Tag: afford

  • The Precedent Higher Ed Can’t Afford to Set (opinion)

    The Precedent Higher Ed Can’t Afford to Set (opinion)

    American higher education stands at a critical juncture following the emergence of reports that the Department of Justice is seeking a consent decree with Columbia University. While Columbia’s acting president responded by stating, “We would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution,” the very possibility of such a decree signals a new chapter in the relationship between colleges and universities and the federal government. