Blog

  • Can knowledge exchange fix a broken economy?

    Can knowledge exchange fix a broken economy?

    There’s always a challenge in trying to describe knowledge exchange, how it’s funded, why it’s worth worrying about, and what it actually does to the economy.

    Mechanisms

    The default is to talk about its underpinning mechanisms. The way that money goes to universities, their partners and then circulates into the real economy, and then hopefully something good happens. The problem with this approach is that outside of experts and hardy enthusiasts like me this approach is, well, rather dull.

    And knowledge exchange is a less than glamorous name for some of the most important work universities do. ESRC, one of UKRI’s funding councils, has a rather elegant way of describing it:

    The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is committed to encouraging collaboration between researchers and businesses, policymakers, the public and third sector organisations (for example charities and voluntary groups). This can create mutual benefits and contribute to positive economic and social impacts outside academia, for example through changes to policy and practice or new products and services created by commercialising research. Two-way interactions of this type are often collectively referred to as knowledge exchange. This is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of activities researchers might engage in, including policy engagement, public engagement, commercialisation and business engagement.

    A less elegant way is to say that universities working together with other organisations can make the economy and society stronger. It is not a dry technocratic thing but the very way in which the wonderful things that are produced in universities become useful. Great ideas without an audience are interesting but fruitless. An expectant audience with no great ideas are bound for disappointment.

    This means that there must be both the conditions for useful ideas to be produced and the conditions for organisations to make use of them. Research England, another funding body of UKRI, funds knowledge exchange through the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the Connecting Capability Fund (CCF). While HEIF is a more general knowledge exchange fund the CCF is focussed on the commercialisation of research with business. These funds are small compared to the overall research funding pots. HEIF is a formula based fund of £260m compared to an overall UKRI budget of over £8bn.

    The key question isn’t whether knowledge exchange is a good thing. It self evidently is. But whether the intervention by funders is producing bigger impacts than would naturally happen through universities working with businesses, policy makers, and other groups. After all, universities would still benefit from equity in spin-outs and bask in the warm glow of civic participation even if they weren’t supported to do so.

    Reports

    UKRI has brought out three new reports that look at knowledge exchange funding.

    The first report is an evaluation of HEIF carried out by Tomas Coates Ulrichsen. The part which UKRI will be most proud of, and should definitely cause them to consider whether their funding is enough, is that every £1 invested in HEIF produces £14.8 return on investment if you crowd in actual and estimated external impacts. Perhaps even more impressively the report also suggests that “38% of knowledge exchange outputs and incomes would not have happened in the absence of HEIF.” This isn’t activity that is being paid for twice but activity that is actually being created.

    However, while this makes the case persuasively for the value of HEIF it’s the summary which gives us a bigger clue into what is going on in the economy. The report notes

    The past two decades has seen KE income secured by English HEPs grow significantly in real terms, with KE income 81% higher in 2022/23 than in 2003/04 for HEPs in receipt of HEIF during the period 2017/18 – 2022/23 (the vast majority of HEPs in England). However, what is clear is that this twenty-year period is characterised by two very different decades. While KE income grew strongly – and faster than the economy as a whole – during the first decade, the past ten years has seen this growth largely stagnate. The limited growth in KE income may well reflect the multiple crises and shocks the UK has faced since then, not least with the Covid-19 pandemic, cost of living crisis, and departure from the European Union and the effects of this on R&D with research grants and contracts income to HEPs from European sources declining almost 30% in real terms since the EU referendum in 2016. KE income now appears to track trends in the economy more widely (as measured by the UK’s GDP).

    To read the inverse of this is that the wider economy is a constraining factor on the ability of universities to deploy their research for social and economic benefit.

    There is perhaps a tacit assumption that if universities produce great and useful research it will lead to great and useful things in the economy and society. This is only true as long as the economy has the absorptive capacity to keep the cycle of knowledge exchange investment which leads to knowledge exchange outputs which supports knowledge exchange income churning.

    Help/HEIF

    The evaluation of HEIF carried out by PA Consulting is particularly illuminating within this frame. The key findings are that in a changing policy environment HEIF has anchored the sector to make some significant social and economic impacts. It is the flexibility of the fund which has allowed specialisms to develop, the autonomy of the fund has found favourability in the sector, its stability has allowed for long-term partnerships, and a more permissive approach to accountability has allowed providers to demonstrate their value without drowning under administration.

    The report is full of examples of how HEIF funding has catalysed wider social and economic activity but the examples have two things in common. The first is that allowing flexibility in the fund means it can be deployed in multiple partners in multiple ways. This means that even where there are wider economic challenges the funding can be tailored to suit the challenges of local economies. The second is that the long-term nature of the fund allows for greater stability within partnerships to withstand adverse economic headwinds.

