Blog

  • The Common App welcomes community colleges

    The Common App welcomes community colleges

    The Common App allows students to submit applications to more than 1,100 higher ed institutions. But until now, none of its members were community colleges focused on granting associate degrees.

    The organization announced a first-of-its-kind partnership with the Illinois Community College Board last week, adding Sauk Valley Community, Rend Lake, Carl Sandburg and Black Hawk Colleges to its ranks. Three more two-year institutions will join next admissions cycle: Lincoln Land Community, Oakton and Triton Colleges.

    When the Common App launched 50 years ago, it offered high school students a streamlined application path to 15 private institutions. Since then, hundreds of others have signed on, most of them fairly selective four-year colleges and universities. The new move raises a question: What do open-access institutions, which accept all students, stand to gain from joining the application platform?

    Brian Durham, executive director of the Illinois Community College Board, said most importantly, it boosts their visibility.

    Starting this year, the Common App is partnering with the Illinois Board of Higher Education to support its direct admissions program to eight public universities in the state. As a part of the partnership, eligible high school students who apply to any college through the Common App will be notified of their direct admissions offers from these universities. Durham wants those students to receive notice about their local community college choices, too.

    “We want to make sure that community colleges are seen as an option on that list”—even “potentially a first choice for students,” Durham said. “It’s ultimately about exposing them to that as an option.” He added that students who gain admission to universities sometimes realize later that “they can’t afford it, or it’s not right choice for them.” This way, if they come to that conclusion after filling out the Common App, they’ll know which community colleges are “right there” and ready to serve them.

    Research suggests the move could offer community colleges an enrollment bump. The National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper in 2019 that found that institutions that joined the Common App enjoyed on average a 12 percent increase in admissions compared to the years before they joined, according to an analysis of Common App data from 1990 to 2015.

    Durham hopes that eventually all 45 of the state’s public two-year colleges offer a Common App application route in addition to their in-house application systems.

    A Decade-Long Effort

    Jenny Rickard, president and CEO of the Common App, said that the organization has been working toward representing a broader swath of higher ed institutions for a decade.

    In 2014, the organization stopped requiring member colleges to use a “holistic admissions” process—assessing students beyond test scores—in order to open up the platform to more institutions. The Common App also got rid of its requirement that applications include essays and recommendations. Then, in 2018, the organization launched a new application for transfer students applying to four-year universities.

    All those moves “opened the door for us to be able to welcome two-year and four-year public institutions into the membership,” Rickard said. She noted that, as of the 2022–23 application cycle, 77 percent of current Common App members admitted over 50 percent of their fall first-year applicants, a sign that the organization has moved away from serving only more selective institutions.

    The Common App also set a “moonshot” goal in 2023 to substantially increase its applicants from low- and middle-income communities, Rickard said. The organization aims to bring in 650,000 additional applicants from those backgrounds by 2030.

    Rickard said teaming up with community colleges is the organization’s most recent step toward diversifying both its member institutions and its applicant pool.

    “Bringing a greater diversity of college and university members into the Common App helps us pursue that mission, and it also helps students from all different backgrounds be able to see the great diversity of institutions in the United States and the world,” she said. “Most students go to more open-access and less selective institutions,” yet too often “we focus on the places that nobody can get into.”

    Durham agreed that the move could expand the Common App’s “footprint,” given applicants to community colleges are disproportionately low-income and first-generation students.

    “More underserved students are naturally going to go to community college for all the reasons we know: affordability, location,” he said. So, working with community colleges offers the Common App a new “opportunity to reach those students.”

    Steps for the Future

    As much as Durham would like to see more community colleges join the Common App’s ranks, he believes the platform will need to change to serve community colleges at a larger scale.

    Currently the platform is designed for high school students, he said, but many community college applicants are adult learners or attend college part-time. Those types of students are more likely to enroll directly at a college rather than find themselves on the Common App platform like high school seniors applying to multiple institutions with guidance from college counselors.

