Blog

  • U.S. can improve data collection on AI/AN college students

    U.S. can improve data collection on AI/AN college students

    Native American student enrollment has been on the decline for the past decade, dropping 40 percent between 2010 and 2021, a loss of tens of thousands of students. Of the 15.4 million undergraduate students enrolled in fall 2021, only 107,000 were American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

    Researchers argue that the small population is not as small as it seems, however, due in part to federal practices of collecting data on Native populations, according to a new report from the Brookings Institute, the Institute for Higher Education Policy and the Urban Institute.

    Federal measures of race and ethnicity in postsecondary education data undercount the total population of Native American students, in part due to insufficient sampling, lack of data on tribal affiliation and aggregation practices that erase Native identities, researchers wrote.

    “For too long, Native American students have been severely undercounted in federal higher education data, with estimates suggesting that up to 80 percent are classified as a different race or ethnicity,” Kim Dancy, director of research and policy at IHEP, told Inside Higher Ed. “This chronic data collection failure renders Native students invisible in federal data systems and prevents clear assessments of the resources necessary to support student success.”

    In May 2024, the federal government announced new standards for collecting data on American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations, which would improve the inclusivity and accuracy of data for students from these groups.

    The Obama administration introduced similar changes in 2016, but they were never implemented under the first Trump administration in 2017. Researchers worry a similar pattern may follow under the second Trump administration.

    “The second Trump Administration has demonstrated reluctance to prioritize data transparency, which could further jeopardize these efforts and stall progress,” Dancy said. “Without strong implementation of these standards, Native students will continue to be overlooked in federal policy decisions.”

    “It is critical that the Trump administration allow the revised SPD 15 standards to remain in effect, and for officials at ED and elsewhere throughout government to implement the standards in a way that provides Native American students and communities with the same high-quality data that all Americans should be able to access,” report authors wrote.

    Data Analysis at Risk

    The Education Department has canceled dozens of contracts in recent weeks, tied to the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency. Many of these contracts related to student data analysis in both K-12 and postsecondary education.

    State of play: Degree attainment for Native Americans is bleak, according to data presently available. Twenty-six percent of Native American adults in the U.S. hold an associate degree or higher, and only 16 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, according to 2024 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In comparison, bachelor’s degree attainment by all other races is higher: 20 percent for Latino, 25 percent for Black, 38 percent for multiracial, 40 percent for white and 61 percent for Asian American students.

    Of the 58 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students who enrolled in higher education beginning in 2009, over half (55 percent) didn’t earn a credential. In 2023, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reported six-year completion rates had fallen two percentage points among Native Americans, to 47.5 percent—21 percentage points lower than their white peers and 27 percentage points lower than Asian students in the 2016 cohort.

    Data collection is not the only barrier to Native student representation and completion in higher education, researchers wrote, “but until data on Native American students are more accurate, accessible, and meaningful, it will prove difficult to address these issues,” which include affordability, disparities in access and retention, and a lack of culturally informed wraparound services.

    Digging into data: Data collection at the U.S. Department of Education has several problems that disadvantage Native students more than other groups, according to the report. Native student data is often “topcoded” as Hispanic or Latino, essentially erasing Native student identities, filed under “more than one race” without further detail, or coded without tribal affiliation or citizenship.

    While topcoding students as Latino or Hispanic or categorizing learners as more than one race applies to all racial categories, Native American individuals are categorized this way at a higher rate than any other major group, which diminishes their representation.

    Additionally, ED independently makes decisions to not disaggregate or provide detailed data on racial and ethnic subgroups, such as topcoding Latino or Hispanic students, that is not modeled at other federal agencies, such as the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    The last time the Office of Management and Budget revised data-reporting processes for colleges and universities, which allowed individuals to identify as more than one racial group, final implementation took place in the 2010–11 academic year.

    In the decade and a half since, Native American student enrollment has declined, and researchers say, “The limitations of ED’s student data made it challenging to discern whether this decline represented an actual change in enrollment trends or was due to the new reporting practices’ undercounting of Native college students.”

    A lack of data impacts institutions, tribes and others tracking student outcomes, reducing opportunities to support learners, and the challenges may perpetuate continued misperceptions of Native students’ journeys through higher education.

    New policies: In 2024, OMB created new federal standards around collecting data on race and ethnicity that would enhance data collection when it comes to Native populations. Federal agencies are required to create plans for implementation by September 2025 and be in full compliance by March 2029, leaving the Trump administration responsible for implementation of the revised standards.

    OMB outlined three approaches for agencies on how they might consider presentation of aggregated data on multiracial populations:

    • Alone or in combination, which includes students who identify with more than one racial or ethnic group in all reporting categories.
    • Most frequent multiple responses, reporting on as many combinations of race and ethnicity as possible that meet population thresholds.
    • Combined multiracial or multiethnic respondents into a single category.