    Together, the two reports point toward HEIF as being successful as it demonstrably supports economic growth but does so through flexibility and provider autonomy linked, to a lesser or greater extent, to national priorities. It’s only a small fund but it is impactful.

    Same old SMEs

    The final report on CCF by Wellspring again demonstrates a positive return on investment. The programme has led to 200 new spin-outs and supported over 1,500 SMEs. The programme has led to the launch of at least 338 products and services and it is expected more will be launched over time, particularly in high-tech spin-outs.

    The obvious albeit incorrect conclusion to draw would be that if each of these interventions induce such strong economic benefits then making the intervention larger would make the economy stronger. In fact, if the economic returns are so strong then the projects could presumably be 10, 100, or 1,000 times bigger, and continue to provide economic return.

    Instead, what these reports highlight is that knowledge exchange funding is a product of the wider economy. There is a natural limit to how much activity can take place as there comes a point where the economy is not large enough or dynamic enough to absorb the benefits of universities’ work. In fact, these reports indirectly demonstrate how economies get stuck into a death spiral. Productivity stalls which prevents the absorption of innovative products and services. Without innovative products and services the economy cannot become more productive. And so on.

    The benefits these schemes are realising would suggest they are not close to meeting the capacity of the economy and could therefore be much larger. It is also a matter of purpose. The funds are designed on a premise that there is capacity to make use of university work. It is a much harder question to imagine how funding should be designed where it is necessary to restart a broken economy.

    The impact of these funds is striking, the reports written about them are convincing, however they open a door to a wider question of whether knowledge exchange funding is big enough, well directed enough, or tooled properly, to fix the UK’s entrenched economic issues including its collapsed productivity.

    Source link

  • Supporting the careers of researchers means innovation, not isolation

    Supporting the careers of researchers means innovation, not isolation

    The phrase attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, “if I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants,” is often used as a metaphor for research and innovation: how each great thinker builds on the thoughts and research of others, the unending column of prize winners and esteemed fellows pursuing academic endeavour.

    However, the environment I sought as a researcher and aim to enable as a university leader is more of a supportive collective, certainly one with a much less precarious base.

    Perhaps the most important lessons learnt during my own research career was that the giants of research, innovation and knowledge exchange whose shoulders we are more often standing on are not the senior staff but rather the PhD students, early career researchers, postdoctoral fellows and technicians, who turn challenging questions posed into the most exciting innovative answers. And often without the bias of doing things the way we have in the past.

    Untangling

    Achieving the UK’s priority of innovation and the growth it drives requires a long-range vision to set direction matched with agility to rapidly pivot as new opportunities arise. This agility needs a skilled research workforce and the attraction of the brightest minds into roles at all stages of a research and innovation career.

    However, these giants, whose shoulders we balance UK innovation on, need long-term confidence to initiate a career which currently has precarity baked in. Growing investment to support research and innovation is needed, but investment in equipment, facilities and consumables will not succeed without engaged and enabling expertise.

    Alongside this, regional disparity of funding, low research cost recovery, and increasing regulatory demands are posing the question of how much research can any university afford to undertake. The simple answer may appear to be to do less, or divert funding to specialist institutes without dual responsibility for teaching – however, this would undermine the agility that is underpinned by broad expertise, civic and industrial partnerships and infrastructure which resides across our higher education institutions.

    Fixing this knotty problem needs a systematic approach, balancing external and internal funding alongside improved recovery of the true cost of research. With restrictions in the sector and reduced internal funding impacting decisions, it is imperative to not forget the essential role of the precarious base on which our research activity in the UK is built – and to support it accordingly.

    Concordat priorities

    My commitment to career development and recognition of researchers is why I am excited to be continuing the great work led by Julia Buckingham as the incoming chair of the Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group, which oversees the Researcher Development Concordat.

    The concordat was first published in 2019, building on agreements of funding bodies and universities over a decade earlier. The current signatories are over 100 higher education and research institutes, who commit to the principles of environment and culture, employment, and career development for researchers in our institutions and 17 funding agencies who set grant holder requirements relating to the concordat commitments.

    The concordat has recently undergone a review which identified future areas of focus to achieve continued effectiveness. Three priorities were identified:

    First, agreeing a set of shared principles to define the characteristics of a positive environment for research culture, and second, working to a shared set of research culture values with measurable indicators of progress. We seek to align a set of shared broad principles to define the characteristics of a positive environment for research culture. While these must link to the REF people, culture and environment measures, they need to be high-level shared principles and ensure that they define measurable indicators of progress to avoid confusion across multiple agendas. These also need to be high enough level to ensure a collective agreement to deliver whilst also accommodating the diversity and breadth of higher education institutions and research organisations.