    “How do you get a 34-year-old guy who wants to go into welding to go through that application?” Durham said. For now, he expects participating Illinois community colleges will maintain their own “parallel” application systems “until we can work that out down the road.”

    Rickard acknowledged the organization has work to do to optimize its platform for a more diverse set of institutions. She hopes that onboarding this initial cohort of community colleges will help the Common App figure out its blind spots.

    “We know that we need to learn more about how our platform can continue to evolve to meet their needs more effectively,” she said.

    Source link

  • When the chair-president “marriage” goes sour (opinion)

    When the chair-president “marriage” goes sour (opinion)

    In a conversation recently with someone whose presidency and mine overlapped (1992–2003), we talked about how even though we worked 24-7 and lost a fair amount of sleep, we mainly loved what we did and even had lots of fun doing it. That is not what I am hearing today from presidents I know, nearly all of whom use language like “I’m worn out” and “I can’t wait to retire.” It is therefore not surprising that the average presidential tenure, according to a recent American Council on Education survey, has decreased significantly in recent years (from 8.5 years to 5.9).

    As I have often learned during my 18 years as a higher ed consultant, short presidential tenures take a toll on their institutions. Even in the best of circumstances, presidential transitions are time-consuming. Searches frequently take nine or more months, during which time planning and even implementation of previously approved plans often get put on hold. Departing presidents are frequently viewed as lame ducks, while interim presidents are often seen as placeholders, whose presence similarly delays institutional progress.

    Then, too, during the first year of a new presidency, campus communities generally are trying to decide if the new president is trustworthy and capable. If the previous president left under negative circumstances, people on campus are likely to be especially skittish about new leadership. Moreover, many new presidents are so focused on learning about the institution and its people that they defer important decisions until their second year.

    That used to make things difficult; now in these fraught times for higher education, it can be catastrophic.

    Successful presidents simultaneously serve a variety of different groups (students, faculty, staff, alumni, the community, donors and the board), many of whom have conflicting interests and concerns. As I tell presidents I coach, their board has the responsibility to hire and fire them, so their board is inevitably their most important constituency.

    Given the array and complexity of presidential responsibilities, many of which require confidentiality, it’s not surprising that a campus community doesn’t know all the ins and outs of how their presidents spend their time and the issues with which they deal. Indeed, on most campuses and even for some board members, the issues presidents must contend with are a black box.

    In this context, the president’s connection to the board is typically opaque to the broader campus community. Indeed, as is also true for most marriages, it’s almost impossible for those not in the relationship to know what really happens inside it. And of course, if a board loses confidence in the president, the result is a divorce in which the president is the one who leaves. (Two personal confessions come to mind in this regard: First, as a former Faulkner scholar, I am mindful of the importance of narrative, am alert to unreliable narrators and am always aware that history, culture and memory affect perception. And second, despite the fact that I have never taken a course in clinical psychology, I sometimes believe that clients with unhealthy board-president relationships may need a marriage counselor in addition to a higher ed consultant.)

    In any case, when the president-chair relationship is troubled, it is almost always presidents who find themselves on shaky ground. And although I am happy to say that the majority of president-chair relationships that I have observed are positive, I have been recently observed what seems to be an uptick in the souring of such relationships.

    Specifically, a dozen presidents—at least half of whom were in a second contract—have described their relationship with their chair as deeply problematic. In a number of these instances, I should stress, the chair who was in place when the president was hired has rotated out of that position and the new chair is for various reasons less invested in the president’s success. (Note: In the interest of confidentiality, none of my examples derive from clients with whom I have begun to work in the last year. In fact, a number of these examples come from institutions with which I’ve not had a consulting relationship but where I know well the president and/or the chair.)

    The most common complaint I hear is from presidents who characterize their chair as a micromanager who is inappropriately engaged in operational decisions—despite the fact that in every institution I know, board bylaws call for the trustees to delegate operational responsibility to the president. As a result, these boards often spend their time in the proverbial weeds rather than focusing on their primary fiduciary responsibility and their responsibilities for strategy and policies.

    I also have heard about chairs who have—without presidential knowledge much less involvement—talked directly with faculty and staff (and sometimes even students), ignoring the best practice that all trustees, including the chair, who wish to interact with those on campus should work with and through the president or, if the president so specifies, the board secretary. (The exception to this is trustee committee chairs who have direct conversations about the work of their committee with their administrative liaison, typically a vice president. At the same time, in healthy institutions presidents are fully informed about and often participate in such conversations.)

    Some examples:

    • A chair at a research university crossed the boundary from governance into management by inappropriately meeting with individual faculty members without the president’s knowledge in his quest to gain support for his personal belief that the provost should be let go, even though he knew the president wished to retain the provost.
    • The board chair at a liberal arts college met with individual faculty members without the president’s knowledge to dissuade them from addressing diversity or gender in their classes.
    • The board chair at a small comprehensive college met with members of the campus community off-site to seek reasons to let the president go.

    The first two presidents subsequently left the institution they were leading, dismayed that their chair was ignoring the fact that as president, they were the board’s only employee and that all other employees essentially work for the president. The third president ended up being fired, based on the chair’s conversations.

    Why has this happened? My suspicion is that it is related to the coarsening of discourse generally and the growing partisanship in this country and beyond. Until roughly the last decade, I was struck by how much those of us in the academy—faculty, staff, administrators and trustees—truly placed a high value on civil discourse, with colleges and universities typically priding themselves on being places where people could disagree passionately but with mutual respect, or at least the appearance of that respect. But in recent years, this is no longer the case. Instead, as we are seeing, families and friends are torn apart by differing points of views. Congress, which was once a place where people argued fervently with those with whom they disagreed but then spent congenial social time together, is now similarly torn apart. And although colleges and universities ideally should not be the playground for partisan politics, that is no longer the case.

    I believe that in this context, particularly at a time when so many colleges and universities are vulnerable (think for example about the enrollment cliff), the president-chair relationship is even more critical than ever. Presidents and boards, especially their chairs, are entrusted in different ways with the health and integrity—financial and academic—of the institutions they serve. Successful presidents and chairs both have a clear understanding of and respect for their differing roles and responsibilities. In the most successful of these relationships, chairs see themselves as the president’s strategic partner and presidents see the board as a strategic advantage to the institution.

    But in those instances where the relationship is strained, entire communities of faculty, staff, students, alumni, donors and others are often negatively affected even if few if any of them are aware of this problematic leadership dynamic. Indeed, members of the campus community in these cases are like families and friends of those in a fragile marriage—they don’t know what’s really going on, but they know enough to be unsettled.

    So what do we do about all of this? Although I know enough now to know that we aren’t likely to change the larger culture, I do recommend that college and university boards set aside time—certainly in new trustee orientation and at least once a year for the entire board in an executive session—to address the question of how trustees interact with one another and with the campuses that they have committed to serve. I further recommend that boards commit to a regular process by which they are reviewed. For example, if a board has retained an outside consultant to do a 360-degree review of the president, I suggest that they ask that same consultant to make recommendations about the board’s functioning, particularly in terms of its behavior in relation to the president and the senior leadership team. But most of all, I hope that trustees, who at their best are focused on the health and integrity of the institution, will understand how important it is that they model respect for others and the civil discourse that is necessary not only for board service but for the health of our larger society.

    Susan Resneck Pierce is president of SRP Consulting, president emerita of the University of Puget Sound and author of On Being Presidential (2011) and Governance Reconsidered (2014), both published by Jossey-Bass and sponsored by Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Hiding in plain sight? A simple statistical effect may largely explain the ethnicity degree awarding gap

    Hiding in plain sight? A simple statistical effect may largely explain the ethnicity degree awarding gap

    • By Sean Brophy (@seanbrofee), Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Decent Work and Productivity, Manchester Metropolitan University.

