benefits. These are events that showcase the area’s educational institutions, attract thousands of visitors, generate significant economic activity, and contribute to a city’s urban culture.

    They also act as recruitment and access tools for prospective students, offering up a glimpse of contemporary student culture and creating opportunities for intergenerational interaction. Almost everyone I met that was organising Juwenalia had sneaked into one before they were a student – or at least dreamed of doing so.

    They also promote higher education more broadly. On display is student creativity, leadership, and community spirit – smashing negative stereotypes about student life and showcasing the diverse talents developed within university communities.

    I tried very hard to find negative or nasty local press coverage about Juwenalia. I couldn’t find any.

    The soul of student culture

    If I think about “May Ball” culture in the UK, I just become miserable. Like so much of what’s rotten about higher education in the UK, our version of student spring celebrations all roots back to Aldi versions of Oxbridge – lavish all-night parties, black-tie dress, fine dining, fireworks, open bars, boorish boys burning £20 notes in front of the homeless, and allegations of sexual misconduct to be handled in the weeks afterwards.

    Juwenalia couldn’t be less exclusive, involves the public, is usually cheap (and often free), is deliberately diverse and is about subverting power hierarchies, not reinforcing them.

    With some notable exceptions, outside of the upper echelons, big tentpole student events with big tents and big budgets generating big problems are all but gone now. Maybe the cost of alcohol did it, or health and safety, or student diversity, or the professionalisation of SUs, or the collapse of our domestic music industry, or cost of living – maybe all of those. Maybe they’re really still there – just smaller and hidden. But what I’m sure of is the lack of what Juwenalia is really there to do – to maintain, promote and develop what we might call student culture.

    As things started to get really difficult for students post-pandemic, I think the assumption was that once the scarring of isolation was gone, things would bounce back. In some ways they have, in some ways not – but what’s still missing is what has been missing for a long time.

    Back in Krakow, the Jagiellonian University Students and Graduates Foundation emerged from Poland’s transformative post-1989 democratic and economic changes, and revived a cherished 19th-century tradition of student mutual aid societies – it dedicates itself to improving the social and living conditions of the university’s academic community while championing cultural, scientific, and artistic initiatives.

    It’s funded via the revenue generated from activities like the halls of residence that it owns, and donations – and offers scholarships, facilitates employment opportunities, and supports students facing financial hardship. It also co-finances academic projects, cultural events, and sports activities, publishes student magazines, and runs international exchange programmes.

    And its governance reflects a collaborative balance between the university and its students – on its Board are both academic staff and students elected by the council of the SU. Crucially, at arm’s length from the university itself and a little separate from the representative role of the SU, it takes on much of what we might in the UK describe as professional “student services” – largely via the facilitation of volunteer-led project work.

    Just up the road, the biggest student foundation in the city is called ACADEMICA, established in 2000 and spearheaded as a partnership between the SU’s council and the vice-rector to support student activities, initially managing four student clubs and the university canteen. It now operates cultural initiatives, various student study halls and facilities, Poland’s biggest student nightclub, and a mini-brewery and a bistro – and both employs over 500 students directly and facilities about 3000 in volunteer roles.

    Its “host” SU at the AGH University of Science and Technology is like many of the others we saw in Poland in January – it runs a huge Board Games night runs weekly, there’s an adaptation camp and rights talk for new students, and an AI Days conference created by a team of students with sessions on the importance of basic AI knowledge for future graduates.

    Goddamn we’re greatness

    Doing things for others, rather than helping them do things for themselves, is deep inside the UK’s culture of charity. It takes on a momentum – it creates sector conformity, sets up recognised careers, generates LinkedIn posts, demands spend on strategic away days, and has a language and culture concerned with measurement, metrics and justification. It also creates an expectation – that other people will do things for students – and that their job is merely to moan when the providers inevitably over-promise and under-deliver.

    There are lots of things that are great about that culture too – but I’ve been surprised about the post-pandemic acceleration of a process in which both universities and their SUs have so readily jumped on the bandwagon of assumption that students will never do anything for themselves ever again. They’ve got no time, they’ve got no money, they’ve got no social skills, so we’ll have to do it all for them, and we’ll feel good about it when we put on that game of rounders or that crochet class.

