Blog

  • Excluding Level 7 modules from the LLE is a huge, missed opportunity

    Excluding Level 7 modules from the LLE is a huge, missed opportunity

    Ahead of a House of Lords debate on the topic of lifelong learning later this week, today’s blog features two posts on the topic.

    Elsewhere on the site, Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham, highlights what is, in her view, a critical flaw in the LLE: the unfair funding gap facing students on accelerated two-year degree programmes, despite their clear benefits for employability and skills development. You can read that piece here.

    And below, Dr. Michelle Morgan explores the gaps in the Government’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), questioning why postgraduate taught courses have been left out and what this means for students, universities, and businesses.

    So the Government has announced that the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will come into effect in September 2026.

    The government is arguing that the LLE will allow people to develop new skills and gain new qualifications at a time that is right for them. The LLE will focus on:

    • full courses at level 4 to 6, such as degrees, technical qualifications, and designated distance learning and online courses
    • modules of high-value technical courses at levels 4 to 5.

    It is argued that it will help drive sustained economic growth, break down barriers to opportunity broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training, and support greater learner mobility between institutions.

    However, yet again the sector’s postgraduate taught (PGT) provision has been ignored. By excluding this level of study, the ambitions of the Government will not be as great as they could be, and it is a huge, missed opportunity for higher education and this is why.

    The first problem: Declining PGT participation of UK-domiciled students

    In the past 10 years, the higher education sector has increasingly relied on international master’s students to fund itself.  EU and non-EU PGT students are nearly all undertaking master’s degrees, whereas for UK-domiciled students, a master’s degree only constitutes around 55% of those on PGT courses. Taught courses include master’s, postgraduate certificates, diplomas, and institutional credits and postgraduate certificates in education.

    For Master’s participation, 2019/20 was a pivotal year as non-EU participation surpassed UK-domiciled for the first time. In each year since 2021/22, UK-domiciled Master’s enrolments have declined (see Table 1). Although we do not have Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) return data to view for 2022/23 and 2023/24, there is a strong sense across the sector that we will see a decline in master’s participation, especially among international students.

    Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

    The decline is the same pattern that occurred leading up to 2010/11. The only reason why master’s participation continued to increase then was due to non-EU enrolments. The response by the Government to re-energise the UK-domiciled market after the Higher Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE, which was then the regulator) Phase 1 and 2 of the Postgraduate Support Scheme was to bring in the Postgraduate Loan. As soon as this happened, you could hear an audible sigh of relief across the sector, and there was an attitude of ‘that will solve the problem so let’s just focus on growing the master’s market’. The sector did not consider the demand for master’s qualifications by business and industry, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

    Employer demand for Master’s graduates

    There are disciplines where a master’s is required for career progression such as professional accreditation. However, as the 11 University Postgraduate Experience Project found, which was one of 20 projects funded as part of the HEFCE Phase 1 Postgraduate Support Scheme, many SMEs did not need master’s graduates. Most useful to them was for higher education to provide short courses and modules that provided their staff with advanced skills in key areas such as Business and IT and emerging ones such as Generative AI. According to the Department for Business and Trade’s report on Business population estimates for the UK and regions in 2024, there were 5.6 million UK businesses in 2024 of which 5.5 million were SMEs, accounting for 99.8% of all businesses. By ignoring the needs of business and industry, we are losing an opportunity to engage with a critical market.

    Funding and repayment

    As soon as the Postgraduate Loan was introduced, most universities immediately raised their fees. The aim of the £10,000 loan was to cover fees and some maintenance. Although the loan for September 2024 English starters is now £12,471, for many this will not come close to covering their costs. What is also not factored into any discussion is that someone who has both an undergraduate and a postgraduate loan must pay them back concurrently. This equates to 9% for the undergraduate loan and 6% for the postgraduate, or 15% of someone’s salary on top of tax, National Insurance and any other employee-related costs. Although employers’ national insurance contributions are increasing next year, if there is any tax or National Insurance increase for the individual next year, this will further reduce their disposable income.