    A persistent challenge in UK higher education is the ethnicity degree awarding gap – the difference between White and ethnic minority students receiving top degrees (firsts or 2:1s). The Office for Students (OfS) aims to entirely eliminate this gap by 2030/31, but what if most of this gap reflects success in widening participation rather than systemic barriers?

    Between 2005/6 and 2021/22, university participation grew 21% faster for Asian students and 17% faster for Black students compared to White students. This remarkable success in widening access might paradoxically explain one of the UK’s most persistent higher education challenges.

    Figure 1 presents ethnicity gaps over time compared to a White baseline (the grey line constant at zero). The data for 2021/22 shows significant gaps: 21 percentage points for Black students, 9 for Asian students, and 4 for Mixed ethnicity students compared to their White peers. Traditional explanations focus on structural barriers, cultural differences, and potential discrimination, and much of the awarding gap remains unexplained after adjusting for prior attainment and background characteristics. However, a simpler explanation might be hiding in plain sight: the gap may also reflect a statistical effect created by varying participation rates across ethnic groups.

    Ethnicity Degree Awarding Gap (2014/15 – 2021/22)

    Figure 1. Source: HESA

    Here is the key insight: ethnic minority groups now participate in higher education at remarkably higher rates than White students, which likely then drives some of the observed ethnicity awarding gaps. Figure 2 presents the over-representation of ethnic groups in UK higher education relative to the White reference group (again, the constant grey line). The participation gap has grown substantially – Asian students were 22 percentage points more likely to attend university than White students in 2021/22, with Black students 18 points higher.

    Over-representation of ethnic groups in HE compared to White baseline (2005/6-2021/22)

    Figure 2. Source: UCAS End Of Cycle Report 2022

    This difference in participation rates creates an important statistical effect, what economists call ‘compositional effects’. When a much larger proportion of any group enters university, that group may naturally include a broader range of academic ability. Think of it like this: if mainly the top third of White students attend university, but nearly half of ethnic minority students do, we would expect to see differences in degree outcomes – even with completely fair teaching and assessment.

    This principle can be illustrated using stylized ability-participation curves for representative ethnic groups in Figure 3. These curves show the theoretical distribution of academic ability for Asian, Black, and White groups, with the red shaded area representing the proportion of students from each group accepted into higher education in 2021/22. It would be surprising if there was no degree awarding gap under these conditions!

    Stylized ability-participation curves by ethnic group

    This hypothesis suggests the degree awarding gap might largely reflect the success of widening participation policies. Compositional effects like these are difficult to control for in studies, and it is noteworthy that, to date, no studies on the ethnicity awarding gap have adequately controlled for these effects (including one of my recent studies).

    While this theory may offer a compelling statistical explanation, future research pursuing this line of inquiry needs to go beyond simply controlling for prior achievement. We need to examine both how individual attainment evolves from early education to university, using richer measures than previous studies, and how the expansion of university participation has changed the composition of student ability over time. This analysis must also account for differences within broad ethnic categories (British Indian students, for example, show different patterns from other Asian groups) and consider how university and subject choices vary across groups.

    My argument is not that compositional effects explain everything — rather, understanding their magnitude is crucial for correctly attributing how much of the gap is driven by traditional explanations, such as prior attainment, background characteristics, structural barriers, or discrimination. Only with this fuller picture can we properly target resources and interventions where they’re most needed.

    If this hypothesis is proven correct, however, it underscores why the current policy focus on entirely eliminating gaps through teaching quality or support services, while well-intentioned, may be misguided. If gaps are the statistically inevitable result of differing participation patterns among ethnic groups, then institutional interventions cannot entirely eliminate them. This doesn’t mean universities shouldn’t strive to support all students effectively – but it does require us to fundamentally rethink how we measure and address educational disparities.

