Blog

  • “Say My Name, Say My Name”: Why Learning Names Improves Student Success – Faculty Focus

    “Say My Name, Say My Name”: Why Learning Names Improves Student Success – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • “Say My Name, Say My Name”: Why Learning Names Improves Student Success – Faculty Focus

    “Say My Name, Say My Name”: Why Learning Names Improves Student Success – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • ED Panel Divided Over New Earnings Test Rules

    ED Panel Divided Over New Earnings Test Rules

    With just one more meeting to go, the Department of Education and an advisory committee tasked with ironing out the details of how to hold college programs accountable appear far from reaching consensus.

    The 13-member panel, comprised largely of state officials, think tank researchers and higher ed lawyers, spent the last four days negotiating the rules of a new college earnings test called Do No Harm—which applies to all degree programs—as well as changes to the existing gainful-employment rule, an accountability metric that only applies to certificate programs and for-profits.

    The department’s proposal, which aligns the two accountability metrics and holds all programs to the Do No Harm’s standards, has gone largely unchanged in the first four days of negotiation.

    Under Do No Harm, all college programs, except undergraduate certificates, that fail to prove their students earn more than someone with only a high school diploma could lose access to federal loans, whereas the current version of gainful employment requires programs to show their graduates pass the earnings test and can reasonably pay off their debt. Programs that fail either test are cut off from all federal student aid.

    Although officials have agreed to a series of smaller changes and said they were open to considering larger ones, none made so far address the key issues that are dividing the committee—axing the debt-to-earnings ratio and the Pell Grant penalty.

    If the committee doesn’t reach consensus, the department is free to propose any changes to the regulation it wants, which could include scrapping gainful employment entirely. The department met with different committee members in private meetings Thursday, but it’s unclear if those talks will lead to compromises or flip votes.

    “Consensus seems pretty unlikely at this point, since negotiators are still disagreeing on key provisions of the department’s drafted text,” said Emily Rounds, an education policy adviser at Third Way, a left-of-center think tank. “Anything is possible, and these caucuses could be productive, but I would be surprised if they reached consensus.”

    Institutional representatives on the committee generally back the overall plan, while consumer protection advocates have taken issue with the department’s changes to gainful employment.

    Reaching consensus at this point would likely require ED to significantly rework its original proposal.

    “We have moved well into the vote-tallying stage,” one committee member said on the condition of anonymity to maintain good faith in the negotiation process. “The question is, does ED think it can get certain negotiators on board without caving on their original proposal to integrate gainful employment and Do No Harm.”

    Department officials acknowledged the differences of opinion but said they would work to bring committee members together.

    “The department is going to work on some language overnight based on the things that we’ve talked about today in our various caucuses,” Dave Musser, ED’s negotiator, said at the end of Thursday’s meeting. “We plan to come back in the morning prepared to share some of that language, recognizing that it may not be enough alone to get us to consensus. However, we want to show that we are doing everything that we can to get to a place where everyone can get to an agreement.”

    2 Key Issues, 2 Key Sides

    The Education Department and institutional representatives said the proposal plan creates a level playing field, calling it a more fair and simple means of accountability. State higher education officials and employers also joined in at times, agreeing that this plan would be the most legally sound and could end years of political ping-pong over higher ed accountability.

    But committee members representing taxpayers and legal aid organizations as well as left-leaning research groups and consumer protection advocates argue that the department’s plan waters down existing standards, could put students at risk and may lead to legal challenges.

    Although negotiators representing students who receive Title IV aid and students who are veterans have also expressed concerns about the changes to gainful employment, Tamar Hoffman, the committee member representing legal aid organizations, was the most outspoken throughout the week, saying there were “inherent issues” with the department’s current proposal.

    “It does not make sense that we would allow the most economically disadvantaged students to use up very precious resources that they have in their lifetime Pell eligibility on programs that the department has deemed to be inadequate to receive loans,” she said at the close of Thursday’s meeting.

    Ideally, Hoffman and others would like to see the debt-to-earnings test reinstated as well, though Pell appears to be the top priority.

    Preston Cooper, the committee member representing taxpayers and the public interest, voiced more opposition at the beginning of the week as he highlighted his analysis of department data that showed ED’s plan would disburse an estimated $1.2 billion in Pell dollars annually to programs that failed the earnings test.