    The third priority is simplifying the bureaucracy. This is essential in a sector with ever-growing demands of attention and associated costs to deliver. While we must maintain accountability, we need to simplify the bureaucracy to work in service of our principles and values, not dictate them. In short, we must simplify for our communities how the different national concordats can complement rather than compete for attention. To achieve this, we are reviewing and reforming reporting requirements to achieve better alignment and to incorporate them into existing reporting where possible. We are working with other bodies to align data and reporting requirements.

    I am also keen to work with industry body representatives to understand and reduce barriers to the movement of careers from academia to industry and vice versa. This porosity of career is needed for both innovation and rapid business adoption of innovative ideas. For this porosity to support innovation and growth we also need to enhance engagement from the industry to support researchers throughout a changing career.

    While this work is delivered by the concordat strategy group, the concordat is collectively owned by the sector and continued engagement is needed to ensure the concordat is fit for purpose. Given this, we are looking for engagement in future work, more details about which can be found on the concordat webpage. I look forward to working with higher education institutions, industry, funders, the Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group, and individuals to deliver our collective commitments.

    The Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group secretariat is jointly funded through funding bodies from the four nations: Research England, the Scottish Funding Council, Medr (previously HEFCW), and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. I thank them for their continued support.

    Source link

  • DOGE temporarily blocked from accessing Education Department student aid data

    DOGE temporarily blocked from accessing Education Department student aid data

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

    UPDATE: Feb. 12, 2025: The U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday agreed to temporarily block staffers of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, from accessing student aid information and other data systems until at least Feb. 17. 

    On that date, a federal judge overseeing the case is expected to rule on a student group’s request for a temporary restraining order to block the agency from sharing sensitive data with DOGE. 

    Dive Brief: 

    •  A group representing University of California students filed a lawsuit Friday to block the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency from accessing federal financial aid data.  
    • The University of California Student Association cited reports that DOGE members gained access to federal student loan data, which includes information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, account information and driver’s license numbers. 
    • The complaint accuses the U.S. Department of Education of violating federal privacy laws and regulations by granting DOGE staffers access to the data. “The scale of intrusion into individuals’ privacy is enormous and unprecedented,” the lawsuit says. 

    Dive Insight: 

    President Donald Trump created DOGE through executive order on the first day of his second term, tasking the team, led by Tesla co-founder and Trump adviser Musk, with rooting out what the new administration deems as government waste. 

    DOGE has since accessed the data of several government agencies, sparking concerns that its staffers are violating privacy laws and overstepping the executive branch’s power. With the new lawsuit, the University of California Student Association joins the growing chorus of groups that say DOGE is flouting federal statutes. 

    One of those groups — 19 state attorneys general — scored a victory over the weekend. On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department’s payments and data system, which disburses Social Security benefits, tax returns and federal employee salaries. 

    The University of California Student Association has likewise asked the judge to temporarily block the Education Department from sharing sensitive data with DOGE staffers and to retrieve any information that has already been transferred to them. 

    The group argues that the Education Department is violating the Privacy Act of 1974, which says that government agencies may not disclose an individual’s data “to any person, or to another agency,” without their consent, except in limited circumstances. The Internal Revenue Code has similar protections for personal information. 

    “None of the targeted exceptions in these laws allows individuals associated with DOGE, or anyone else, to obtain or access students’ personal information, except for specific purposes — purposes not implicated here,” the lawsuit says. 

    The Washington Post reported on Feb. 3 that some DOGE team members had in fact gained access to “multiple sensitive internal systems,” including federal financial aid data, as part of larger plans to carry out Trump’s goal to eventually eliminate the Education Department. 

    “ED did not publicly announce this new policy — what is known is based on media reporting — or attempt to justify it,” Friday’s lawsuit says. “Rather, ED secretly decided to allow individuals with no role in the federal student aid program to root around millions of students’ sensitive records.”

    In response to the Post’s Feb. 3 reporting, Musk on the same day posted on X that Trump “will succeed” in dismantling the agency. 

    Later that week, the Post reported that DOGE staffers were feeding sensitive Education Departmentdata into artificial intelligence software to analyze the agency’s spending. 

    The moves have also attracted lawmakers’ attention. Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top-ranking Democrat on the House’s education committee, asked the Government Accountability Office on Friday to probe the security of information technology systems at the Education Department’s and several other agencies. 

    An Education Department spokesperson said Monday that the agency does not comment on pending litigation. 

    Source link

  • Walden University President Michael Betz Cashing In

    Walden University President Michael Betz Cashing In

    Walden University President Michael Betz has sold $380,000 worth of Adtalem shares. Walden is one of America’s largest robocolleges, proving online education to tens of thousands of folks in psychology, social work, nursing, education, business, and criminal justice each year.  