    Rather than treating all gaps as problems to be eliminated, we should:

    1. Fund research which better accounts for these compositional effects.
    2. Develop benchmarks that account for participation rates when measuring degree outcomes.
    3. Contextualize the success of widening participation with acknowledging awarding gaps as an inevitable statistical consequence.
    4. Focus resources on early academic support for students from all backgrounds who might need additional help, particularly in early childhood.
    5. Explore barriers in other post-16 or post-18 pathways that may be contributing to the over-representation of some groups in higher education.

    Source link

  • Trump appoints Biden critic Nicholas Kent as undersecretary

    Trump appoints Biden critic Nicholas Kent as undersecretary

    The announcement was leaked Tuesday evening.

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    A vocal critic of the Biden administration will oversee the nation’s colleges and universities, according to a document obtained by Inside Higher Ed. 

    The president appears set to pick Nicholas Kent, Virginia’s former deputy secretary of education, to be under secretary at the federal education department—one of several appointees included on the document. Also on the list is Kimberly Richey, senior chancellor of the Florida Department of Education, who will be appointed assistant secretary for civil rights. (The White House has yet to make an official announcement, but sources say the list of appointees should be transmitted to the Senate soon.)

    Kent, who previously worked for a trade association representing for-profit colleges, will have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Currently, James Bergeron is serving as acting under secretary. During his first term, Trump didn’t appoint an under secretary, so the pick is the latest signal that his team is more prepared and more focused on higher education this time around. 

    “Nicholas Kent is one of the most knowledgeable higher education experts, possessing extensive technical expertise and a profound understanding of the complexities of education policy,” Jason Altmire, president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, said in a statement Tuesday night. “He is eminently qualified for the role of Under Secretary and will work on behalf of schools and students across all sectors of higher education.”

    The batch of appointees comes a day before Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, Linda McMahon, will appear before a senate committee for her confirmation hearing.

    Kent has worked in Virginia since August 2023, overseeing the state’s postsecondary strategy. Before that, he was the chief policy officer at CECU, which represents for-profit colleges. In his role at CECU, Kent pushed back against several of the Biden administration’s policies. Now, he’ll likely be an influential voice on higher education in the Trump administration. 

    Trump’s first three weeks in office have rocked higher education as he’s moved quickly to target diversity, equity and inclusion programs at colleges and elsewhere in the private sector and the promotion of “gender ideology.” His administration temporarily paused grant reviews at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. That pause and other moves in the last three weeks have created much uncertainty for colleges. 

    Kent will be a key figure in carrying out Trump’s orders and translating the president’s vision into policy. He’ll also bring more policy experience to the leadership team at the Education Department. Trumps’ president-elect’s nominee for education secretary, Linda McMahon has limited experience in the world of education policy, but is seen as a loyal Trump lieutenant and business mogul.

    In Virginia, Kent has worked under Gov. Glenn Youngkin, whom some have described as a Trump surrogate. Younkgin has made it a clear priority to increase the government’s influence and oversight of higher education institutions, disallow diversity, equity and inclusion programs and combat antisemitism and “anti-religious bigotry.” 

    Before that, Kent worked for for-profit colleges, advocating for cutting the red tape found in several key policies of the Biden administration.

    “The Higher Education Act specifically limits the authority of the department to pierce the corporate veil and hold individuals financially responsible,” Kent told Inside Higher Ed in April 2023. “[The Biden] administration proposes to exceed this authority through new regulations and subjective guidance.” 

    The deputy also holds a master’s degree in higher ed administration from George Washington University and has worked as both director of policy at the D.C. state superintendent of education’s office and a staff member at Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools. He is quite familiar with the Education Department’s complex rulemaking process and policy issues that frequently cross the desks of department officials, including Title IX, student loan repayment, accreditation and online education.

    Kent has also indirectly voiced support for Trump’s idea of abolishing the education department, or at least significantly whittling down the scope of its influence.

    “Congress established @usedgov 43 years ago today,” he wrote in a post on X. “I can’t help but wonder if lawmakers who voted for the Department of Education Organization Act envisioned a massive Federal takeover of K-12 and postsecondary education.”