    This third option would be most harmful to Native students, because it would perpetuate undercounts, researchers caution, and therefore policymakers should avoid it.

    Moving forward, report authors recommend ED and Congress collect and publish disaggregated data on Native American students, partner with tribal governments to increase data transparency and provide guidance and resources to institutions to improve their quality of data.

    “We encourage the Education Department to continue seeking input from Native communities, including voices that have been historically excluded from policy-development efforts,” Dancy said. “Accurate data alone won’t eliminate the structural inequities Native students face. But without the data, we cannot begin to dismantle the inequities.”

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

    Source link

  • How the humanities got us through the pandemic (opinion)

    How the humanities got us through the pandemic (opinion)

    For a moment, best-selling novelist Julia Alvarez sounded abashed. She was being interviewed by National Public Radio’s Scott Simon on April 4, 2020, about her new novel, Afterlife.

    “I’ve got to say this, too, Scott, it feels kind of weird to be talking about my novel, and somehow promoting it, at a time like this,” she explained. “I feel like it just doesn’t quite feel right, because, you know, it’s not business as usual.”

    “But you know,” Simon responded, “reading your novel this week gave me great pleasure. I think there’s no reason for you to feel that there’s something unusual in this. You’ve created a splendid work of art that can give comfort to people now, and I’m glad you can talk about it. I think people need to hear that, too.”

    This brief exchange almost perfectly encapsulates the public insecurity many felt about discussing the value of the humanities in a moment of global medical calamity. To discuss fiction, poetry, painting and music under the shadow of mass death threatened to make discussants appear dilettantish at best, and insensitive snobs at worst.

    But that perception did not match reality during the COVID-19 pandemic. We all read books, found new music to enjoy, watched TV and streaming movies, and communicated widely about how the humanities provided succor and catharsis during a time of enormous emotional stress. Our social media feeds and group texts throughout 2020 and 2021 were filled with recommendations to others about the movies, books and music we enjoyed.

    But today, those conversations are largely forgotten. Public discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic now revolves around public health decision-making, scientific arguments about vaccines and the origins of the virus, and other debatable propositions. Remembrance of what actually happened—that is, our daily habits and activities under lockdown—is rarely chronicled in detail. Everyone wants to move on.

    Yet such intentional amnesia obscures the ways the humanities got us through those difficult months.

    The truth is the humanities—that is, the use of creativity and imagination, in questioning the human condition—remained absolutely central to our collective survival. The evidence, though difficult to measure in quantitative metrics, exists in the atmospheric ways that humanities media continually provided relief and distraction when scientific answers were still unknown and we all felt threatened by an unknown future.

    With the fifth anniversary of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic upon us, we are undoubtedly going to hear much about Operation Warp Speed, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other scientific and medical legacies.

    We’ll hear much less about the humanities and the role they played.

    The problem is we’re loath to label Netflix, YouTube, podcasts and other technological marvels as humanities media. Instead, we talk about how new technologies distract, mislead and misinform us. We do not remember how we reached for them in the search for comfort in a time of true existential crisis, and the vital role they played in social cohesion.

    There’s been a lot written about the crisis in the humanities. There’s been far less written about the humanities during a crisis. And that’s a mistake, because as we move further past 2020–2021, we will all likely forget when the power and vitality of the creative arts helped keep us grounded, sane, curious and, if necessary, distracted.

    The very invisibility today of what occurred then needs to be illuminated. Even at the time—as evidenced by Julia Alvarez’s reservations about talking about her novel—it seemed almost embarrassing to celebrate witty scenes from Broadway plays, to choreograph interpretative dances or jot down lines of poetic observation. Yet moments of sublime, thoughtful, philosophical and engaging artistry arose everywhere.

    How many people today recall the brilliant daily updates provided by Dr. Craig Smith, the chief of surgery at Columbia University Irving Medical Center? Smith continually quoted Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling, Bertrand Russell, T. S. Eliot and others for inspiration in his daily updates. The Wall Street Journal labeled Smith “the pandemic’s most powerful writer” while noting the “elegant, almost poetic” prose of his daily dispatches. Smith often relied on poetry to express the inexpressible, and many Americans eagerly read his work—not just to be informed, but to also be comforted emotionally. Smith understood the enormity of the existential confrontation that faced every American in 2020, and so employed his knowledge of the humanities to help others comprehend the incomprehensible. His artistry as a writer provided an enormous public service.

    That’s precisely what Scott Simon was telling Julia Alvarez. She had nothing to apologize for, and, in fact, her artistic achievement in an unprecedented era of doubt, anxiety and uncertainty was a gift that would be gratefully received and appreciated.