    By Thursday, however, multiple of Cooper’s smaller concerns had been addressed through amendments, and he appeared poised to support the department’s proposal. The changes included added clarity about the ability to separate gainful employment and Do No Harm if courts strike down either test and that failed programs must pass the earnings test for at least two years before regaining loan eligibility.

    Some Changes Made

    Despite their overall support for the department’s plan, institutional advocates—particularly Jeff Arthur, the negotiator representing for-profit institutions, and Aaron Lacey, who represented nonprofit institutions—did try to change parts of the earnings test that they argued were unfair, like the age and work experience of high school graduates that college students were compared to, or the way rural institutions were held to the same standard as urban ones. So far, they haven’t been successful.

    They had better success with an amendment that allowed existing students in failing programs to maintain the loan access needed to complete their degree. The department agreed to the change under a few conditions: The program will have to voluntarily agree to shut itself down after the first year of failure, terminate all enrollment for new students and enter a formal teach-out plan for those who remain.

    Hoffman, however, said the change would only further water down existing accountability standards.

    “To me, this seems like a giant loophole for institutions to try to maintain eligibility for Title IV funds when they aren’t actually delivering adequate services to students,” she said. “There isn’t anything here that prevents institutions from ceasing new enrollment in a failing program [while] at the same time standing up a [new] substantially similar program within the same institution.” (Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes federal financial aid programs such as the Pell Grant.)

    The regulations do include some restrictions on starting new programs, but Hoffman and other student advocates from think tanks don’t believe they are strong enough to prevent institutions from developing other similarly poor-performing certificates and degrees.

    By the end of Thursday’s meeting, the department had not yet publicly proposed any concessions to address Hoffman’s concerns on the teach-out plan or the core changes to gainful employment.

    But talks appeared to continue after the meeting ended. One department official told Hoffman he’d be amenable to talking over happy hour about what changes would be needed to get her on board.

    Source link

  • Is higher education ready for generation alpha?

    Is higher education ready for generation alpha?

    Higher education has always been a multigenerational co-op. A space where different worldviews, values and learning habits collide and evolve together. Right now, universities are still learning how to teach and support Gen Z, students who have redefined expectations around flexibility, purpose and wellbeing.

    But just as the sector starts to feel comfortable with these adjustments, the next generation is already forming behind them. “Gen Alpha” – those born from 2010 onwards – will start arriving within the next five years and their presence will make the intergenerational mix even more fascinating, and far more challenging to work with.

    Universities are used to responding to disruption when it is forced upon them, whether through policy reform, funding shifts or sudden global shocks. But this time, the change is visible on the horizon. Higher education can see one of its next major disruptions coming years in advance. The question is not whether Gen Alpha will alter how we teach, learn or engage. They will. The question is whether the sector can prepare in time, drawing lessons from what’s already happening with today’s learners.

    By 2030, higher education will become an even more complex multi-generational co-op. Gen Alpha students will be learning alongside the tail of Gen Z and quite a few millennials and Generation X. They will be taught by academics largely from the Millennials and Generation X age groups. Each group will bring different digital literacies, communication norms and values into the same ecosystem.

    The challenge, and opportunity, will be in creating environments flexible enough to bridge these perspectives while sustaining academic rigour. Understanding Gen Alpha, then, is not about predicting a single generation’s quirks. It’s about preparing universities for a shared future where several generations will need to coexist, collaborate and learn from each other.

    No off switch

    Much of what will define Gen Alpha is already visible in classrooms now. Current higher education students are demanding immediacy, connection and relevance; expectations born in a digital ecosystem that never switches off. Yet Gen Alpha will take these habits to another level. They are growing up with technology not as a tool but as the background hum of existence; seamless, intuitive and always present. They have learned to read, count and solve problems through interactive and gamified environments long before they stepped into a school.

    There is a high chance that because of or – depending on your vantage point – thanks to these habits Gen Alpha will be the most self-directed learners higher education has ever seen – but also the least patient with systems that feel slow, static or disconnected from their lived reality. Long feedback cycles, rigid timetables or outdated online platforms won’t just frustrate them; they will feel illogical. The idea of sitting through a two-hour lecture (even online) may seem not just boring but absurd.