    Adtalem, formerly known as DeVry Education, is Walden’s parent company.  Adtalem also owns the Chamberlain College of Nursing and medical schools in the Carribean.  Walden and Adtalem have been profitable despite mediocre results for worker/consumers, a disproportionate number are women and people of color.  

    In 2024, Walden settled a case for $28M that claimed the school systematically deceived black and female students.   

    Source link

  • ‘Self-inflicted wound’: Widespread alarm as Trump administration slashes NIH funding

    ‘Self-inflicted wound’: Widespread alarm as Trump administration slashes NIH funding

    UPDATE: Feb. 11, 2025: A federal judge late Monday barred the National Institutes of Health from enforcing massive cuts to grant funding for researchers’ indirect costs, a move widely decried by universities and other research institutions. 

    U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued restraining orders in two separate cases filed earlier Monday against NIH, including one by 22 state attorneys general and another by the Association of American Medical Colleges and other groups. A third lawsuit — brought by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the American Council on Education and the Association of American Universities — was also filed late Monday. 

    Regarding the AAMC case, Kelley wrote that plaintiffs would “sustain immediate and irreparable injury” without a restraining order against the NIH funding cap. Along with restraining orders, Kelley required NIH to provide biweekly status reports confirming regular disbursements.

    Dive Brief:

    • A coalition of 22 attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday seeking to block the National Institutes of Health’s newly announced research funding cuts.
    • NIH announced Friday it would cut roughly $4 billion a year worth of funding for indirect research costs such as administration and facilities — by capping reimbursement for these expenses at 15% for current and new grants. 
    • Research institutions have previously negotiated individual indirect cost rates, with an average of 27% to 28%, NIH said. Organizations, universities and researchers quickly raised alarms about the cuts, warning they could hurt important medical research and the economy.

    Dive Insight:

    NIH framed its unilateral decision to cut indirect costs as bringing them in line with practices at nonprofits such as the Gates Foundation, which caps indirect costs at 10% for higher education institutions, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which sets a 15% ceiling for colleges and universities.

    In a Friday memo outlining the new policy, the agency said the new cap would “allow grant recipients a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs while helping NIH ensure that grant funds are, to the maximum extent possible, spent on furthering its mission.”

    The same day, the agency flagged on the social media platform X the “old” indirect cost rates negotiated by Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University — which are all between 63.7% and 69% — as well as those institutions’ endowments ranging from $13 billion to $53 billion. 

    NIH noted that of the $35 billion it spent on grants in fiscal 2023 to universities, medical schools and other research institutions, about $26 billion went to direct research and $9 billion went to overhead in the form of indirect costs. 

    Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, described NIH’s move as an illegal violation of an appropriations bill that prohibits modifications to NIH’s indirect cost funding. Murray also said that the move will shift costs onto states rather than reducing them.

    In their lawsuit, the attorneys general argued, “Without relief from NIH’s action, these institutions’ cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt.” 

    They pointed to the legislation flagged by Murray that protected indirect reimbursements: During President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration in 2017 included a 10% cap in its budget proposal, but Congress responded the next year with an appropriations provision prohibiting NIH from modifying reimbursement rates, the lawsuit said.

    Filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the 59-page lawsuit — brought overwhelmingly by Democrat-led states — seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking NIH from enforcing the rate cap. 

    Many in the higher education sector reacted with dismay over NIH’s move.

    The decision “sabotages the decades-long partnership that has ensured U.S. global leadership in life-saving medical research,” American Council on Education President Ted Mitchell said in a statement on Friday. 

    “This decision is short-sighted, naive, and dangerous,” Mitchell added. “It is a self-inflicted wound that, if not reversed, will have dire consequences on U.S. jobs, global competitiveness, and the future growth of a skilled workforce.”

    Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, described NIH’s policy change as a “direct and massive cut to lifesaving medical research.” 

    “NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,” Becker said in a statement. APLU noted that funded indirect costs include patient safety, research security and hazardous waste disposal. 

    Jeremy Day, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Comprehensive Neuroscience Center, said on social media that NIH’s cut would “cripple research infrastructure at hundreds of US institutions, and threatens to end our global superiority in scientific research.” 

    Meanwhile, institutions are grappling with what it means for their research programs going forward. The University of Michigan, for instance, said in a statement that NIH’s indirect cost funding supports development and maintenance of its laboratories as well as information technology and administrative support for regulatory compliance. 

    “This change would result in a significant decrease in the amount that U-M receives from the federal government to conduct vital research,” the university said. 

    Others echoed the warning. In a statement, the University of Wisconsin-Madison said NIH’s directive would “significantly disrupt vital research activity and delay lifesaving discoveries and cures.”