    Richey, the appointee set to lead the Office for Civil Rights, also spent time in Virginia, serving as deputy superintendent overseeing the division of School Quality, Instruction and Performance at the Virginia Department of Education before she left for Florida. Prior to that, she worked in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s first term. 

    Richey has spoken out against critical race theory, the Tallahassee Democrat reported. 

    “The teaching of CRT’s core tenets can be destructive and have a deep impact on students,” she wrote in 2021. “No child is defined by the color of their skin. Moreover, the teaching of these devastating principles violates the basic religious tenets many of these schools claim to uphold.”

    If confirmed by the Senate, Richey will play a key role in the Trump administration’s crackdown on transgender athletes. In the last few weeks, Trump has banned transgender athletes from women’s sports, and the Office for Civil Rights has opened up several investigations related to that policy change. 

    Richey supported the administration’s position during the first term, arguing in September 2020 that transgender girls who play on the sports team that corresponds with their gender identity discriminated against female-student athletes.

    Source link

  • Earning Our AI Literacy License – Faculty Focus

    Earning Our AI Literacy License – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The potential of educational podcasts for commuter students

    The potential of educational podcasts for commuter students

    Engaging students in learning outside the classroom can often be a challenge, but podcasts might be a simple yet versatile tool we’re overlooking.

    As the number of commuting students rises across institutions, we recognise that students are time poor. There is, however, the potential of using travel time as an opportunity for students to work but also relax and many students use their commute time as an opportunity to prepare for teaching. Podcasting is one of the ways we can design our pedagogy to fit the busy lives of commuter students.

    Think about how you listen to podcasts, most likely while you’re doing other things like driving, cooking or walking. There’s a versatility to it.

    How many of the learning resources we offer allow students to learn on-the-go?

    Education on-the-go

    Most podcast listeners will tell you the convenience of audio-centric and on-the-go content is key to their success. BBC data suggests that about three in four podcast listeners do so while doing something else, so even podcasts that have a video option available need to be planned and created with an audio-only format in mind.

    Offering that versatility also comes at a cost. It’s important to recognise the fact that students might be on a busy bus, or looking for the timetable for their next train connection. We probably won’t have a student’s full attention, and that means that we need to carefully consider the kind of educational content that’s going to work in this format.

    Successful podcasts tend to be focused on experiential storytelling. They are usually fluid and conversational, so don’t be afraid to lean into that. Storytelling gives us emotional responses, helping students connect abstract ideas to real-world implications. A podcast will be much more successful if you give depth and meaning to something a student has already learned, rather than delivering the learning itself.

    Let’s take data analysis as an example. Instead of focusing on the technical process of analysing data, you could discuss stories of the impact of data bias or ethical dilemmas in data usage. Give your students food for thought rather than core learning, use it to turn the numbers into narrative and give a deeper meaning to your classroom content.

    It can also be a good idea to supplement your podcast with a short interactive activity, either online or at the start of your next learning session. Ask students to reflect on the podcast and their key takeaways from it. It can be a great starting point to encourage deeper learning.

    A how to guide

    Another core aspect of successful podcasts is authenticity. You don’t want your podcast to sound like a job interview. Natural conversations foster a sense of authenticity, which is key to keeping listeners engaged. A key part of this comes from the way you prepare for a podcast. Discussion points as opposed to questions allows both you and your guest to think more holistically about the topic and can make a huge difference when it comes to making the conversation flow authentically.

    We’ve found it’s best to give more flexibility and aim for shorter episodes. Splitting a conversation up into bitesize chunks gives students the option to listen to all episodes in one go, or a bit at a time. Starting with a few episodes, around 12-20 minutes each, will offer your students a lot more flexibility than a single 1-hour long podcast.

    Thankfully the technical and logistical aspects of recording podcasts have developed rapidly over the last few years and it’s very easy to get started. Advancements like text-to-speech editing and speech enhancement let you record fully online and get incredible results without any technical knowledge or high-end equipment. A lot of podcasting software now produces automatic text transcription supporting accessibility and allowing students to engage with the content in multiple formats.