    The early evidence is already visible in schools. Teachers across the UK talk about declining engagement and rising frustration when lessons are delivered in traditional ways. In the US, teachers describe pupils who question why they are being taught a certain way and struggle to engage with methods that feel prescriptive or irrelevant. In Australia, schools experimenting with more adaptive and project-based models such as NSWEduChat report that students are more motivated when given freedom, agency and connection to real-world issues. This is the mindset that will soon walk through our university doors.

    Cultural readiness

    Gen Alpha’s world is also more emotionally complex than that of previous generations. They are growing up surrounded by climate anxiety, social awareness and global instability. Unlike many other generations, their exposure to world events is constant and their access to information is, many times, dangerously unfiltered. They form strong opinions early and are not afraid to express them. They value authenticity and expect institutions they interact with to demonstrate values that align with their own. I am rather certain that if higher education speaks in jargon, hides behind hierarchy, or treats them as passive recipients, Gen Alpha will tune out.

    This is a generation that has been encouraged to ask questions, to expect answers quickly and to always be heard. They are unlikely to respond well to ecosystems that require silent compliance or delayed gratification considering they are growing up with feedback loops built into everything they do, from online games to learning apps. They are more likely to engage with learning that is immediate, collaborative and visually rich instead of linear or text heavy.

    Culturally, Gen Alpha is also more diverse, more inclusive and more globally connected than any generation before them. Many grow up in multilingual homes and navigate multiple cultural identities. Their sense of belonging is not bound by geography but by shared values and interests – imagine the extraordinary opportunities this will bring for HE. But universities need to create environments that feel inclusive, authentic and flexible enough to truly accommodate that diversity.

    The challenge then is not simply technological development but cultural readiness. Universities must ask whether the way they structure courses, deliver teaching and define success reflects the world these students live in. Long assessment cycles and stale teaching methods will become relics of an age that made sense when information was scarce and time moved slower.

    Foresight

    The first wave of Gen Alpha will enter UK universities in 2029 or thereabouts. That is closer to us today than the first pandemic lockdowns are behind us (and 23 March 2020 still feels like yesterday). The window to act is narrow and the sector is already under strain.

    The solution is not to rip everything up or abandon academic rigour, but to start prototyping now: testing interactive teaching models, embedding AI into learning processes, creating more authentic and timely assessments, and developing staff confidence to deliver education that resonates with digital native learners. Universities that take these steps will be positioned not just to survive the arrival of Gen Alpha but to thrive with them.

    The disruption ahead is unusual in one crucial way – we can see it coming. There will be no excuse for surprise. The next generation of students is telling us (those who listen), every day, what they expect learning to feel like. The question is whether higher education will have the courage, creativity, foresight and capacity to listen – before Gen Alpha decides it no longer needs us.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: University College Stockton

    Higher education postcard: University College Stockton

    A significant book in political science is Pressman and Wildavsky’s wonderfully titled Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes.

    Let’s see how different things were in County Durham.

    The Middlesbrough Herald and Post, 14 October 1992, could hardly have been more excited. Hailing the opening of the University College Stockton, a joint venture between Durham and Teesside universities, it noted that it was “the most important higher education development in Britain for 25 years” (the transmogrification of polytechnics to universities was clearly just a footnote).

    The principal, Professor Bob Parfitt, who had joined from the University of Western Australia, expressed the view that the college would have a bright future in 20 years’ time:

    I would hope that we are an international institution which is a clear part of the local community. We will be meeting the needs of the local market in our degrees and short courses, but I also hope we shall play a leading role in the industrial and urban regeneration of the area.

    Fast forward to 1995 and the first students were graduating. The Stockton and District Herald and Post on 28 June 1995 reports that Catherine Barker was the first to receive a joint degree from Durham and Teesside, gaining a first in European Studies (French). Environmentalist David Bellamy and local environmental activist Angela Cooper received honorary degrees at the same ceremony.

    But it wasn’t to last. John Hayward’s account of the first ten years of the college tells a tale of insufficient capital, changing government policy which slowed expansion of student numbers, and the complexities of operating a college jointly between two universities. It had been only by the skin of its teeth that the new college had got off the ground at all; and in 1994 the two universities agreed that it would continue under the tutelage of just one of them – Durham University.