    “Indirect costs contribute to everything from utilities charges to building out the laboratories where science is done, to infrastructure for clinical trials of new medicines and treatments,” the university said.

    Source link

  • Trump Previews Elon Musk’s Next DOGE Targets (Forbes Breaking News)

    Trump Previews Elon Musk’s Next DOGE Targets (Forbes Breaking News)

    The Higher Education Inquirer continues to document the DOGE takeover of the US Department of Education. 

    While some Democratic officials in Congress have protested this action by DOGE, there has been little resistance otherwise. 

    DOGE consists of Elon Musk and several young men who have been tasked to reduce the federal budget by at least $1 Trillion. The US Senate has oversight of the Department of Education through the HELP (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Committee, but Republicans, who are led by President Trump, control the Senate, and appear to be supporting these aggressive measures. 

    While Mr. Musk has claimed that the Department of Education no longer exists, its website is still operating. 

    DOGE also promotes the buying and selling of cryptocurrency.  

    Source link

  • Retrenchment Watch Newsletter | HESA

    Retrenchment Watch Newsletter | HESA

    This is the first edition of Retrenchment Watch, a new initiative tracking how Canadian post-secondary institutions are reacting to current financial challenges. The Retrenchment Watch monitors the most recent developments, highlighting key trends and institutional responses across the country. Future editions will provide ongoing updates, analysis, and institutional case studies to help sector leaders navigate this challenging period. Updates to the website will be made weekly with summary emails flowing in a biweekly schedule.

    The Impact of Declining International Enrollments

    International students have played a critical role in the financial stability of Canadian post-secondary institutions. Over the past decade, many universities and colleges have relied heavily on international tuition revenue, amidst rising costs, frozen domestic tuition, and stagnant funding from provincial governments. 

    The federal immigration policy changes of 2024—including caps on the number of applications for international study permits that will be processed by IRCC—have caused a steep drop in new international student enrollments across the country.

    Comparison of Study Permit Applications Processed by IRCC, by Month (2023 vs. 2024)

    Source: IRCC Data, “Source Countries – Applications Processed by IRCC for New Study Permit Applications (in Persons) by Month, from January 2022 to December 2024”

    However, the impact of the government’s announcements has reduced the numbers of international students who are actually being enrolled much further than the caps themselves would imply. ApplyBoard is projecting that only 280,000 study permits were approved in 2024, as opposed to 515,880 in 2023, a 45% drop in international student numbers.

    This matches what we are hearing about dramatic falls in international student numbers across the country. However, the drops are much greater at certain institutions. For example, Okanagan College has seen a 50% decline in new international student enrollment, with expectations of a further 70% in the winter term. Thompson Rivers University reported a 50% drop in new undergraduate international enrollments and a 75% drop in post-baccalaureate diploma students. These declines are forcing institutions to make difficult financial decisions to remain operational.

    Budget Deficits

    The enrollment shortfall has translated into substantial budget deficits at many institutions. Universities and colleges across Canada are now facing difficult financial realities, with some implementing drastic cost-cutting measures.

    • York University has the largest projected deficit, at $142 million, and is implementing cost-cutting measures to reduce spending by $130 million over three years.
    • Sheridan College is projecting a $112 million loss in revenue due to falling international student numbers. 
    • University of Waterloo estimates a $75 million deficit.
    • Algonquin College is projecting a $32 million deficit for 2024-25, which is expected to rise to nearly $100 million by 2026-27.
    • Carleton University is projecting a $38 million deficit for 2024-25, expected to reach $70 million by 2025-26.
    • Memorial University reported a $9.5 million revenue loss.

    While these numbers may seem alarming, they don’t tell the full story. Public details on institutional budgets and cuts remain limited and inconsistent. Some institutions report projected deficits, others focus on lost revenue, and many omit details on where cuts will actually fall. Job loss estimates vary widely, and program cuts are often announced without specifying which programs are affected.

    In the coming weeks, we’ll be diving deeper into institutional budgets to provide a clearer picture of what these figures really mean and how they will shape the sector in the years ahead.

    Program Suspensions and Faculty/Staff Layoffs

    To manage financial constraints, many institutions are suspending programs and reducing staff. The impact is particularly severe for smaller colleges and those heavily reliant on international students.

    • Sheridan College is suspending 40 programs and reviewing 27 others, with an estimated 700 layoffs.
    • Fleming College has suspended 29 programs, possibly increasing to 42, due to a $38 million revenue shortfall.
    • Centennial College is suspending 49 programs after experiencing a 43% drop in international student enrollment.
    • St. Lawrence College is cutting 55 programs—approximately 40% of its offerings.
    • Seneca Polytechnic has temporarily closed its Markham campus, which primarily served international students.
    • Fanshawe College is cutting 18 programs this semester.
    • Public-private partnership campuses, set up primarily by Ontario colleges in the Greater Toronto Area, are being wound down.