    A major problem with the humanities is that so much of its success will always remain invisible to the audiences that consume it. We are primed to take for granted the artistic process, now that AI can mimic it. History videos and podcasts remain available anytime, and ebooks can be downloaded so easily. We can see the Mona Lisa at any moment. Many of the world’s greatest artworks, and the most beautiful song performances, can be found instantly. It’s a miracle unimaginable to earlier generations, but it also paradoxically devalues the time, effort and creativity that inspired such beauty.

    Debates about how to make the humanities more visible and relevant arise often. Some argue that the humanities should emphasize the analytics and metrics concerning job development and career preparation, or comparative salary growth over the course of a career. Others counsel the embrace of new avenues of promotion and marketing. But the first step needs to be simple recognition. We must make immediately clear—without obfuscatory language or elevated rhetoric—the impact of the humanities in the present and in the near past.

    When the pandemic threatened the stability of the world, the answers people sought were primarily medical and scientific. But intertwined with anger and impatience in that moment was a yearning for meaning far more spiritual than empirical. As our regular routines of time and space became unsettled, and communication and interactivity more ambiguous, the need to explore the essence of what it means to be human naturally arose. People became creative, trying out new baking recipes, teaching themselves to play guitar or piano, or drawing sketches or drafting poetry. This was not simple escapism—it was engagement with our imaginations.

    We also wondered about the future of humankind. We might not have called our ruminations, prayers, thoughtfulness, curiosity and questioning “philosophy,” but that’s what we were practicing. Those moments got many of us through when daily anxiety threatened existential desperation.

    That the humanities sustained us through the pandemic is undeniable. The evidence is everywhere: We just need to see it, remember it and celebrate it. When a global primal moment of fear exploded—seemingly out of nowhere—to take control over our lives, it was fiction, movies, poetry, art, philosophy and music that moved us forward into the future. It was not solely the vaccines.

    That’s history. And now it’s memory, too. The key question is whether humanities scholars understand these great achievements and will make them more widely known.

    Michael J. Socolow is a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Maine and formerly served as director of U Maine’s McGillicuddy Humanities Center from 2020 to 2022.

    Source link

  • Why many men feel lost in an age of shifting roles and expectations

    Why many men feel lost in an age of shifting roles and expectations

    A friend recently argued compellingly that two major gaps in the Harris campaign strategy affected voter turnout and engagement: a reluctance to acknowledge policy shortcomings and a failure to address the specific needs of men, particularly working-class men and those in communities of color. These gaps represent missed opportunities to connect with voters who feel overlooked and underserved.

    Many noncollege men today are navigating economic hardship and social isolation, grappling with precarious work and shifting social expectations. In a world that often emphasizes adaptability and academic success, the message they hear is clear: They should have worked harder, been more flexible or chosen a different path. 

    Yet this message can feel dismissive—more moralizing and patronizing than empathetic—ignoring the broader economic and structural challenges these men face. The decline of jobs in traditional industries, limited access to meaningful work and a diminished sense of purpose have fostered a profound sense of alienation where mainstream political narratives simply don’t resonate.

    Broader cultural shifts compound these issues. Traditional male roles have eroded, leaving many men feeling marginalized and uncertain, struggling to navigate changing gender expectations. Many also experience personal isolation, strained relationships and limited social support, adding to a sense of being stuck without clear solutions.

    While the Harris campaign frequently highlighted issues affecting women and promoted family-centered policies, it lacked a narrative that could directly address working-class men’s distinct challenges. The focus was often on broad achievements and visions rather than a targeted response to the real, often invisible, struggles these men face.

    As my friend put this, “With her (proper) advocacy for reproductive rights, Harris already had the women’s vote, and the hard-core Democratic base are never-Trumpers whom they wouldn’t lose, no matter what else her campaign said. But instead of talking concrete policies that address where she was about to lose large numbers of (potentially persuadable) voters, Harris and her proxies talked about ‘joy’ and ‘helping the guy sitting next to you’—in short, to remain polite and appeal to upper-middle class tastes.”

    By overlooking a direct appeal to men dealing with economic, social and personal challenges, the campaign missed a critical opportunity to engage with and support a population that increasingly feels unseen and left behind.

    The erosion of traditional male roles—breadwinner, family leader, protector—has left many men grappling with identity, isolation and a profound sense of purpose. As society evolves, these long-standing markers of masculinity have lost relevance, especially for working-class men who once found dignity and respect in roles that aligned with hard work, family provision and community involvement.

    Now, as economic and cultural shifts reshape these roles, many men are struggling to find a path forward, a reality that not only affects them but impacts the broader social fabric.