    Over the next few years the university college fought to establish a sustainable basis for operations, trying different subjects and seeking funding from many sources for buildings and equipment. By the late 1990s it was no longer operating in deficit, and in the early 2000s, in order to bring it more into line with norms elsewhere in Durham University, two colleges were created at the Stockton Campus – Stephenson College and John Snow College.

    The colleges have since moved, physically, to Durham, and the campus is now known as the Queen’s Campus, Stockton. It hosts the university’s International Study Centre, so in this respect Professor Parfitt’s hope that it would be an international institution has been borne out. But not in a way he would ever have imagined.

    John Hayward’s account is worth a read. There’s a story – hidden behind the institutional politics and the minutiae of council and senate meetings – of the practical difficulties in getting something new off the ground. And of the difficulties in multi-institutional working. Which in these days of radical new governance models is a lesson worth remembering.

    Here’s a jigsaw of the postcard – it wasn’t posted, but must date from the early 1990s. It was sold in aid of the Butterwick Hospice, and slight perforation marks at the top suggest that it was one of a concertina strip of cards.

    Source link

  • Erasmus+, student loans, Rhineland study tour

    Erasmus+, student loans, Rhineland study tour

    This week on the podcast from Nijmegen on the SUs study tour the team discuss the return of the UK to Erasmus+. What steps can UK HE take to ensure that UK students take advantage of and get the benefits of mobility?

    Plus there’s a Private Members’ Bill on student loan timings, and the team share reflections on the associations, student leaders, curricula and food they’ve seen across Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and Switzerland.

    With Abi Taylor, President at Durham SU, Gary Hughes, CEO at Durham SU, Mack Marshall, Community and Policy Officer at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.


    Re-associating with Erasmus+ is only the first step

    Student Finance (Review of Payment Schedules)

    Rhineland Study Tour blogs

    Source link

  • Federal judge halts layoffs, anti-DEI measures at Head Start

    Federal judge halts layoffs, anti-DEI measures at Head Start

    Dive Brief:

    • The Trump administration’s efforts to restrict Head Start’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and downsize the early childhood education program were dealt a blow Tuesday, after a federal judge in Washington state temporarily blocked actions taken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last year.
    • The preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle says HHS’ anti-DEI warnings to Head Start providers puts them “in an impossible situation” where they cannot comply with the government’s DEI prohibitions while also fulfilling the program’s purpose, which is to provide early childhood education for historically underserved populations.
    • The temporary block also postpones mass office closures and layoffs at the Office of Head Start, which — together with the DEI ban — disrupted programs nationwide. The pause applies to programs nationwide, said attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is litigating the case.

    Dive Insight:

    The case was partly prompted by a letter sent to Head Start providers in March, which stated “The Office of Head Start will not approve the use of federal funding for any training and technical assistance (TTA) or other program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.” 

    The letter told recipients to “carefully review their annual funding application, including the budget and budget justification narrative, TTA plans, program goals, and any other supplemental materials to ensure they are in accordance with this change.” 

    Two weeks later, on April 1, 2025, HHS closed half of Head Start regional offices and laid off those staff, which left Head Start agencies in 23 states in the lurch, according to the original complaint filed in April by the ACLU. 

    After that, as Head Start programs had difficulty accessing federal grant funds that were already allocated to them and faced other funding issues, the programs were asked to certify that they did not promote DEI, accessibility or “discriminatory equity ideology.” 

    Head Start providers in Washington, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin said in the court documents that the slew of federal changes “have started to dismantle the program piece by piece, resulting in what Head Start agency directors across the country describe as ‘chaos’ that impedes their ability to effectively continue running their programs.” Head Start programs were designed by Congress to provide services that reflect the needs of their communities and serve marginalized populations. 

    Head Start serves about 750,000 infants, toddlers and preschool children a year. More than 17,000 Head Start centers operate nationwide with the support of 250,000 staff, according to the National Head Start Association, which represents the program’s families, students and staff. 

    The court documents pausing the changes on Tuesday say that HHS returned one Wisconsin program director’s grant application and provided her a list of of 197 terms to exclude from applications, including but not limited to “Black,” “diversity,” “disability,” “women,” “tribal,” “equality,” “mental health” and “barrier.” 