    Letting go – being deliberate about creating the structures, scaffolding and cultures where students can do things for themselves – is tough. Professionals are proud. But the idea that in a mass system you can build social capital by injecting transferable skills into what contact hours are left, or that you can build confidence by having the odd student staff member around to help with the admin, is all relative obvious nonsense.

    Being ambitious about student creativity and control can’t just be about what they do academically. And having a vision for student culture – one that is social, enabling, contributory, and stretches them to find the time and resources to inherit and shape it – will at least make them angrier about the fact that some of their friends don’t have the time or money to take part.

    As Magdalena Herman, President at Jagiellonian’s SU put it:

    And I have to tell you that when I look at all these people, and I’m like, whoa, we did this all by ourselves? And we are only 24 years old, you know? And we’re like, how? God, damn, we’re great.

    Source link

  • New tools for tough conversations

    New tools for tough conversations

    Let’s Talk just got a powerful new set of tools to help students meet the moment.

    FIRE’s civil discourse initiative has incorporated materials from the Mercatus Center’s concluded Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange, enriching Let’s Talk with a new suite of exercises, facilitation strategies, and conversation formats designed to spark deeper dialogue across lines of difference. 

    These resources — now live on the FIRE website — offer practical support for students, faculty, and administrators looking to foster thoughtful, principled discussion on campus.

    The centerpiece of this addition is the Pluralist Lab, in which small groups of people discuss controversial topics using a method known as triadic illumination. In this method, participants not only share their own views but must articulate the reasons why someone would hold the opposite position. Both sides of the debate, as well as the undecideds, are equally represented in order to illuminate all aspects of an issue — hence the name. The goal isn’t to win the debate or change anyone’s mind, but to practice intellectual empathy and stretch the muscles of curiosity, humility, and reflection.

    These are the kinds of muscles campuses need most right now.

    FIRE staff began working with the Mercatus team on this transition in January and completed facilitator training in the Pluralist Lab earlier this year. We’ve since adapted these tools for wider use within Let’s Talk and we’re excited to put them into practice.

    The Pluralist Lab is especially well-suited for moments of tension. In the wake of a campus controversy, when emotions are high and trust is low, it offers a principled and emotionally intelligent way to bring people together — not to smooth over disagreement, but to engage it constructively.

    Let’s Talk

    Page

    Empowering students to talk to anyone and everyone on their campus about any and every idea.


    Read More

    This new offering reinforces Let’s Talk’s broader goal of preparing students not just to discuss controversial issues, but take meaningful action in defense of free speech when it is under attack. Let’s Talk is about more than conversation. It’s about mobilization. Dialogue is the spark. What follows is action. Let’s Talk groups are the front line of defense for free expression on campus, equipping students to resist censorship, advocate policy reform, and speak out when it matters most.

    Groups like the First Amendment Forum at the University of South Florida and the MIT Open Discourse Society have shown how powerful this model can be. From advocating in case controversies to securing lasting speech-protective policy reforms, these students demonstrate what’s possible when dialogue meets purpose.

    Whether you’re looking to start a Let’s Talk group, host a civil discourse workshop, or get trained in the new Pluralist Lab format, our Engagement and Mobilization team is here to help. Together, we can build a generation ready to talk — and ready to lead.

    Interested in starting a Let’s Talk group on your college campus, or in hosting a civil discourse workshop presented by FIRE staffers? Get in touch with our team to get started.

    Source link

  • Sen. Marshall Proposes Legislation to Fulfill Trump Campaign Pledge on “No Tax on Overtime” – CUPA-HR

    Sen. Marshall Proposes Legislation to Fulfill Trump Campaign Pledge on “No Tax on Overtime” – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 12, 2025

    On May 6, Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), along with Sens. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Jim Justice (R-WV), and Pete Ricketts (R-NE), introduced the Overtime Wages Tax Relief Act, which is intended to fulfill President Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate taxes on overtime pay. The proposal provides an income tax deduction for overtime pay up to a certain threshold. Marshall explained that his goal with the legislation was to target the benefit to lower- and middle-income workers in industries and occupations that traditionally pay overtime.

    Under the proposal, individuals would be able to deduct up to $10,000 of overtime pay from their income taxes. For married couples, the cap would be set at $20,000. This is an “above-the-line” income tax deduction, so workers would have the ability to claim the deduction whether they itemize their deductions or take the standard deduction.

    Additionally, the proposal phases out the benefit for top earners, identified as individuals earning $100,000 or more and married couples earning $200,000 or more. The deduction is reduced by $50 for every $1,000 in income the individual or married couple earns above their respective threshold.

    The legislation also includes reporting obligations for employers “to ensure transparency and accuracy in claiming the deduction.” Employers will be required to report overtime earnings to employees in their annual wage and tax statements.

    Marshall is hoping to have the legislation included in the Republican’s fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation bill, which is expected to cover everything from border security to extensions for the expiring 2017 tax cuts President Trump signed into law during his first term.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on this bill and others related to overtime laws and regulations.



    Source link

  • Ripping up the rule book

    Ripping up the rule book

    On May 7, I was honoured to address an audience at Goodenough College in London, at the kind invitation of the master of The Worshipful Company of Educators, to talk on the topic of ‘educators opening doors to the world’.

    For those not familiar with Goodenough College, it is a remarkable community in Bloomsbury, central London, comprising 700 postgraduate students and their families from around 95 different countries, each studying at any one of London’s world-leading universities.

    When I stepped inside the doors of the College, I was instantly transported back to my own experience as a first-time post-doctoral researcher at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada, when I found myself living in a very similar international community called St John’s College at the heart of the UBC campus.

    It was there that I saw first-hand just how important communities like these are for bringing people together from across the globe through education and providing a ‘home from home’ for overseas students and researchers. These communities allow friendships to form, ideas to thrive and inter-cultural understanding to arise.

    It is also that experience that has since driven my subsequent career, both in making and influencing higher education policy, to ensure that our universities and colleges continue serving as dynamic meeting points for the world.

    Breaking the rules

    When you work in policy, one of the first rules you learn is not to base policy on anecdote or personal experience. However, when it comes to something as positive and life changing as international education, I am a firm believer in ripping up the rule book.

    While not everyone is fortunate to have an international education experience of their own, every single one of us indirectly benefits from the international students around us – not least given that, in the UK, they bring in £41.9 billion to the economy per annual cohort.

    when it comes to something as positive and life changing as international education, I am a firm believer in ripping up the rule book

    These economic benefits are felt even more acutely by our universities and colleges, where international student fees have become a lifeline to financially-stretched institutions – both to make up for the rising shortfall in domestic funding and to cross-subsidise world-leading research.

    Yet, as all good educators know, international students are much more than big pound and dollar signs to our sector.

    In a global city like London, international student communities are reflective of the global workforce and the multi-cultural population around us. Having international students in our midst helps prepare local students for the realities of living and working in these diverse environments. It encourages them to think differently about the world, and they learn to appreciate different cultures, traditions and perspectives.

    The real winners

    There are also substantial soft power benefits to be had from our diverse international student inflows. Each year the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) publishes a soft power index showing the tally of serving world leaders educated in UK universities. While some may see this as a ‘bit of fun’ over the summer when it’s traditionally published, it’s actually a really powerful signal of the strength of the UK’s educational brand.

    It is also a stark reminder of what is at stake if we start to use education to close doors to the world rather use it than to open them.

    As one international student, and member of Goodenough College, said to me over dinner on the evening I spoke: “Today I might just be eating dinner here with other international students, but tomorrow we could be the ones doing deals together in politics or in business, and it is our countries that will be the real winners of this experience.”

    While policymakers across the Western world are fixated on finding ways to bring immigration down, when it comes to international education, perhaps they should pay more attention to the benefits that are had when international students return to their home countries with the skills, friendships and memories made during their overseas educational experiences. For, these are the things that from the foundations of closer business and trade relationships between different countries and enhance future diplomatic relations.

    The clock is ticking

    A very early read of the immigration white paper suggests UK universities may have dodged a bullet when it comes to major policy reform. While the post-study work entitlement may have been reduced to 18 months from two years, the UK still has a positive offer to sell to the world – and one that isn’t undermined by country-specific restrictions or provider-level caps as is the case elsewhere in the world. Gone too (for now at least) are any requirements for international graduates to meet certain salary thresholds should they wish to stay and work in the UK.