    This identity crisis reflects a broader issue: As traditional definitions of masculinity are increasingly challenged, men are left with fewer frameworks for meaningful contributions to family, work and community. The fading emphasis on male-led provision and protection has led to a vacuum where isolation and frustration often take root. Without clear societal pathways that respect both historical contributions and evolving social needs, men can feel left behind, unsure of how to participate in a society that often seems to have moved beyond their previous roles.

    To address this crisis, society must reimagine male roles in ways that offer respect, purpose and connection. Only by acknowledging the disintegration of traditional frameworks and creating new, healthier pathways can we guide men toward meaningful identities. This means valuing male contributions not only in economic terms but also in terms of their relational and communal roles. Reintegration into family, work and community as valued members demands that we redefine what it means to be a man in today’s world—placing dignity, contribution and connection at the forefront.

    In an era where masculinity itself is under re-evaluation, it’s essential to shape new definitions that honor both the past and present. Men today need roles that allow them to thrive within evolving social landscapes, where they can build connections and be respected for contributions beyond traditional parameters. Only by doing so can we address the underlying causes of alienation, providing men with a renewed sense of purpose in a society that, with the right approach, can benefit immensely from their reimagined roles.

    Addressing the challenges that many men face is not about overlooking or minimizing the very real struggles women continue to confront. Recognizing one group’s needs does not diminish the other’s; rather, it broadens our capacity to understand and support everyone more fully. Just as society benefits when women’s voices are heard, it also strengthens when we address the unique struggles that many men experience in today’s world. This inclusive approach allows us to tackle challenges holistically, building a society that values and supports each person’s dignity, purpose and place.

    The alienation felt by many men today reflects a profound shift in the economic, demographic and cultural landscape of American life. These changes have created a reality for a large group of men—often isolated, lonely, frustrated and angry. In this demographic, men frequently find themselves without the traditional anchors of family, stable friendships or secure employment. As society has evolved, these men increasingly feel disrespected or dismissed, disconnected from the structures that once provided support, identity and a sense of purpose.

    The economic landscape for men, particularly those without a college degree, has changed dramatically over the last few decades. The decline of traditional industries, such as manufacturing, construction and mining, has resulted in the disappearance of millions of stable, well-paying jobs. These industries were not only sources of economic stability but also providers of identity and community. For many men, especially those who entered the workforce in the 1980s and 1990s, job loss has meant not just an economic setback but a disruption in their sense of self-worth and purpose.

    As these traditional industries shrank, the economy pivoted to sectors like technology, health care and the service industry—fields that often emphasize educational attainment, interpersonal skills and adaptability. Many men who once relied on stable blue-collar jobs have struggled to transition to these new fields, either due to a lack of qualifications or because the roles simply don’t align with the values and identities they were raised with. As a result, these men experience economic precarity, often living paycheck to paycheck, juggling temporary or part-time work without benefits, or relying on the gig economy, which lacks the long-term stability they might have expected earlier in life.

    The rise of “kinless America” has compounded the problem of economic insecurity, leading to a broader crisis of social disconnection. In the United States, rates of marriage have declined significantly and divorce rates remain high. For men, divorce and separation often mean loss of regular contact with children, limited social networks and, sometimes, an emotional isolation that they struggle to overcome.

    Marriage and family life once provided social stability, companionship and a sense of purpose. Without these connections, many men find themselves living alone or in shared, temporary arrangements, removed from the grounding influence of family. For those who are also economically disadvantaged, the struggle to form new partnerships or social networks can be insurmountable, leaving them largely kinless and isolated.

    This demographic shift affects friendships, too. Research shows that men, more than women, often depend on their partners to maintain social ties and that they struggle to form friendships as adults. As such, unpartnered men frequently end up in a kind of social desert, with few meaningful connections to rely on for emotional support or companionship.

    Cultural shifts have further deepened this sense of alienation. Over recent decades, there has been a growing emphasis on individual achievement and self-realization, sometimes at the expense of communal identity and traditional values. While this shift has empowered many, it has also led to the devaluation of certain traditional roles that many men historically occupied. Traits associated with traditional masculinity, such as stoicism, physical labor or even traditional provider roles, are sometimes framed as outdated or even “toxic,” leaving some men feeling that their core values and sense of identity are now stigmatized.

    Furthermore, as cultural narratives around gender have evolved, men who do not or cannot align with these new expectations often feel marginalized or invisible. Messages around the importance of academic achievement and professional success can leave those who have struggled to meet these expectations feeling dismissed or left behind.

    Adding to this sense of disrespect is the rise of social media and a culture of comparison, where it can feel as though one’s successes or failures are on display for public scrutiny. Men who feel they don’t measure up may withdraw even further, reinforcing their isolation and frustration. For those experiencing economic precarity or relationship struggles, these messages compound an existing sense of inadequacy.