    And by framing these resources as useful for students to “listen to on-the-go,” gives students permission to use and access resources in ways which work for them during their busy lives. It recognises commuter students and acknowledges busy student lives and gives them a new innovative way to engage with their studies.

    Getting started

    If you’re interested in giving it a go, here are some ideas to get you started.

    A conversation about a specific assessment: contact a student who did well on an assessment last year and ask if they would be happy to share their experiences. Students can get ideas and inspiration from how they have approached it, what worked well and what they would do differently.

    Interviews with industry experts is another way to frame a podcast. Working professionals don’t always have the time to travel to campus and prepare a lecture for your students. That might be different if they just had to join an online call for a natural conversation. Recording it as a podcast also gives you a reusable resource for future cohorts.

    Student Q&As where students can submit their own questions about a topic or assessment and discuss them in a podcast. This could be an idea to explore on your own, with another lecturer, or with professionals in the industry.

    It’s clear that using podcasts as a form of education comes with a lot of challenges, but it also offers a vast world of opportunities and flexibility for students. Where students face further challenges to engage and attend classes, it is worth considering how educational podcasts may be a mechanism so that resources work around busy and complex student lives. For commuting students, a great deal of time is spent on public transport and in maximising their time, providing resources that are engaging, useful and timely is a step in the right direction. And in designing resources specifically with commuter students in mind it recognises their experiences and allows them to engage authentically.

    And to make podcasts work for commuter students in an educational context we need to be realistic about the challenges students face and create content that works in a podcast format rather than shoehorning existing content into a new format. If we nail that, then podcasts could become a very useful tool for delivering educational content that fits around students and heightens engagement.

    Source link

  • There is declining trust in Australian unis. Federal government policy is a big part of the problem

    There is declining trust in Australian unis. Federal government policy is a big part of the problem




    By: Graeme Turner

    in Analysis, Policy & Reform, Politics, Top Stories


    February 12, 2025

    As we head towards the federal election, both sides of politics are making a point of criticising universities and questioning their role in the community.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • UNSW purchases six state-of-the-art aircraft for School of Aviation amid national pilot shortage

    UNSW purchases six state-of-the-art aircraft for School of Aviation amid national pilot shortage

    Flight instructor Arjun Jogia with one of his young trainees Ariane Fouracre. Picture: Richard Dobson



    By: NCA Newswire

    in On Campus, Top Stories


    February 12, 2025

    As Australia stares down the barrel of a looming pilot shortage, more than 100 NSW university students are taking to the skies in brand new state-of-the-art training aircraft.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Treasurer tells big banks to ease HECS home loan rules

    Treasurer tells big banks to ease HECS home loan rules

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he spoke to the banks on Tuesday night. Picture: Martin Ollman



    By: NCA Newswire

    in News, Top Stories


    February 12, 2025

    Big banks have agreed to review the impact of university debts for degrees on home loan approvals following an intervention by Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Curtain call on traditional time-intensive drama training

    Curtain call on traditional time-intensive drama training

    Recent closures of renowned actor training courses, including the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School’s undergraduate provision and the abrupt collapse of the Academy of Live and Recorded Arts, have laid bare a crisis in drama training. This isn’t only about funding shortfalls; it’s about the very structures and traditions of training, which risk shutting out those able to succeed.

    The financial strain on institutions is undeniable. The historical freeze in undergraduate tuition fees and the high-intensity delivery required in drama and other forms of intensive arts training like dance and music education have made traditional models almost unsustainable. Specialist institutions, unable to cross-subsidise, have stretched themselves to the limit – expanding course offerings, increasing intakes, internationalisation and growing postgraduate provision, where costs can be better covered. Meanwhile, government support through welcome specialist funding streams such as Institution Specific Funding have proven insufficient to address the root challenges.