    In another case in Washington, a program requested professional development on working with children with autism to support more than 10% of its enrolled children, “but they were forced to remove these plans along with the other ‘prohibited’ terms from applications as ‘a condition of grant renewal,’” the Tuesday court documents say.

    “When a Head Start program has their funding withheld because of their efforts to provide effective education to children with autism, serve tribal members on a reservation, or treat all families with respect, it is an attack on the fundamental promise of the Head Start program — that even children who are furthest away from opportunity should be given the early education they need to succeed in school,” said Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program, in a Jan. 7 statement.

    HHS did not respond to K-12 Dive’s requests for comment.

    The preliminary injunction by Judge Ricardo Martinez comes after other blocks issued by judges in September on HHS’ efforts to exclude some immigrant families from Head Start services. 

    Measures by the U.S. Department of Education to cut DEI from education or education-related services have also been successfully challenged. 

    Multiple rulings by federal judges last spring struck down the Education Department’s anti-DEI policy, which one judge said raises “the specter of a public ‘witch hunt’ that will sow fear and doubt among teachers.” That anti-DEI policy included an “End DEI portal” and a Title VI certification requirement, which was overturned. 

    Title VI protects students against racial discrimination and has typically been invoked to protect historically underserved races, but the Trump administration has used it to prohibit DEI initiatives, saying such measures discriminate against White people.

    Source link

  • Child Care Aid Could Run Out by Jan. 31 Due to Trump Funding Freeze, Colorado Officials Say – The 74

    Child Care Aid Could Run Out by Jan. 31 Due to Trump Funding Freeze, Colorado Officials Say – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Colorado officials say money that helps 18,000 low-income families pay for child care could run out by Jan. 31 if federal officials don’t lift the freeze they’ve imposed on funding for several safety net programs in five Democrat-led states.

    If that happens, some children could go without care and some parents would have to stay home from work. State lawmakers could cover such a funding gap temporarily, though Colorado is facing a significant budget crunch.

    The Trump administration announced the freeze on $10 billion in child care and social services funding for Colorado, California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York in a press release Monday.

    In letters sent to the two Colorado agencies that run the affected programs, federal officials said they have “reason to believe that the State of Colorado is illicitly providing” benefits funded with federal dollars to “illegal aliens.”

    The letters didn’t cite evidence for that claim and a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services didn’t respond to questions from Chalkbeat about why federal officials are concerned about fraud in Colorado.

    Spokespeople from both state departments said by email on Tuesday they’re not aware of any federal fraud investigations focused on the programs affected by the funding freeze.

    The five-state funding freeze follows a federal crackdown in Minnesota after a right-wing YouTuber posted a video in late December alleging that Minneapolis child care centers run by Somali residents get federal funds but serve no children. It’s not clear why the other four states have gotten the same treatment as Minnesota, but all have Democratic governors who have clashed with President Donald Trump.

    In a New Year’s Eve social media post, Trump called Colorado Gov. Jared Polis “the Scumbag Governor” and said Polis and another Colorado official should “rot in hell” for mistreating Tina Peters, a Trump supporter and former Mesa County clerk who’s serving a nine-year prison sentence for orchestrating a plot to breach election systems.

    The federal freeze will affect three main funding streams in Colorado that together bring in about $317 million a year. They include $138 million for the Colorado Department of Early Childhood for child care subsidies for low-income families and a few other programs.

    The subsidy program, known as the Colorado Child Care Assistance program, helps cover the cost of care for more than 27,000 children so parents can work or take classes. It’s mostly funded by the federal government with smaller contributions from states and counties.

    The other two frozen funding streams go to the Colorado Department of Human Services and pay for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and other programs.

    In the letter to the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, federal officials outlined new fiscal requirements the state will have to follow before the funding freeze is lifted. They include attendance documentation — without names or other personal identifiers — for children in the child care subsidy program.

    A state fact sheet issued in response to the funding freeze said funding for the child care subsidy program would be depleted by Jan. 31. It also outlined several measures already in place to prevent fraud or waste, including state audits, monthly case reviews by county officials, and efforts to recover funds if improper payments are made.

    The state said it is exploring “all options, including legal avenues” to keep the frozen funding flowing.

    Six Democratic state lawmakers, most in leadership positions, released a statement Tuesday afternoon calling the funding freeze a callous move that will make life more expensive for working families.

    “We stand ready to work with Governor Polis and partners in our federal delegation to resist this lawless effort to freeze funding, and we sincerely hope that our Republican colleagues will put politics aside, get serious about making life in Colorado more affordable, and put families first,” the statement said in part.

    The statement was from Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie; Senate President James Coleman; House Majority Leader Monica Duran; Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez; Rep. Emily Sirota; and Sen. Judy Amabile.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Europe’s universities say €40bn isn’t enough for Erasmus+ ambitions

    Europe’s universities say €40bn isn’t enough for Erasmus+ ambitions

    The European University Association (EUA), along with partners from across the European higher education sector are calling on policy makers to ensure an allocation of at least €60 billion for Erasmus+ in the EU’s next long-term budget.

    Currently, the proposed budget sits at €40.8 billion for the period 2028-2034 but campaigners argue that this amount is not enough to fund “ambitious actions” that have been proposed for the next generation of the program.

    EUA said that Europe now faces a “strategic choice” adding that “underinvestment in education would undermine the EU’s own political objectives”.

    EUA secretary general Amanda Crowfoot commented: “When all factors, including inflation and new priorities, are taken into account, the proposed Erasmus+ budget for 2028-2034 would at best allow the program to continue as it is.

    “However, it would not be able to fund enhanced and additional activities to underpin the Union of Skills and the European Education Area, as proposed by the European Commission.

    “This means that there will not be enough to pay for more inclusive learning mobility nor properly funded alliances, let alone for the new scholarships in strategy priority fields. Education can make an invaluable contribution to the EU’s competitiveness agenda, but this requires concerted investment,” she explained.

    In a joint letter by multiple partners – including the European Association for International Education, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD),  CESAER and many more – together representing thousands of higher education institutions, they make the case that Europe can only achieve its ambitions in education, skills and talent if Erasmus+ is “ambitiously resourced”.

    They note Erasmus+ is one of Europe’s “most tangible success stories” and that such a significant “contribution to citizens’ lives and to Europe’s future needs investment that matches its proven impact”.

    “For nearly 40 years, this popular flagship program has empowered millions of learners, strengthened institutional cooperation, deepened European integration and fostered global outreach,” the joint statement read.

    It went on to argue that in a time of “heightened geopolitical tensions” the program “delivers long-term returns in skills, employability, innovation capacity and civic engagement”.

    Education can make an invaluable contribution to the EU’s competitiveness agenda, but this requires concerted investment

    Amanda Crowfoot, EUA secretary general

    In December 2025, it was announced that the UK will rejoin Erasmus+ for the 2027/28 academic year, six years after leaving the scheme following Brexit.

    As the voice of European universities, EUA worked closely with its UK members to advocate for their return to Erasmus+.

    The agreement will mean UK students will be able to take part in the scheme without paying any extra fees from January 2027 and has been warmly welcomed by the international education sector. UK government modelling predicts that over 100,000 people in the UK could benefit from Erasmus+ within the first year of rejoining the scheme.

    At the time, Josep M. Garrell, president of EUA, said that by restoring bridges between UK and European universities, the decision will “support student and staff mobility, cooperation between universities (including through the European Universities alliances) and joint policy development.”

    The news prompted a wave of nostalgia across the sector as professionals, from the UK and elsewhere in Europe, reflected on the exchanges, encounters and opportunities that shaped their careers.

    Source link

  • What is going on at Trinity Hall?

    What is going on at Trinity Hall?

    The Guardian has reported that Cambridge college Trinity Hall is to target “elite private schools” for student recruitment.

    To the disquiet of many college fellows a memo from director of admissions Marcus Tomalin, argues that:

    The best students from such schools arrive at Cambridge with expertise and interests that align well with the intellectual demands of Tripos courses

    specifically including subjects including languages, music, and classics.

    He recommends that the college develops a “targeted recruitment strategy” for UK independent schools that focus on these (and a handful of other) subjects where the university already sees more than 40 per cent of applications come from independent schools, and that these efforts are further reinforced by a specific concentration on specific schools that have “sent plausible applicants to Cambridge” in the past.