    These changes have left many men feeling disconnected from their families, their communities and their traditional roles. For many working-class men, in particular, these economic and social shifts can lead to a crisis of identity, with few alternative sources of meaning or recognition to replace the roles they once filled. Lacking the dignity they once found in hard but honorable work, many now worry they are being dismissed as “losers” or that their labor is undervalued.

    This shift often translates into feelings of anger, shame and frustration. Without clear avenues for expressing or resolving these feelings, some men may withdraw, becoming more isolated and resentful.

    The isolation, loneliness and frustration felt by these men manifest in various ways, including higher rates of mental health issues, substance abuse and even suicide. Data shows that men, particularly middle-aged men, have some of the highest rates of suicide in the United States, and they are also disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis. Lacking strong social support systems, they often fall through the cracks of mental health and social services, either because they lack the resources or because they feel stigmatized in seeking help.

    Politically, this alienation can drive disenchantment with mainstream narratives and established institutions. Many feel overlooked or even disrespected by a society they perceive as indifferent to their struggles. As a result, some turn to populist figures who channel their frustrations, adopting hypermasculine postures that seem to defy what they view as a culture overly critical of traditional masculinity. They are often receptive to leaders who emphasize strength, defiance of convention and a willingness to challenge norms—qualities that appear to stand in opposition to the mainstream culture they feel has rejected or devalued them. Political rhetoric that champions the “forgotten man” resonates deeply with these individuals, promising to restore the dignity and respect they feel has been taken from them.

    Gender antagonism has surged due to a complex mix of economic, social and cultural changes that have disrupted traditional roles, heightened insecurities and polarized public discourse.

    With the decline of traditionally male-dominated industries and growth in service sectors, many men face economic insecurity, disrupting the breadwinner role that historically provided identity and respect. Meanwhile, women’s increased workforce participation challenges traditional male roles, creating frustration and resentment as economic stability and established identities shift.

    As expectations for equal partnerships grow, many men raised with conventional norms feel unprepared for these shifts. New dynamics around independence and equity can fuel misunderstandings, alienation and resentment, especially when traditional gender expectations clash with modern relationship ideals.

    Increased awareness of issues like misogyny and toxic masculinity has led to critiques that some men feel unfairly target their identities. Misunderstandings around terms like “toxic masculinity” can foster defensiveness, as positive models for masculinity are often lacking in these discussions.

    Social media amplifies divisive, adversarial portrayals of gender, reinforcing stereotypes and fostering resentment. Gender issues have also become politicized, making nuanced conversations difficult and polarizing gender dynamics further.

    Traditional gender roles are evolving quickly, leading to identity crises as qualities like stoicism or assertiveness are redefined. Without inclusive pathways to navigate these changes, many feel insecure or alienated, fueling tension.

    Social isolation, especially among men, has intensified, with limited support systems leading to loneliness and resentment. Emphasis on victimhood narratives also fuels a “competition of grievances,” as men’s economic and social struggles seem to compete with women’s issues, leading to mutual resentment.

    What is the path forward?

    To address the rising sense of alienation among American men and reduce gender antagonism, we need practical solutions that validate their experiences, offer purpose and foster constructive engagement. This isn’t solely about economic or demographic shifts; it requires holistic policies and social initiatives that support men’s economic stability, familial roles and community involvement without condescension.

    1. Economic stability and accessible upskilling. Policies that support well-paying, stable jobs, especially in trades and skilled labor, can help restore pride and purpose. Expanding accessible training—through apprenticeships, vocational programs and targeted certifications—can revitalize pathways to economic self-sufficiency and respect. Higher education, particularly community colleges, can play a vital role, but they must adopt practical, flexible models that allow working men and women to balance existing responsibilities with upskilling opportunities. Here are some strategies:
    • Employer partnerships for on-the-job training: Colleges can work with local industries to design programs that meet workforce needs and offer on-site training, allowing employees to earn while they learn.
    • Affordable, results-oriented programs: Expanding low-cost programs that focus on high-demand skills provides a clear incentive for workers to invest their time, with direct connections to jobs, salary increases and career advancement.
    • Mentorship and career support: Programs that connect students with mentors who have successfully upskilled can offer both guidance and motivation, especially for those hesitant about returning to school.
    • Enhanced job placement and counseling services: Colleges can offer support in aligning new skills with market demands, ensuring students can quickly apply their skills to new roles or promotions.
    • Skills-based certifications in growth sectors: Short-term certifications in fields like cybersecurity, skilled trades and advanced manufacturing can appeal to workers by providing clear pathways to better jobs.

    Higher education must provide clear, realistic pathways to secure employment, with affordable, high-quality vocational training and credentialing programs that align tightly with job market needs.