    The Postgraduate Loan also differs between UK countries. In England, the loan does not cover stand-alone postgraduate certificates and diplomas, unlike in Scotland, where non-master’s postgraduate taught course participation is 56% compared to 44% in England. If they were included, then maybe the LLE as it stands would not be quite as restricted. The English loan system is not agile enough to support engagement in short or non-master’s courses, and English universities plan their finances for master’s enrolments and anticipated completions. A student should not have to register and enrol on a master’s if they only want or need to do a postgraduate certificate or diploma. If an individual needs a master’s for professional accreditation, this will not stop them from doing a master’s. In fact, we may see an increase in integrated degrees being undertaken where a master’s is incorporated into the undergraduate degree as a result.

    Additionally, we have just had the announcement that undergraduate loans are slightly increasing, but no announcement has been made for postgraduate loans. The current system hinders engagement. It also adopts a deficit model approach, as these qualifications are deemed exit qualifications if someone fails to achieve the Master’s.

    Ability to participate in master’s study

    What is also overlooked in discussions are the debt levels of undergraduate alumni and how this could explain the decreasing number of UK-domiciled 21-24-year-old participants. The majority of PGT enrolments are for the age group of 30 years and over.

    table visualization

    Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

    When the Postgraduate Loan was introduced in 2016, only one cohort had graduated under the £9,000 a year fee regime introduced in 2012.  We now have 10 cohorts who graduated under that regime. It is maybe not a surprise therefore that the largest group investing in postgraduate taught study are those with the smallest amount of undergraduate debt.

    Last year, I got the results of a Freedom of Information request from the Student Loan Company regarding the debt levels for English-domiciled recipients entering postgraduate Master’s study in 2021/22 (see Figure 1). Of the 72,618, 74.8% had debt in excess of £40,000 and 11.9% over £70,000. This debt will include any repeated years as well as longer length undergraduate courses such as integrated degrees with placements. With the recent announcement that fee levels will rise by £285 to £9,535 in 2025/26, this will increase individual debt.

    Figure 1: Debt levels of 72,618 English-domiciled master’s students who also have an undergraduate loan (fee and maintenance) in 2021/22 only 

    The recent Times and Sunday Times showed how parental financial support differs by student groups and universities. The universities where parents pay the most – up to £30,000 – are mainly Russell Groups. And when you explore postgraduate taught participation by ethnicity,  66% are White. How will the factors highlighted above enable widening participation at the postgraduate level which delivers advanced skills, competencies and knowledge?

    We need a rethink

    The LLE that will be introduced will not super-proof the pipeline for longevity of postgraduate taught study nor provide the advanced skills that are accessible, meaningful and needed for the individual, society or business and industry.

    So we need to start thinking now about the long-term implications of student debt, and social and economic needs so we can develop policy, strategy and practice. To do this though, the sector needs to start thinking about how we can reimagine and do things differently, Government needs to listen to key stakeholders, and we must proactively work together and not against one another.

    Source link

  • Dismantle Of DEI, Mass Deportation (Breakfast Club Power 105.1)

    Dismantle Of DEI, Mass Deportation (Breakfast Club Power 105.1)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Thoughts On Trump Signing Executive Orders: Dismantle Of DEI, Mass Deportation (Breakfast Club Power 105.1)




    Source link

  • What is the antidote to ‘wage theft’ in universities? – Opinion

    What is the antidote to ‘wage theft’ in universities? – Opinion

    Australia’s universities are some of the most prestigious and highly-ranked in the OECD. Yet the sector is arguably in crisis.

    It narrowly escaped a potentially devastating hit to the $47.8 billion in annual revenue generated by international education, with proposed international students caps only just scuppered in parliament’s last sitting fortnight of the year. 

    But it is again being rocked by headlines around “wage theft” and millions of dollars wasted on consulting fees by some of our biggest universities.

    A damning report by the National Tertiary Education Union has labelled this a “crisis of governance” constituting “reckless spending’’ by “the overpaid executive class”.

    Ouch.

    Yet Australia’s education system is strong by global standards, ranking third globally, and is home to several prestigious universities that consistently rank among the best in the world. 

    It is unlikely that a sector built on advancing human potential has solely reached this point by maliciously setting out to hurt its own backbone – its faculty.