    These efforts, while necessary, have unintended consequences. Over-speedy expansion creates great challenges for the quality of the learning experience, while institutional survival strategies rarely address the deeper, systemic issues at play. The question is not just how to survive in this increasingly precarious environment, but how to rethink the system entirely.

    The hidden barrier of time poverty

    The financial barriers to entering drama training are well-documented, but there is a more insidious form of exclusion that demands urgent attention: time-poverty.

    As highlighted in a recent Unipol and HEPI report, the average cost of student rent in London now exceeds the maximum maintenance loan, leaving students struggling to make ends meet. This financial reality forces many to take on part-time work, but the intensive nature of traditional actor training – 30-40 hours a week, often with irregular schedules – leaves little room for paid employment. The result? Only those who can afford not to work can afford to train.

    Traditional training models require high levels of physical presence and stamina. While these methods have been celebrated for their rigour, they exclude those with caring responsibilities, disabilities requiring time flexibility, or the need to support themselves financially. This isn’t just a financial issue – it’s a fundamental inequity in how time is valued in training.

    Addressing time-poverty isn’t about making marginal adjustments; it requires a paradigm shift. Drama schools must reimagine training models to prioritise accessibility and sustainability without compromising quality. Flexible delivery methods, guaranteed non-contact periods for work or rest, and rethinking the necessity of long, traditional schedules are all potential starting points. If we are to be equitable in the way almost all drama schools claim as a value, we must redesign what “intensity” in training means for excellent students who do not arrive with the economic means required. The current system is exclusionary.

    Some institutions are already leading the way. Identity School and Access All Areas have successfully adapted their training processes to accommodate a broader range of students. The Collective Acting Studio excels at balancing time pressures with rigorous training, redefining how intensity can be delivered. These organisations boast impressive alumni who are actively working successfully in the industry. Notably, Sally Ann Gritton, Principal of Mountview, emphasises in her book, The Independent Actor, that long, gruelling days are neither effective nor beneficial for students. These examples prove that change isn’t just possible – it’s essential if we want the arts to become more inclusive.

    Why it matters

    The stakes couldn’t be higher. The creative industries contribute over £100 billion to the UK economy annually, with drama training forming the backbone of the talent pipeline. Rose Bruford College alumna like Jessica Gunning, who recently won Emmy and Golden Globe awards, or Sara Huxley, whose work on Mr. Bates vs. the Post Office catalysed governmental action, exemplify the global impact of British arts education.

    However, the arts are more than an economic driver – they shape how we see ourselves, societal narratives, build empathy, and are key in defining our cultural identity. If access to training is restricted to the privileged, the stories we tell become narrower and less representative. Equity in the arts is not just an educational issue; it is a societal imperative.

    Nearly a decade ago, calls for greater class diversity in the arts sparked important conversations. In 2016, a report from the London School of Economics revealed that only 27 per cent of actors came from working-class backgrounds. While this discussion was absorbed into the broader issue of societal inequality, solutions remained vague and largely limited to the idea of increased funding. Today, with budgets tighter than ever, this approach feels increasingly out of reach.

    In recent years, established actors, including household names like Julie Walters and Christopher Eccleston have voiced concerns that they would no longer be able to afford the cost of training. Their warnings highlight a system where financial barriers stifle talent, despite the well-meaning calls for bursaries and other competitive financial support. The result? A cycle where potential is lost, and the arts grow less accessible.

    We need bold leadership across the sector. Institutions must collaborate to share best practice, experiment with alternative training models, and advocate for systemic support. There are innovative models, and we must deal with the friction preventing them from spreading. Policymakers and trainers must recognise that funding is only one part of the equation; addressing time-poverty is critical to ensuring a truly inclusive arts education.

    The arts are at their best when they reflect the richness of society. It’s time to move beyond tradition and reimagine drama training for a new generation—one where potential, not privilege, determines success.

    Anyone interested in being part of this conversation is welcome to contact the authors directly.

    Source link