    1. Supporting fathers and family involvement. Fostering men’s roles as fathers, particularly those separated from their children, is essential. Legal reforms that promote equitable custody arrangements, along with targeted support for single fathers, can help men stay actively involved in family life. Programs offering parental counseling and father-centered parenting classes can restore purpose and fulfillment, reducing feelings of alienation from loved ones.
    2. Building community and combating isolation. To address social isolation, we need community spaces where men can forge friendships and feel connected. Initiatives centered on shared activities—such as sports leagues, volunteer groups or veterans’ organizations—offer valuable opportunities for camaraderie, helping men form supportive networks and reinforcing a sense of belonging and social cohesion.
    3. Recognizing and celebrating men’s contributions. Society benefits from recognizing men’s contributions through mentorship, craftsmanship, coaching and community leadership. Programs that emphasize these roles and celebrate male contributions can help men find renewed purpose in positive, community-oriented activities. Acknowledging these contributions adds value to society without diminishing other forms of progress.
    4. Addressing gender antagonism with understanding. Reducing gender antagonism requires an approach that acknowledges the unique challenges men and women face without casting all men as insensitive or prone to toxic traits. Public discourse should address specific actions or attitudes within their contexts rather than implying these are inherent in all men. Media portrayals that reinforce negative stereotypes about masculinity need to be challenged. Inclusive narratives that recognize both men’s and women’s struggles and contributions foster empathy, helping bridge divides rather than deepen them.
    5. Embracing shared human values. Many core values—compassion, respect, integrity, resilience—are universal. Shifting our focus from gendered virtues to shared human qualities can foster unity and mutual respect, emphasizing individual strengths over rigid gender norms.

    The erosion of traditional male roles has left many men feeling adrift, disconnected from the sources of pride and identity that once defined them. Only by acknowledging these challenges and investing in creative solutions that restore economic stability, respect, connection, meaning and purpose can we create a healthier, more balanced and respectful society for all.

    Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author, most recently, of The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational and Equitable Experience.

    Source link

  • Level 7 Apprenticeships: Babies and Bathwater

    Level 7 Apprenticeships: Babies and Bathwater

    Last September, the Prime Minister announced a “rebalancing” of funding from the apprenticeship levy (shortly to become the Growth and Skills Levy). Employers’ ability to use the funds for postgraduate-level apprenticeships would be restricted in the hope of shoring up lower levels.

    A couple of months later, Skills Minister Jacqui Smith followed up by confirming that the axing of Level 7 apprenticeships would be “pretty widespread”. What’s more, she didn’t rule out a blanket defunding.

    The government’s thinking arises from a belief that employers are taking advantage of apprenticeship levy funding to upskill mostly existing, mostly relatively seasoned staff with MBAs and similarly expensive qualifications. At worst, some employers may be using a claw-back of their levy (which is paid by employers at 0.5% of annual wage bills that exceed £3 million) to give training perks to middle managers.

    This activity may not only be offsetting those employers’ own training budgets such that the levy isn’t increasing the overall funding available, but in the process, it is also undermining what the government would prefer, namely that the money is used to address concerns about young people leaving school without more basic levels of employability.

    The Government has a point. In 2021/22, nearly half of all Level 6 and 7 apprenticeships were in ‘Business, Administration & Law’. But the employers concerned (often professional services firms, accountants and legal services) may have a point too. They may feel their commercial interests are better served (and more economic activity is generated) by training up current employees who have high demonstrable potential rather than recruiting low-level apprentices who may be less reliable, loyal or productive in the longer term. After all, they might argue, businesses don’t exist to do the government’s job of workforce planning or social engineering.

    In the second decade of this century many policy papers punningly declared that they were laying out a ‘2020 vision’. One such document in 2015 laid out the Cameron Government’s reform of English apprenticeships which heralded the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in 2017.

    This new tax – sorry, ‘levy’ – would, it was envisioned, align skills supply with skill needs and provide a superhighway of progression for apprentices while simultaneously promoting wider access and higher standards. 

    Sadly, the vision was somewhat rose-tinted. At the time over half a million people started apprenticeships, but since then, the number has plummeted to barely a third of a million (339,580). At over 45%, the drop-out rates from apprenticeships are at a level that would make higher education blush and the system is “beset by widespread and deep-rooted quality issues”.

    Meanwhile, apprenticeships have failed to be the hoped-for driver of social mobility for those who don’t pursue university pathways. Just 5% of apprentices were eligible for free school meals.

    Given that employers recruit their apprentices and, unlike universities, they are not subject to any fair access requirements, opportunities have tended to follow traditional patterns of advantage.