    Rather, systemic problems often indicate structural sectoral flaws, and ineffective means to address them. And Australia’s university system is not immune by any means.

    A legacy issue of systemic complexity

    We cannot know with certainty if there are indeed some bad actors in this story. Possibly.

    But what is undeniably evident are the range of sectoral factors contributing to the sector’s longstanding history of poor record-keeping, including the challenges posed by its complex workforce structure.

    Payroll compliance in universities is highly complex due to the combination of intricate awards, unique enterprise agreements, and a history of poor record-keeping. 

    For instance, universities rely heavily on casual staff, working under often-opaque arrangements. Compensable tasks such as marking essays or tutorial attendance are governed by intricate rules or piece-rate agreements, complicating the tracking of hours and payment. 

    These layers of complexity create incomplete and inaccurate timesheet data, making it nearly impossible for a human to verify when employees worked and whether they were paid correctly.  

    And so the resulting payroll errors aren’t just mistakes – they represent a systemic failing with devastating consequences all round. 

    Underpaid employees face reduced morale, a loss of trust in their employers, and financial stress that often disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Menwhile, the underpaying universities risk potentially enormous fines and suffer from deep reputational damage, as has been demonstrated recently.

    Worse still, is the fact that attempts at resolving these issues are also failing, because they represent nothing more than curative and labour-intensive bandaid “solutions”.

    For instance, many universities, after spending millions on consultants to recalculate and backpay impacted employees, have now shifted to hiring large internal teams to manage ongoing compliance efforts. 

    These teams are tasked with monitoring timesheet accuracy, tracking errors, and managing ongoing remediation efforts, seemingly indefinitely, as if fixing this problem should somehow just be “business as usual”.

    Yet treatments should never be “business as usual”, because this is to accept that the problem will never be resolved. 

    Instead, systemic problems like this one require systemic solutions that assume eliminating the problem is indeed possible. 

    Fixing the system, not the symptoms

    For this to occur, Australia’s tertiary education sector must urgently stop outdated and cumbersome legacy practices and instead embrace preventative long-term solutions that rebuild trust, and support fair and accurate pay for all employees.

    In practice, this would involve the adoption of advanced compliance tools and technologies that enable payroll teams to efficiently and accurately monitor payroll end-to-end. This allows teams to rapidly identify errors before, not after, a pay run, and drastically reduce the need for constant manual interventions.

    Introducing independent oversight by risk and compliance teams will also help to reduce the risk of a “marking your own homework” approach by human resources and payroll teams, bringing a fresh perspective to compliance checks.

    Regular training to keep payroll and compliance teams up to date on changes in legislation, award conditions, and enterprise agreements are also a must in industries like education where payroll practices are complex and dynamic.

    And, finally, all of these processes should be consistent across all schools and faculties to avoid disparities and confusion, and reduce errors caused by varying practices.

    Any university with the courage to break from centuries of backwards-looking remediation practices and instead embrace a forward-looking, technology-based approach would not only demonstrate bold and refreshing leadership. 

    It would also help to create enormous goodwill for a sector in desperate need of positive news and, critically, potentially save millions in the process.

    Fred van er Tang is chief executive of payroll compliance technology company PaidRight.

    Read more:

    Source link

  • Innovative Research Universities’ pre-budget wishlist

    Innovative Research Universities’ pre-budget wishlist




    By: Erin Morley

    in Funding, Policy & Reform, Politics, Top Stories


    February 5, 2025

    Innovative Research Universities (IRU) has asked the federal government to invest in four key areas in the next budget, due March 25.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • QUT anti-semitism review leader announced, responds to parliamentary inquiry

    QUT anti-semitism review leader announced, responds to parliamentary inquiry

    Professor Margaret Sheil (right) speaks to the press. Picture: John Gass



    By: Erin Morley and NCA Newswire

    in News, Top Stories


    February 5, 2025

    The Queensland University of Technology has announced more details about its independent review into last month’s controversial National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action event.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Job titles matter for inclusive and meaningful work

    Job titles matter for inclusive and meaningful work

    Job titles, and the names given to organisational roles, are important for the meaning that individuals derive from their work and their engagement with their work.