    We need to ensure policymakers are tackling the parts of the immigration system that are failing us, not those that are overwhelmingly helping us

    Of course, we need to take public concerns about immigration seriously and chart a sustainable path for the future. But we need to ensure policymakers are tackling the parts of the immigration system that are failing us, not those that are overwhelmingly helping us. This should be done through measures that strengthen the overall ecosystem, not ones that weaken it through reckless words and kneejerk reactions.

    Last month, the International Higher Education Commission (IHEC), for which I am proud to have served as a commissioner, set out a framework for success based on the three pillars of competitiveness, diversification and public trust. The challenge for all of us now is to find ways to move forward with this framework – and in the new context set out by the Immigration White Paper – to ensure we continue opening the doors to the world through our educational offer. The last thing we should do is close them down through the loss of any one of those important sides of the policy triangle.

    Source link

  • Everything in the immigration white paper for higher education

    Everything in the immigration white paper for higher education

    The Home Office immigration white paper – Restoring control over the immigration system – has arrived, and there are some seriously consequential decisions for international students and the higher education sector.

    The graduate route will be cut from two years (for undergraduates and master’s students) to 18 months. A range of new measures that will make visa sponsorship duties more onerous for higher education providers are coming into effect. There are steps to attract “top scientific talent.”

    And most unexpectedly of all, the idea of introducing a levy on international student tuition fees is floated, “to be reinvested into the higher education and skills system.”

    Mood music

    For all that there are some serious, significant changes to student and graduate visas contained within the white paper, the last few years of policy turmoil has demonstrated that much of the impact of migration policy on student recruitment is determined by how changes are interpreted by prospective students weighing up their choices between different destination countries.

    After having spent a couple of months in office making more positive noises about international students – and repeatedly patting themselves on the back about it – Labour has since plunged back into the murky waters of “talking tough on migration”, with students a political football yet again. How much this resonates abroad, and with what tenor the press in key recruiting countries reports on all of this, will probably have the greatest overall effect on what follows for the sector.

    But the white paper itself is pretty bullish on international students – more so than we might have expected. There’s plenty of language that would have not looked out of place in a Conservative policy document, had Rishi Sunak not scrambled for an election instead of providing a proper response to the MAC review. So the Home Office tells us:

    In recent years, we have seen an increase in students staying in the UK following their studies. Alongside this, we have also seen an increase in sponsored study visas for lower-ranking education institutions.

    And that:

    We have also seen a series of problems involving misuse and exploitation of student visas, where visas are used as an entry point for living and working in the UK without any intention to complete the course, and increasing numbers of asylum claims from students at the end of their course, even though nothing substantive has changed in their home country while they have been in the UK.

    Home secretary Yvette Cooper’s introduction even tries to paint the last government as recklessly pro-international recruitment (our bolding):

    Immigration policy during the last Parliament replaced free movement with a free-market experiment which incentivised employers to freely recruit from abroad rather than train at home, allowed education institutions to pursue unlimited expansion of overseas students without proper checks in place, and directly encouraged the NHS and care organisations to bring in far more staff from abroad while still cutting support or training places in the UK.

    The Office for National Statistics’ recent finding that more than half of students arriving in 2020 still held leave after three years gets an airing – a point which those in the sector who have repeatedly been arguing that the vast majority of international students return home after graduating would do well to heed.

    We’d also note that the white paper’s observation that growth in international recruitment has been particularly pronounced in those institutions further down the international rankings (made up as they are in the main of research output and spurious reputation surveys) is particularly inane, and yet another of those examples of the Home Office weighing in on education policy and the size and shape of the sector. It has its roots in the last government’s response to the MAC review, but it’s profoundly depressing to see it taken forward as a stick to beat teaching-intensive universities with.

    The graduate route

    The post-study work visa’s reduction in length will likely generate the most headlines, at home and abroad. Drawing on a new piece of evaluation conducted last spring, the Home Office concludes that:

    Too many graduates allowed to stay in the UK following the successful completion of their studies are not moving into the graduate level roles for which the Graduate visa route was created.

    A survey of just under 3,000 visa holders saw only 30 per cent report being in “professional” occupations, with others either not giving a straightforward answer to the question or (31 per cent) being in occupations whose entry requirements are likely to be A level equivalent or lower.

    The build-up to the white paper’s publication was accompanied by a somewhat ludicrous debate over whether the (non-sponsored) graduate visa would somehow be limited to graduate-level work or salary – regardless of the fact that this would have meant turning it into a completely different visa with a heavy overlap with the skilled worker route.