    Most of the fall in apprenticeships is accounted for by the 72% collapse of intermediate apprenticeships (equivalent to Level 2, ie. GCSEs), while higher apprenticeships (equivalent to Level 4 and above) have been the only part of the market to see an expansion – by nearly three times, such that they now make up more than a third of the (albeit lower) total.

    There is no reason to suppose that excluding Level 7 apprenticeships from the funding system will suddenly make lower levels more attractive to employers. While it is true that the funding is drawn from the same pool, they are not seen as alternatives by employers: the Business Administration & Law sector is not likely to start offering intermediate apprenticeships to 16-year-old school leavers because they can’t offset their levy by training qualified professionals.

    Rather it is in other sectors, where engagement in apprenticeships has been minimal, that the government wants to see the growth. For those employers, the fact that someone else may have been using their apprenticeship levy to fund an MBA was never stopping them from creating more junior opportunities.

    What’s been stopping them is the red tape involved in setting up and running apprenticeships, the costs and inconvenience (such as the time of other staff to recruit, manage and train apprentices), and the limited perceived benefits.

    Not only is defunding Level 7 apprenticeships not likely to solve the problems in the apprenticeship market, there is also a danger that babies (training that is critical to address skills gaps) might get thrown out with the bathwater (those MBAs which the government thinks should not be publicly subsidised).

    For example, there are widely acknowledged and significant skills shortages (insufficient numbers) and gaps (insufficient skill levels) in the engineering sector, a sector that accounts for £645 billion – more than a third of the UK’s GDP. These deficits run the risk of derailing the government’s mission for economic growth.

    But engineering is also critical to regional development as the spread of jobs and higher wages are not concentrated in any particular parts of the country. Indeed, often the greatest opportunities are in those parts of the country most in need of growth and improvements in productivity. Engineering higher education is also a major driver of social mobility and opportunity: graduate premiums in engineering are both higher and more equal for those from disadvantaged backgrounds than in other disciplines.

    Level 7 apprenticeships in engineering are vital for up-skilling (and re-skilling), which is critical for the challenges outlined in the government’s industrial strategy, such as in defence, advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, and digital & technologies (particularly AI).

    Engineering is a highly dynamic sector with an ageing population of skilled professionals. Even if we can meet the profound challenges of providing sufficient new engineers into the labour market, keeping them there and maintaining their level of expertise will rely on increasing the availability of – and demand for – a combination of in-work training and education at the highest level. 

    Achieving Level 7 qualifications in engineering (which are often instrumental in professional recognition) is generally too expensive for individuals to embark on at their own cost and, given the competitive demand for skilled labour in the context of shortages, employers are fearful that if they invest heavily in these staff they may be poached by competitors. This is a prime example of where a low-cost intervention by government can have large-scale impact.

    In other words, Level 7 apprenticeships in engineering are strategically critical. My understanding is that they are similarly vital in certain other sectors such as health.

    The government is right to ensure Growth & Skills Levy funds are spent as effectively as possible, but that will require a nuanced appraisal of what is working and what isn’t as well as a recognition that a slash and burn of waste won’t necessarily promote growth where the government wants it.

    Source link

  • Supporting Non-Major Biology Students: Making the Classroom YOUnique – Faculty Focus

    Supporting Non-Major Biology Students: Making the Classroom YOUnique – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Making space for commuter students

    Making space for commuter students

    Residential living at university has been prevalent since the 15th Century, originally as a way to instil discipline and promote a moral education amongst students.

    University College London’s founding in the 1820s as the first non-residential UK university disrupted this tradition. However, debates around the correct model of living have continued ever since.

    The Robbins Report in 1963 described the “educational and social advantages of living away from home” and it was often understood that the desire to live in halls was to emulate the “Oxbridge ideal.”

    The rise of 1960s plate glass universities, with new on-campus halls led the way for the expected “way of being” for university students.

    As recently as 2019 the Augar Report stated “leaving home to go to university is a deep-seated part of the English culture.”

    Clearly not much has changed.

    Across my time as a student and working in higher education, it was always apparent that space is crucial to the student experience for commuter students where they don’t have a residence on campus.

    Whilst the debate around commuter students has shifted in recent years with the introduction of commuters into the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, more holistic support is needed.

    In fact, making space for commuter students is not just about their teaching and learning but it’s also about accommodating their extracurriculars and social lives.

    As rising numbers of commuter students challenge the historical ideas of what students should look like, how can institutions make space for commuters on campus?

    The rest of the student experience

    Arriving at university, it became clear I was one of two commuter students in my cohort of around 200 and that this was going to create problems for me.

    The extra curricular student experience was defined by student society socials and trips, socialising in halls and consuming alcohol on nights out.

    It was awkward when the first question I’d always get asked in first year was “what halls are you in?”