    Yet within many UK universities, and especially the post-92s, the trend is towards new job titles with potentially negative connotations for the job holders in terms of the meaning of their work and their commitment to it and to their institution.

    Such universities have been moving away from the conventional “lecturer” titles, adopting the US system of titles. US institutions typically designate their junior (un-tenured) academics as Assistant Professors, with an intermediate grade of Associate Professor and then a full Professor grade. Within the US system, most long serving and effective staff can expect to progress to full Professor by mid-career.

    Yet, in this new UK system, only around 15-20 per cent of academics are (and likely ever to be) full Professors and many academics will spend their entire careers as Assistant Professors or Associate Professors, retiring with one of these diminutive job titles.

    The previous, additive, job titles of Lecturer to Senior Lecturer and then to Principal Lecturer or Reader had meaning outside the university and, crucially, had meaning for the post-holders, giving a sense of achievement and pride as they progressed. Retiring as a Senior or Principal Lecturer was deemed more than acceptable.

    Status and self-esteem

    It is not hard to imagine the impact that the changes in job titles is having upon mid and late-career academics who may have little chance of gaining promotion to full professor, perhaps because quite simply they draw the line at working “just” 60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. The impact on status and self-esteem is immense. Imagine explaining to your grandkids that you are, in essence, an assistant to a professor. As an Associate Professor, and particularly in a vocational discipline, one of the authors is often asked, “I can understand you wanting to work part-time for a university, but what’s your main job?” Associate, affiliate, adjunct – these names are pretty much the same thing to outsiders.

    Managerially, though, the change from designating academics as Senior Lecturer to Assistant Professors and from Principal Lecturers to Associate Professors is genius. These diminutive job titles confer inferiority – but with the promise that if you keep your nose to the grindstone and keep up the 60+ hour weeks, 50 weeks a year, you might be in with a chance of a decent job title, as a professor. What a fantastic, and completely friction-free, way of turning the performative screw.

    The UK university sector is not alone and other public sector organisations have similarly got into a meaning muddle from the naming of their jobs. For example, in the British civil service, a key middle management role is labelled “Grade B2+”, whereas a relatively junior operational role is designated a rather grand sounding “Executive Officer”. And just last autumn, the NHS acknowledged that names do matter, abandoning the designation of “junior” doctor which was used to encompass all medics that sit within the grades below what is known as “consultant”, and which their union described as “misleading and demeaning” – it’s been replaced with “resident” doctor.

    Meaningful work

    A name gives meaning to workers. It gives status, prestige, and identity. While those organisations such as universities who fail to realise the importance of job titles may be able to turn the screw in the short-term, extracting ever more work from their junior-sounding Assistant and Associate Professors, they will in the longer-term, for sure, have an ever more demoralised and demotivated workforce for whom the job has little meaning other than the pay.

    And, since pay for university academics in the UK has been so badly eroded in recent decades, job title conventions are a self-inflicted injury – one that risks academics’ engagement and wellbeing and, ultimately, their institutions’ performance.

    Source link

  • Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    The Australian higher education sector continues to evolve rapidly, with hybrid learning,
    non-linear education, and the current skills shortage all shaping how universities operate.

    At the same time, universities are grappling with rising operational costs and decreased funding, leading to fierce competition for new enrolments.

    Amidst the dynamic landscape of higher education, the student experience has become a crucial factor in attracting and retaining students.

    The student experience encompasses a wide array of interactions, from how students first learn about an institution through to the enrolment process, coursework, social activities, wellbeing support and career connections. With so many student touchpoints to manage, institutions are turning to data and technology integrations to help streamline communications and improve their adaptability to change.

    Download the white paper: Why Unifying Data and Technology is Critical to the Success and Future of Universities

    Enhancing institutional efficiency and effectiveness
    Universities face an increasingly fragmented IT landscape, with siloed data and legacy systems making it difficult to support growth ambitions and improve student experiences.

    By integrating systems and data, institutions are starting to align digital and business strategies so that they can meet operational goals while providing more connected, seamless and personalised experiences for students.

    One of the most effective ways universities can achieve this is by consolidating disparate systems into a cloud-based Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution, such as Salesforce.