    Instead, the government has concluded that it should be reduced to 18 months – it appears that this applies only to undergraduate and master’s students, who currently are entitled to two years, rather than PhDs.

    It’s not really spelled out how this new length has been arrived at – the charitable interpretation would be that this is sufficient time to allow graduates who are going to find graduate-level work to indeed find it, while those who are either unable to or were never really serious about doing so (in the government’s eyes) will be obliged to leave sooner.

    This Home Office’s statement of the problem is that “the intention behind the Graduate route was to support the economy.” No mention is made of enhancing the UK’s attractiveness as a study destination, which was also a strategic objective at the route’s launch, and part of the international education strategy. The government no longer seems to want to have this conversation.

    The survey that (in parts) provides the evidence base for the curtailment of the route also notes that 65 per cent of users said that gaining work experience was one of the most important reasons to engage in post-study work. But – as we’ve observed before – this function of the graduate route gets increasingly ignored. The Home Office frames all graduate route holders as needing to acquire graduate-level roles, as quickly as possible, and then disapproves of the contribution to net migration that this begets.

    Diving a bit deeper into the graduate route evaluation that is, in theory, the justification for the changes, we again see the Home Office continuing to divide up the sector in terms of Russell Group and non-Russell Group, despite the fact that DfE under Labour has discontinued this practice in school performance management.

    The majority of Graduate route users graduated from a non-Russell Group university (72%), while a quarter (26%) graduated from a Russell Group university.

    While this finding doesn’t get a mention in the white paper itself, it’s of a piece with the pronouncements elsewhere that too many students seem to be coming through those less prestigious universities for the Home Office’s liking.

    So what’s the upshot? Yet again, the impact modelling deployed in government to assess the effects of visa changes on the higher education sector is pretty pathetic. A student route evaluation published alongside the white paper sees 66 per cent of survey respondents say they were aware of the Graduate route (this gets us down to n = 1,265). Of these, 73 per cent said it influenced their decision. Of these, 29 per cent said they would not have come if it wasn’t available. Blithely multiplying these percentages together leads to an assumption (in the white paper’s technical annex) that 14 per cent of applicants would be put off if the graduate route were abolished.

    Of course, the Home Office didn’t ask about reducing it by six months – it’s almost as if this decision was thrashed out in Whitehall horse-trading rather than a pragmatic example of policy implementation. As they are lopping a quarter of the graduate route, they have – genuinely – divided 14 per cent by four to get 3.5 per cent. This would equate to around 12,000 students a year if by some stroke of dumb luck the assumption turned out to be true. But what really comes across is that they have no idea.

    For international students who are not put off, the result of shortening the route will be either to reduce the amount of time they have to accrue valuable work experience or – for those who are hoping to build a career in the UK – accelerated pressure on the job hunt. Institutions will need to get even more serious about advice, careers support, and evaluation. This is especially the case given all the other wholesale changes to work visas that the white paper detonates – students will need support in navigating a system that each year is a little different to how it was when they started thinking about where to apply.

    Compliance

    In a lengthy section entitled “responsible recruitment”, the white paper sets out some serious reforms to how UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) will manage compliance among those higher education institutions sponsoring students. It’s argued that current thresholds are “too lenient” and “have left the route open to abuse and exploitation.”

    We saw promises to make compliance standards stricter in the last government’s response to the MAC review, so there is a sense that some of what’s proposed in the white paper has been held back over the autumn to be made public here. UKVI has already been subjecting certain institutions to enhanced scrutiny for the last few months – but what’s proposed here goes quite substantially beyond that, and could be extremely challenging for some (especially small) institutions.

    The current metrics used to determine whether a sponsoring higher education provider is fulfilling its duties are – via the annual basic compliance assessment, or BCA – having a visa refusal rate of less than 10 per cent, a course enrolment rate of at least 90 per cent, and a course completion rate of at least 85 per cent.

    The white paper reveals that all of these measures will be made five percentage points stricter. To get an indication of how substantive such changes would be, it is noted that:

    Data from the 2023–24 BCA suggests that 22 HEIs would not have met at least one of the tightened criteria set out in this paper. These institutions sponsored approximately 49,000 students while refusing 400 during their 12-month assessment period.