    Skip forward to my final year dissertation, I investigated the barriers to social engagement for commuter students at Leeds University.

    My research findings from six interviews with current commuter students found participation in social activities was difficult for many for financial, transport, religious and other reasons.

    We respectively think a lot about supporting commuter students’ experience of teaching and learning on and off campus but the student experience isn’t just limited to the classroom.

    Issues included last trains home being too early, spaces of engagement centred around halls, hidden costs to participate such as additional meals or transport and hygiene barriers (sleeping on sofas and not having their toiletries).

    Commuter students have often been invisible in the way institutions treated them, and we struggled to find each other due to the stigma, with constant questioning by peers “don’t you feel like you’re missing out?”

    Rush hour socials

    As a student, finding people to support the creation of the Leeds University Commuters’ Society was challenging.

    From my own experiences of imposter syndrome and othering, it was essential to create a society to address the needs of this group and advocate for further inclusion.

    I founded the Leeds University Commuters’ Society to find others with shared experiences, to share travel tips, support wellbeing and hold “rush hour” socials.

    Through my dissertation research, I also explored commuter students’ sense of belonging. I found commuter students who worked for the university in part-time roles, such as ambassadors, had a stronger sense of belonging and pride. The society also boosted feelings of belonging for the students, and some had found lifelong friends on their course who they didn’t realise were commuter students.

    Finding space

    The pandemic shifted working patterns for many staff, plus the opening of a new building on campus freed up space. The society campaigned for a common lounge for commuter students.

    The Student Ideas Fund granted us £5000 to create the lounge, originally on a two-year pilot basis. The lounge contains a refurbished social area with a games table, TV, kitchen, lockers and private study space.

    The kitchen offers students the opportunity to save money on lunches and evening meals, as students previously relied on eating out or consuming to feel comfortable in a cafe.

    The lounge is now a permanent feature of campus and is visited on campus tours and mentioned at open days.

    Where there’s space in residential halls, the University of Leeds team are consulting with commuter students about opening a commuter hotel, offering stays between 1-14 nights, at budget prices.

    Commuter students would then be able to participate in a range of activities like attending society socials, concerts, theatre, sports events, and staying the night before a morning exam.

    By giving commuter students a space, either a common room, lounge or even a temporary bed for a night in a hotel, it gives them autonomy and agency to fully participate in the wider student experience.

    They can participate in the things that make university enriching without being at a disadvantage.

    The narrative around commuter students has shifted significantly since the Robbins and Augar report with commuters being included in more Access and Participation Plans in England. However, cost of living pressures are pushing even more students to consider commuting and more still needs to be done.

    Making spaces on campus for commuter students is one way of enabling them to have a more enriching and wide-reaching student experience.

    Institutions could find spare spaces to give to commuter societies, advertise them as commuter lounges or utilise spare rooms to offer short stays for commuter students. Above all, listening to what commuter students want is the best way of including and further supporting this group.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Education Department to cut nearly 1,300 employees as Trump vows to eliminate agency (PBS News Hour)

    Education Department to cut nearly 1,300 employees as Trump vows to eliminate agency (PBS News Hour)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Education Department to cut nearly 1,300 employees as Trump vows to eliminate agency (PBS News Hour)




    Source link

  • Lawyer for Columbia University student detained by ICE for pro-Palestine protests speaks out (ABC News)

    Lawyer for Columbia University student detained by ICE for pro-Palestine protests speaks out (ABC News)

    ABC News’ Linsey Davis speaks with Baher Azmy, the lawyer for Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite having a green card. Khalil is currently detained in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility in Jena, Louisiana.  A judge has temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation. President Trump says that this action is just the beginning of such actions by the government.  

    A petition to release Mahmoud Khalil from DHS detention is here. 

    Source link

  • Marine, geoscience, engineering students get hands-on experience aboard CSIRO ship

    Marine, geoscience, engineering students get hands-on experience aboard CSIRO ship

    CSIRO staff Dr Ben Arthur, Ian McRobert and
    Matt Kimber in front of the RV Investigator. Picture: Richard Jupe



    By: NCA Newswire

    in On Campus, Top Stories


    March 12, 2025

    Students from 16 Australian universities set sail from Hobart on Saturday for a unique scientific adventure aimed at developing the country’s next generation of marine experts.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Campus encampments and protests are a sign of failed university governance: A Canadian perspective

    Campus encampments and protests are a sign of failed university governance: A Canadian perspective

    An Australian National University pro-Palestine encampment in May last year. Picture: Martin Ollman



    By: Justin Patrick

    in Industry & Research, Top Stories


    March 12, 2025

    Last year, there were multiple protest encampments and other actions by groups of students on Canadian university campuses regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link