    Optimising admissions and enhancing student engagement
    In recent years, there have been significant fluctuations in the enrolment of higher education students for numerous reasons – Covid-19 restrictions, declining domestic student numbers, high cost of living, proposed international student caps, and volatile labour market conditions being just a few.

    To better capture the attention of prospective students, institutions are now focusing on delivering more personalised and targeted engagement strategies. Integrated CRM and marketing automation is increasingly being used to attract more prospective students with tailored, well-timed communication.

    Universities are also using CRM tools to support student retention and minimise attrition. According to a Forrester study, students are 15 per cent more likely to stay with an institution when Salesforce is used to provide communications, learning resources and support services.

    Streamlining communication and collaboration
    By creating a centralised system of engagement, universities can not only support students throughout their academic journey, but also oversee their wellbeing.

    For example, a leading university in Sydney has developed a system that provides a comprehensive view of students and their needs, allowing for integrated and holistic support and transforming its incident reporting and case management.

    Fostering stronger alumni and industry relations
    Another area where CRM systems play a pivotal role is in building alumni and industry relationships. Alumni who feel valued by their university – through personalised engagement – are more likely to return when seeking upskilling, or to lend financial support.

    Personalising communication to industry partners can also help strengthen relationships, potentially leading to sponsored research, grants, and donations, as well as internships and career placements.

    University of Technology Sydney, for example, adopted a centralised data-led strategy for Corporate Relations to change how it works with strategic partners, significantly strengthening its partner network across the university.

    Unlocking the value of data and integration

    With unified data and digital technology driving personalised student interactions, university ICT departments can empower faculty and staff to exceed enrolment goals, foster lifelong student relationships and drive institutional growth.

    To learn more about the strategies and technologies to maximise institutional business value, download the white paper.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Trump reiterates plan to abolish the Education Department

    Trump reiterates plan to abolish the Education Department

    Amid reports that the White House is finalizing an executive order to get rid of the Education Department, President Donald Trump said Tuesday that when he nominated Linda McMahon as secretary, he instructed her to “put herself out of a job.” 

    “Linda, I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job,” the president said to a group of reporters in the Oval Office.

    The comment was the first time Trump has publicly talked about his campaign promise to dissolve the department since taking office last month. Several media outlets reported Monday that the administration is preparing an executive order that would direct department officials to shut down some functions and develop a plan for the agency’s demise. The timing of such an order is still unclear.

    When asked Tuesday whether abolishing the department was something he could legally do, the president said, “I’d like to be able to do that.” He later added that “there are some people that think I could.” Many experts say that only Congress can kill off the federal agency.

    Trump said that the largest obstacle in the way of passing a bill to dissolve the department is teachers’ unions.

    “The teachers’ unions are the only ones that are opposed to it,” he said. “No one else would want to hold [us] back.”

    A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 61 percent of registered voters oppose getting rid of the department. Numerous education lobbying groups, higher education experts and Democratic lawmakers have criticized the concept, saying that it would cause chaotic disruptions and make college hard to access for low-income students and those with disabilities.

    “Investment in our children is an investment in our future. Dismantling the Department of Education would do the opposite by making it harder for children to achieve and for parents, caregivers, and communities to thrive,” Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said in a news release. “President Trump wants to lock the promise of public education—of equal opportunity and hope for all—behind an ivory tower accessible only to his billionaire donors … It is callous and cynical.” 

    Source link

  • Media outlets must not cave to Trump’s lawfare

    Media outlets must not cave to Trump’s lawfare

    What happens to freedom of the press when the president can bully media outlets he doesn’t like into paying big money to end his meritless lawsuits against them?   

    Buckle up. We’re about to find out.

    Per reports, Paramount Global — the parent company of CBS News — is in talks to settle a $10 billion dollar lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against the network last November shortly after the election. The president’s lawsuit claims “60 Minutes,” the network’s flagship news program, violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris to make her more appealing to viewers.