    Hiring freezes have become common, with institutions like McGill University, Dalhousie University, the University of Waterloo and the University of Alberta pausing recruitment efforts to manage budget shortfalls. A number of institutions, such as Conestoga College and Carleton University, have introduced programs to incentivize voluntary retirement, in the hope that they can reduce salary expenditures without widespread compulsory layoffs.

    However, layoffs are occurring across the sector. Mohawk College has cut 65 full-time administrative staff, amounting to 20% of its administrative workforce. Simon Fraser University has eliminated 85 staff and faculty positions. University of Windsor has already issued layoff notices to 15 employees and is warning of further cuts.

    We know that large, but so far uncounted, numbers of contract instructors are not being rehired as their contracts expire. For example, Okanagan College has canceled 11 part-time term faculty contracts, with up to 80 more positions at risk. Western University is introducing enrollment thresholds to determine whether a course will be offered, with minimum class sizes ranging from 50 for first-year courses to 15 for fourth-year courses. These thresholds imply that contract instructors teaching courses which do not meet the cap are unlikely to have their contracts renewed.

    We will be updating a list of institutional responses on the Retrenchment Watch as they are announced.

    The Recovery Project 

    In response to the widespread retrenchment across Canadian higher education, HESA has launched the Recovery Project. 

    The financial challenges facing Canadian higher education are unprecedented, but they are not insurmountable. Most institutions have survived similar experiences in the past. The HESA Recovery Project helps Canadian colleges, polytechnics, and universities navigate financial challenges by providing insights and facilitating peer learning and collaborative action. Through monthly reports and virtual meetings, leaders gain evidence-based strategies on budget decisions, maintaining morale, and academic redesign. Drawing from interviews with veterans of past periods of retrenchment and case studies of institutions that have successfully come through major cuts, the project delivers actionable guidance. Reports and discussions begin this month, with future topics shaped by member needs to ensure timely, relevant support for institutions adapting to financial pressures. For more information, contact Tiffany MacLennan at [email protected].

    Looking Ahead

    The Retrenchment Watch will continue to monitor and analyze developments across the sector, providing timely updates and insights. The next editions will cover new announcements, policy shifts, and institutional adaptations that arise in response to ongoing financial pressures. 

    For more details, you can visit the Retrenchment Watch webpage. Have something you want to share with us about cuts at your institution? Reach out to us. 

    Source link

  • After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    FRESNO, Feb. 10, 2025 — After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression challenged regulations mandating the evaluation of professors based on their commitment to “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA), the California Community Colleges system and a community college district attested in court that the regulations do not require community college professors to teach and endorse the state’s pro-DEIA views in the classroom.

    In March 2023, the California Community College system amended its tenure and employee review guidelines to “include diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility standards in the evaluation and tenure review of district employees.” The new regulations stated that faculty members “shall employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” and mandated they “promote and incorporate culturally affirming DEIA and anti-racist principles.”

    That August, FIRE filed suit against California Community Colleges and the State Center Community College District on behalf of six Fresno-area community college professors who oppose the highly politicized concepts of “DEIA” (more often called “DEI”) and “anti-racism” and thus did not want to incorporate them into their teaching.

    Forced to defend the regulations in court, the state chancellor and district quickly disclaimed any intention to use the state guidelines or the district’s faculty contract to police what professors teach in the classroom or to punish them for their criticism of DEI. 

    Specifically, the Chancellor’s Office “disavowed any intent or ability to take any action against Plaintiffs” for their classroom teaching. The district likewise confirmed that none of the plaintiffs’ “proposed future actions” for their courses violate the rules or the faculty contract. It added that plaintiffs are not “prohibited from presenting” their “viewpoints or perspectives in the classrooms” and will not “be disciplined, terminated, or otherwise punished for doing so.” 

    In particular, the Defendants denied they would punish Plaintiffs for any of their proposed speech, including “assigning certain literary works, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letters from Birmingham Jail,” using “methodologies and course materials in their classroom” intended to encourage debate and discussion about the merits of DEI viewpoints, criticizing concepts like “anti-racism,” or supporting a color-blind approach to race in their self-evaluations. 

    On Jan. 28, U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff relied on those assurances to hold as a legal matter that because of the college officials’ disavowals, the professors had not suffered a harm sufficient to challenge the regulations’ constitutionality. In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Sherriff emphasized that neither the DEI Rules nor the faculty contract “mandate what professors teach or how any DEIA principles should be implemented.”