    The technical annex also assumes that, of these 22, five would not be able to become compliant and therefore lose sponsorship rights, for at least a year. It puts the impact at between 9,000 and 14,000 fewer student visa grants, given that some students will be squeezed out of the system, whereas other genuine applicants will find alternative study destinations. It’s very much a guesstimate though – but the vastly increased requirements will put enormous pressure on higher education institutions to play it extremely safe with recruitment and agent partnerships, and to subject applicants to even more rigorous checks.

    There’s more as well – UKVI will roll out new interventions for sponsors “close to failing metrics”, sign-up to the Agent Quality Framework will be mandated – a measure that has been proposed about a hundred times by this point, and the framework is already widely subscribed to – and a new RAG rating will be used to rate each sponsoring institution’s compliance. On this latter point, it’s mentioned that this will help the public assess institutions’ compliance, raising the intriguing possibility that we are about to get a lot more transparency from UKVI than was ever the case. And massively ramping up the pressure on universities (and, especially, smaller providers) to avoid falling foul of the rules.

    It’s also worth not losing sight of the impact on international students themselves of all this bearing down on compliance – a measurably more bureaucratic study experience and, if not well implemented by providers, one that reinforces a sense of unwelcomeness as they are repeatedly asked to jump through hoops that home students do not face.

    But probably the most important measure contained within the proposals – and, if implemented properly, an extremely welcome one – is obliging a provider who wants to request a larger CAS allocation to “demonstrate that they are considering local impacts when taking its decision on international recruitment.” There’s no further information on what this would look like, but housing must clearly be front and centre of the government’s thinking here – it’s something Yvette Cooper has mentioned on a number of occasions.

    Asylum claims

    In the run-up to the white paper’s publication, leaks to the press made it clear that one area where international higher education was in the Home Office’s crosshairs was over the proportion of asylum claims generated by those who had arrived in the UK on student visas – as we’ve recently written about on Wonkhe, this hit 16,000 in 2024, almost 15 per cent of all claims in the year.

    The white paper says that this number has been increasing “at pace”, and also reveals that the majority of the students claiming asylum “do so as they approach their visa expiry date” – a fact which is ascribed to students making claims to stay in the UK, rather than due to changes in their own country.

    It had been briefed to the media that applications for work and study visas by those deemed most likely to overstay and claim asylum would face higher rejection rates, through some of “pattern spotting” – a predictive measure that would inevitably face legal challenges, it should be noted. The white paper doesn’t, in fact, get too much into the detail here, rather setting out towards the end a “series of further measures” that will be explored.

    One of these seems likely to be the use of international students’ proof of funds as evidence that they should not be eligible for asylum. We also get reference to potential “financial measures, penalties and sanctions” for sponsoring institutions – which would include universities. Detail on all this is going to come at a later point.

    An international student levy?

    When the Australian government commissioned a wholesale review of higher education – the Accord – one of the ideas that generated most pushback from the sector was for a levy on international students. It came out of the Accord commission’s interim report – then education minister Jason Clare said it was analogous to a “sovereign wealth fund” for the sector, and could be spent on infrastructure or research.

    Australia’s research-intensives – the Group of Eight – called it a “damaging international student tax”. It was absent from the Accord’s final recommendations, replaced by a “futures fund” with joint contributions from universities and government. It still wasn’t popular and, like much of the Accord’s long-term thinking, there hasn’t been any sign of policymakers picking it up.

    And yet – completely out of the blue, something similar has cropped up in today’s white paper:

    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.

    The Home Office wants to stress that this is not a final policy position – indeed, it is not something that one government department could move forward with on its own. The technical annex gives the “illustrative” example of a six per cent levy on tuition (and also notes that it would likely be passed on to students in higher fees).

    A six per cent levy would generate something in the order of £570m, if we generously take into account the reductions in recruitment that the Home Office has modelled (the levy’s putative effects are transmogrified into assumptions about changes to student demand based on some work from London Economics that was only focused on students from the EU, but it’s not even worth getting into that).

    There’s no way to reliably say which universities would lose out in terms of paying the levy – the government appears to be assuming that the students that won’t now come are the ones that they don’t want to come, which would likely hit less prestigious providers with more international students. You might imagine that some part of the levy would have to be used to prop up otherwise struggling providers in deprived areas – as we would otherwise lose them.