    The suit is flatly without merit. For starters, editing interviews is standard journalistic practice. Just ask FOX News, which has edited its own interviews and coverage of the president to tighten up rambling answers. Those cuts are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the press broad freedom to make editorial decisions about the content they print or air. And laws like Texas’ are designed to prevent used car salesmen from passing off lemons to unsuspecting buyers, not to police journalism.

    That’s why CBS’ initial public statements about Trump’s suit rightly struck a defiant and principled tone. The network promised it would “vigorously defend” itself, correctly arguing Trump’s attempt to “punish” CBS for its editorial choices is “barred by the First Amendment.”

    So what happened? Why is CBS now reported to be capitulating? There are two reasons, neither of them good for our free and independent press: Money and power. 

    Trump’s lawsuit isn’t concerned with winning so much as imposing a financial and political cost on people that say things he doesn’t like.

    First, the money. Paramount Global hopes to merge with Skydance Media, a deal worth some $8 billion to heiress Shari Redstone, Paramount’s owner — but only if it’s approved by the Federal Communications Commission.

    That’s where the raw governmental power comes in. Brendan Carr, Trump’s pick to run the FCC, has made clear in public comments that the agency’s review of the merger will take into consideration Trump’s “news distortion complaint.” And in private, Carr reportedly warned Paramount that addressing Trump’s dissatisfaction was a precursor to approval. In other words: Nice little network you got there — be a shame if anything happened to it.

    This kind of pressure from government regulators — “jawboning” — is all the more objectionable when it’s aimed toward the personal benefit of the president. Rather than stand up for the journalists at CBS, Redstone appears to be playing ball, even handing over an unedited transcript to the FCC after refusing to do so for months.

    What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?

    Issue Pages

    Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.


    Read More

    That’s bad enough. But wait — there’s more.

    Our litigious president is fresh off settling his 2021 lawsuit against Meta, which alleged the company’s decision to ban Trump from Facebook after Jan. 6, 2021, violated his First Amendment rights. Like his suit against CBS, Trump’s class action suit was without merit; private social media companies have their own First Amendment right to run their platforms as they see fit. They are not government actors, as the district court dismissing the cases against social media companies easily concluded. Nevertheless, the company agreed this week to pay $25 million to end the appeal. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who attended the president’s inauguration, appears to have concluded that settling the suit was a small price to pay for political favor and access.

    Late last year, Trump also settled with ABC News for $15 million dollars, ending a defamation suit. That suit centered on a George Stephanopoulos interview with Rep. Nancy Mace during which Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of writer E. Jean Carroll’s successful sexual abuse and defamation claims against the former president. Stephanopoulos stated that Trump was “found liable for rape” and “defaming the victim of that rape,” when a jury had concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll — not that he raped her, as the term is narrowly defined in New York’s criminal code.

    Trump’s dictatorial appetite to use lawfare to silence or punish outlets that publish content he doesn’t like is most plainly on display in his ongoing suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register. 

    ABC’s case presented real challenges, but the network may have been able to mount a sturdy defense. The First Amendment provides news outlets significant breathing room when commenting on public figures like President Trump, as established in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 ruling New York Times v. Sullivan. While the jury specifically rejected finding Trump guilty of rape, the district court judge noted the “definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of ‘rape’ in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere.”

    Per reports, however, the network ultimately chose to settle what might have proven to be a challenging case rather than risk Trump’s ire — or provide the current Supreme Court a potential opportunity to weaken Sullivan’s broad protections. After all, the plaintiff has been loud and clear about his desire to “open up” American libel law. 

    Trump’s dictatorial appetite to use lawfare to silence or punish outlets that publish content he doesn’t like is most plainly on display in his ongoing suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register. 

    FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

    News

    A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.


    Read More

    Selzer, hailed for decades by political observers as the dean of Iowa polling, conducted an early November poll published by The Register giving Harris a three-point lead in the Hawkeye State. Despite correctly forecasting Trump’s Iowa victories in 2016 and 2020, Selzer’s polling missed the mark this cycle. But Trump wasn’t content to take the win, choosing instead to file a claim against her under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act. 

    FIRE represents Selzer against the president’s bogus claim. Americans have a First Amendment right to make political predictions, and newspapers have a First Amendment right to publish them. But Trump’s lawsuit isn’t concerned with winning so much as imposing a financial and political cost on people that say things he doesn’t like. That’s un-American.