    “FIRE filed suit to prevent California’s community colleges from evaluating our faculty clients on the basis of their classroom commitment to a political ideology, and that’s exactly the result we’ve achieved,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “As a result of our suit, the state and the district promised a federal judge they won’t interfere with our clients’ academic freedom and free speech rights. The classroom is for discussion and exploration, not a top-down mandate about what ideas must take priority. We’ll make sure it stays that way.”

    “FIRE will be watching like a hawk to ensure that the state chancellor and district live up to their word,” said FIRE attorney Zach Silver. “If they force any professors to parrot the state’s DEI views, or punish them for criticizing the state’s position, we’ll be ready to stand up for their rights.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PLAINTIFFS FOR MEDIA USE

    Despite unobjectionable-sounding labels, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “anti-racism” frameworks often encompass political topics and ideology that are contested and controversial. The glossary of DEI terms put out by California Community Colleges, for example, stated that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial,” while denouncing “colorblindness” as a concept for “perpetuat[ing] existing racial inequities.”

    DEI requirements are also highly controversial within academia. FIRE’s most recent faculty survey indicated that half of faculty think it is “rarely” or “never” justifiable for universities to make faculty candidates submit statements pledging commitment to DEI before being considered for a job (50%) or to be considered for tenure or promotion (52%).

    Since FIRE filed its lawsuit in 2023, many top universities and university systems have voluntarily moved away from mandatory DEI, including Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Arizona system. Most recently, the University of Michigan dropped the use of diversity statements in hiring and firing in December 2024 following a viral New York Times article that detailed how the school’s DEI practices stifled academic freedom and discourse at the school.

    FIRE sued on behalf of six professors, James Druley, David Richardson, Linda de Morales, and Loren Palsgaard of Madera Community College, Bill Blanken of Reedley College, and Michael Stannard of Clovis Community College. (Professors Stannard and Druley withdrew from the case in 2024 upon retiring from teaching.)

    “Wherever you stand on the debate over DEI, the important thing is there is a debate in the first place,” said Palsgaard. “I’m happy that thanks to our lawsuit, we know that debate will continue in California, both inside and outside the classroom.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy preferences in college admissions have plummeted to their lowest recorded level, with just 24% of four-year colleges still considering family alumni status in admissions decisions, according to a comprehensive new report from Education Reform Now. The dramatic decline signals a potential end to a controversial practice that critics have long condemned as perpetuating inequality in higher education.

    The report, authored by James Murphy, director of Career Pathways and Postsecondary Policy, found that 420 institutions continue to provide admissions advantages to children of alumni, marking a sharp decline from previous years. The practice has seen particularly steep drops since 2015, when nearly half of all four-year colleges considered legacy status. Between 2022 and 2023 alone, 92 colleges abandoned legacy preferences, representing an 18% decrease that coincided with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to ban race-conscious admissions.

    This decline stems from both voluntary institutional decisions and new state legislation. In 2024, California, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia joined Colorado in restricting legacy admissions through state laws. The report indicates that 86% of colleges that ended legacy consideration did so voluntarily, while 14% were required by state legislation. Several more states are expected to introduce similar legislation in 2025.

    Legacy preferences remain most entrenched at selective private institutions, particularly in the Northeast. More than half of colleges that admit 25% or fewer applicants still provide advantages to alumni children. The practice is now rare at public institutions, with just 11% still considering legacy status. In 24 states, no public colleges provide legacy preferences at all. New York stands out as having the highest concentration of colleges maintaining legacy admissions, with one in seven U.S. institutions still using the practice located in the Empire State.

    The report challenges several common defenses of legacy admissions, including arguments that they help build campus community or are necessary for fundraising. It cites evidence that 76% of colleges successfully foster campus communities without legacy preferences, and questions whether wealthy institutions with multi-billion dollar endowments truly need to “trade admissions advantages for money.”

    The analysis also addresses claims that ending legacy admissions could hurt diversity, particularly following the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. The report argues that legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white and wealthy applicants, citing research showing that Asian American applicants face significantly lower odds of admission compared to white applicants with similar qualifications at selective institutions. According to one study, Asian American applicants had 28% lower odds of attending elite schools than white applicants with similar academic and extracurricular qualifications.

    The report suggests that Congress could potentially impose additional endowment taxes on universities that maintain legacy preferences while offering reduced penalties to institutions that increase enrollment of Pell Grant recipients, community college transfers, and veterans. This approach would create financial incentives for institutions to abandon the practice.

    “The shame of belonging to this group of colleges that think children of alumni have somehow earned an extra advantage in admissions is likely to push more colleges to drop the practice,” Murphy writes. “This is not a club that most colleges belong to or will want to belong to.”