    What that would amount to is a word we’ve not heard from any government for a good few years – redistribution. Though the idea of the sector as a single set of accounts is familiar among headline writers and UCU campaigners, in practice there’s been little deviation from the idea that the market is the fairest means to distribute resources (“the funding follows the student”) with the exception of a very small amount of funds for “world class” small and specialist providers.

    Of course, by mentioning that the levy would be spent on “higher education and skills” opens the door to the money going elsewhere in the tertiary space. And, as with the apprenticeship levy, there’s no guarantee that the funds would not be top-sliced by the Treasury. There is absolutely no doubt that such a system, in the event that it came to pass, would be the subject of policy instability for many subsequent years, with everyone and their dog coming up with tweaks, fiddles and overhauls in how it should best be deployed.

    We’ve noted that the Home Office vaguely intimates that the cost of the levy would be borne by students (via increased fees) rather than by higher education providers. This may well not be the case. The last decade has shown that providers will set the fees at the level where they think they can recruit, rather than with reference to cost of provision (or home fees). If fees could comfortably go up six per cent, then they already would have. So expect a serious lobbying effort from universities against any further plans to introduce this levy.

    There are also substantial issues around devolution here. International student fees are really not there for the Home Office to grab and claim that they are a reserved matter, in the way that visas are. Presumably what’s being considered here would apply England-only – unless the devolved governments suddenly think this is worth going along with.

    All the other stuff

    Given that higher education is so intimately interconnected with both the visa system and the labour market, there’s barely a page of the white paper that doesn’t have some degree of consequence for the sector. Here’s a rundown.

    Global talent: the one area where there is a commitment to increasing migration is “very high talent routes.” There is talk of simplifying the use of the global talent visa to recruit top scientific talent, as well as possibly doubling the number of overseas universities whose graduates qualify for the high potential individual work visa route. Eligibility here is based on international university rankings, and consequently is a complete mess.

    Student dependants: there will be a new English language requirement for all adult dependants, at A1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). It’s also noted that the intention is to increase this over time.

    Short-term study visas: the government has already increased scrutiny of these visas for students coming on short (six to eleven month) English language courses, but there will also be a review of accreditation bodies, due to a very high refusal rate.

    Immigration skills charge: This charge for companies sponsoring those on skilled worker visas (currently £1,000 a year for medium or large sponsors) will be increased by 32 per cent. It’s one of those things that sounds good on paper – reinvesting visa fees into the skills system – but has never been implemented properly, with money just vanishing into the Treasury. In theory, that’s now going to change, with the spending review to announce “skills funding for priority sectors” paid for out of these funds.

    We should also note that higher education institutions are currently exempt from paying this charge for many categories of scientist, research managers and teaching professionals – so worth keeping an eye on the detail of the changes here when they do appear.

    The Labour Market Evidence Group: this body, which had previously been referred to as “the quad”, is to be made up of the industrial strategy advisory council, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), Skills England (and the devolved nations’ skills bodies, to the extent the government will properly involve them rather than dumping policy on them), and the DWP. We don’t learn much that wasn’t in the MAC’s annual report, but this group’s evidence will be used to inform workforce strategies for sectors that have high levels of overseas recruitment.

    The Immigration Salary List: this set of occupations eligible for discounts on skilled worker visa salary premiums is to be abolished. This was until recently known as the shortage occupation list, to give you a sense of how much churn successive governments have instituted in migration policy. Instead, the MAC is going to conduct a review of how discounts are used, with the result that the exact salary requirements for different jobs – which universities may want to recruit onto, or international graduates might want to progress to – are up in the air again. Currently those on student or graduate visas are entitled to a discount in the required salary for sponsorship.

    International education strategy refresh: Nope, no mention of this. The last we heard this was due for “early spring”, and presumably now the white paper has landed the DfE and the business department have a freer hand to get it launched.

    It’s hard to see how some of the original IES targets around diversification can persist, given the increased pressure on compliance (stay out of “risky” markets), potential plans to profile certain nationalities, and the fearmongering about students attending less prestigious institutions. A student number target feels a million miles away from how Labour is trying to position itself politically. And education export objectives, without any detail on what aspects on international activity the government is OK with increasing, are pretty meaningless. So what’s left to be in it?

    Source link