    Elections have consequences, it’s true. But silence cannot be one of them. We must protect our free press against meritless lawsuits and the coercive power of the federal government — lest we miss it when it’s gone.

    Source link

  • Second-generation student borrowers | SRHE Blog

    Second-generation student borrowers | SRHE Blog

    by Ariane de Gayardon

    Since the 1980s, massification, policy shifts, and changing ideas about who benefits from higher education have led to the expansion of national student loan schemes globally. For instance, student loans were introduced in England in 1990 and generalized in 1998. Australia introduced income-contingent student loans in the late 1980s. While federal student loans were introduced in the US in 1958, their number and the amount of individual student loan debt ramped up in the 1990s.

    A lot of academic research has analysed this trend, evaluating the effect of student loans on access, retention, success, the student experience, and even graduate outcomes. Yet, this research is based on the choices and experiences of first-generation student borrowers and might not apply to current and future students.

    First-generation borrowers enter higher education with parents who have either not been to higher education, or who have a tertiary degree that pre-dates the expansion of student loans. The parents of first-generation borrowers therefore did not take up loans to pay for their higher education and had no associated repayment burden in adulthood. Any cost associated with these parents’ studies will likely have been shouldered by their families or through grants.

    Second-generation borrowers are the offspring of first-generation borrowers. Their parents took out student loans to pay for their own higher education. The choices made by second-generation borrowers when it comes to higher education and its funding could significantly differ from first-generation borrowers, because they are impacted by their parents’ own experience with student loans.

    Parents and parental experience indeed play an important role in children’s higher education choices and financial decisions. On the one hand, parents can provide financial or in-kind support for higher education. This is most evident in the design of student funding policies which often integrate parental income and financial contributions. In many countries, eligibility for financial aid is means-tested and based on family income (Williams & Usher, 2022). Examples include the US where an Expected Family Contribution is calculated upon assessment of financial need, or Germany where the financial aid system is based on a legal obligation for parents to contribute to their children’s study costs. Indeed, evidence shows that parents do contribute to students’ income. In Europe, family contributions make up nearly half of students’ income (Hauschildt et al, 2018). But the role of parents also extends to decisions about student loans: parents tend to try and shield their children from student debt, helping them financially when possible or encouraging cost-saving behaviour (West et al, 2015).

    On the other hand, parents transmit financial values to their children, which might play a role in their higher education decisions. Family financial socialization theory states that children learn their financial attitudes and behaviour from their parents, through direct teaching and via family interactions and relationships (Gudmunson & Danes, 2011). Studies indeed show the intergenerational transmission of social norms and economic preferences (Maccoby, 1992), including attitudes towards general debt (Almenberg et al, 2021). Continuity of financial values over generations has been observed in the specific case of higher education. Parents who received parental financial support for their own studies are more likely to contribute toward their children’s studies (Steelman & Powell, 1991). For some students, negative parental experiences with general debt can lead to extreme student debt aversion (Zerquera et al,2016).

    As countries globally rely increasingly on student loans to fund higher education, many more students will become second-generation borrowers. Because their parents had to repay their own student debt, the family’s financial assets may be depleted, potentially leading to reduced levels of parental financial support for higher education. This is likely to be even worse for students whose parents are still repaying their loans. In addition, parental experiences of student debt could influence the advice they give their children with regard to higher education financial decisions. As a result, this new generation of student borrowers will face challenges that their predecessors did not, fuelled by the transmitted experience of student loans from their parents (Figure 1).

    Figure 1 – Parental influence on second-generation borrowers

    As the share of second-generation borrowers in the student body increases, the need to understand the decision-making process of these students when it comes to (financial) higher education choices is essential. Although the challenges faced by borrowers will emerge at different times and with varying intensity across countries — depending in part on loan repayment formats — we have an opportunity now to be ahead of the curve. By researching this new generation of student borrowers and their parents, we can better assess their financial dilemmas and the support they need, providing further evidence to design future-proof equitable student funding policies.

    Ariane de Gayardon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) based at the University of Twente in the Netherlands.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link