    The report also criticizes the Common Application for potentially enabling legacy admissions by requiring all applicants to identify where their parents earned bachelor’s degrees, even though this information is irrelevant for more than three-quarters of colleges. The report suggests that removing this question would be a significant step toward making college admissions more equitable.

    “Ultimately, the reason to eliminate legacy preferences is not to achieve some other goal,” the report concludes. “The reason to get rid of them is that they are profoundly unfair and make a mockery of merit. Legacy preferences award some of the most advantaged students an additional advantage in the college admissions process on the basis of ancestry alone.”

    Source link

  • The Student Assistant Supports Learning and Teaching

    The Student Assistant Supports Learning and Teaching

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    AI is becoming a bigger part of our daily lives, and students are already using it to support their learning. In fact, from our studies, 90% of faculty feel GenAI is going to play an increasingly important role in higher ed.

    Embracing AI responsibly, with thoughtful innovation, can help students take charge of their educational journey. So, we turn to the insights and expertise of you and your students — to develop AI tools that support and empower learners, while maintaining ethical practices, accuracy and a focus on the human side of education.

    Training the Student Assistant together

    Since we introduced the Student Assistant in August 2024, we continue to ensure that faculty, alongside students, play a central role in helping to train it.

    Students work directly with the tool, having conversations. Instructors review these exchanges to ensure the Student Assistant is guiding students through a collaborative, critical thinking process —helping them find answers on their own, rather than directly providing them.

    “I was extremely impressed with the training and evaluation process. The onboarding process was great, and the efforts taken by Cengage to ensure parity in the evaluation process was a good-faith sign of the quality and accuracy of the Student Assistant.” — Dr. Loretta S. Smith, Professor of Management, Arkansas Tech University

    Supporting students through our trusted sources

    The Student Assistant uses only Cengage-authored course materials — it does not search the web.

    By leveraging content aligned directly with instructor’s chosen textbook , the Student Assistant provides reliable, real-time guidance that helps students bridge knowledge gaps — without ever relying on external sources that may lack credibility.

    Unlike tools that rely on potentially unreliable web sources, the Student Assistant ensures that every piece of guidance aligns with course objectives and instructor expectations.

    Here’s how:

    • It uses assigned Cengage textbooks, eBooks and resources, ensuring accuracy and relevance for every interaction
    • The Student Assistant avoids pulling content from the web, eliminating the risks of misinformation or content misalignment
    • It does not store or share student responses, keeping information private and secure

    By staying within our ecosystem, the Student Assistant fosters academic integrity and ensures students are empowered to learn with autonomy and confidence.

    “The Student Assistant is user friendly and adaptive. The bot responded appropriately and in ways that prompt students to deepen their understanding without giving away the answer.” – Lois Mcwhorter, Department Chair for the Hutton School of Business at the University of Cumberlands

    Personalizing the learning journey

    56% of faculty cited personalization as a top use case for GenAI to help enhance the learning experience.

    The Student Assistant enhances student outcomes by offering a personalized educational experience. It provides students with tailored resources that meet their unique learning needs right when they need them. With personalized, encouraging feedback and opportunities to connect with key concepts in new ways, students gain a deeper understanding of their coursework. This helps them close learning gaps independently and find the answers on their own, empowering them to take ownership of their education.

    “What surprised me most about using the Student Assistant was how quickly it adapted and adjusted to feedback. While the Student Assistant helped support students with their specific questions or tasks, it did so in a way that allowed for a connection. It was not simply a bot that pointed you to the correct answer in the textbook; it assisted students similar to how a professor or instructor would help a student.” — Dr. Stephanie Thacker, Associate Professor of Business for the Hutton School of Business at the University of the Cumberlands

    Helping students work through the challenges

    The Student Assistant is available 24/7 to help students practice concepts without the need to wait for feedback, enabling independent learning before seeking instructor support.

    With just-in-time feedback, students can receive guidance tailored to their course, helping them work through challenges on their own schedule. By guiding students to discover answers on their own, rather than providing them outright, the Student Assistant encourages critical thinking and deeper engagement.

    “Often students will come to me because they are confused, but they don’t necessarily know what they are confused about. I have been incredibly impressed with the Student Assistants’ ability to help guide students to better understand where they are struggling. This will not only benefit the student but has the potential to help me be a better teacher, enable more critical thinking and foster more engaging classroom discussion.” — Professor Noreen Templin, Department Chair and Professor of Economics at Butler Community College

    Want to start using the Student Assistant for your courses?

    The Student Assistant, embedded in MindTap, is available in beta with select titles , such as “Management,” “Human Psychology” and “Principles of Economics” — with even more coming this fall. Find the full list of titles that currently feature the Student Assistant, plus learn more about the tool and AI at Cengage right here.

    Source link