    To be very clear, there is nothing in the memo to suggest that this will be done to the detriment of other students. And the interventions recommended – contacting the schools to let them know about what Trinity Hall offers for these subjects, creating webinars or other social media material for those subjects and alerting those schools – are hardly evidence of discriminatory behaviour.

    Reading between the lines, this is less an effort to get more independent school kids into Cambridge and more an attempt to encourage the ones that are applying for these subjects anyway to consider Trinity Hall rather than one of the other 28 available colleges.

    Applying for these courses

    Music at Cambridge more generally is a very specialised endeavor. Applicants require either A level music or a grade 8 music qualification at merit or above, with those seeking to make a “strong application” recommended to add other A levels in English, history, mathematics, or (“ancient or modern”) languages. All this is on top of “general requirements” that include an acquaintance with the standard (classical) musical repertory, play to a grade 5 or above standard at the (piano) keyboard, and some basic knowledge of counterpoint.

    Your application will include the submission of two school essays in music and two harmony exercises. If shortlisted for interview, you would be required to take a written assessment (harmonisation of a chorale melody, recognition of musical forms, and chord analysis). All this for a chance at one of the one to three places a year available at Trinity Hall.

    For the three year course in classics you would instead need an A level in Latin (“if you do not study Latin but instead study Classical Greek, please contact us for advice”). There are between two and four places on the course available each year.

    The other route mentioned in the memo, the four year modern and medieval languages course (incorporating a year abroad), is much larger than these more specialised subjects – with between six and eight places available every year at Trinity Hall. Candidates for this four year course need an A level in at least one of the languages they want to study, and a “strong application” would have another. A portion of the interview would be conducted in one of these languages.

    By the numbers

    I mention all this to illustrate just how few students these measures would potentially have an impact on. The numbers of students that would meet the entry requirements for these courses are vanishingly low – and the subset of those that would consider the course at this particular Cambridge college as their first choice is even lower.

    In 2025 just two students applied to music at Trinity Hall (four were accepted, the college clearly topped up via the winter pool). Six applied to the three year classics programme (two offers, two acceptances), while twelve applied to modern and medieval languages (six offers, four acceptances).

    Overall, Trinity Hall saw 617 applications in 2024 (the last year of data available at this resolution), made 139 offers, and accepted 107 students. This is at the lower end of Cambridge colleges For independent schools, the numbers were 118, 31, and 28 – for UK maintained (state) schools it was 281, 78, and 53. Less than ten of these state school acceptances were in the music, classics, or languages courses we are concerned with – based on a very low level of applications to these courses from such backgrounds (we’re facing the HESA-esque rounding to the nearest five for low numbers problem here).

    A failure?

    It would be tempting to make an argument that this represents a failure in access and participation. But it is also very possible that this is not a failing on behalf of the university. There are very few schools (independent or otherwise) that can prepare people for these particular entry requirements, and that’s before we get into family and social backgrounds that are able to support sustained musical practice, or learning multiple (ancient or modern) languages.

    This isn’t the case for all courses. Trinity Hall (like other selective, prestigious providers) does a huge amount of work in broadening access and participation to undergraduate study. It works with potential applicants from underrepresented ethnic groups, and works particularly with schools in Bristol and the South West.

    A Trinity Hall spokesperson told me that:

    There has been no change to Trinity Hall’s widening participation policy. This modest additional activity is aimed at ensuring we get the best applications from talented students from all backgrounds. The college is very proud of the progress it has made in widening access. Average admissions from state schools at the college in the past 3 years has been 73 per cent and Trinity Hall admitted 20.4 per cent of its UK students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds last year, an increase on previous years.

    Language about “reverse discrimination” is unhelpful. If there really is reverse discrimination a look at recruitment to these courses at Cambridge suggests it isn’t working very well. As applicant numbers are falling, to various degrees, for classics, languages, and (classical) music across the sector, Trinity Hall (like providers of all types) is looking to maximise recruitment by making an effort to encourage students already likely to apply – in this case, students almost certain to apply to Cambridge in the hope they would choose Trinity Hall rather than St John’s or Clare.

    This is not a replacement for broader and more sustained work on access: it is simply evidence that recruitment pressures (and the linked financial pressures) are everywhere.

    [Full screen]

    Source link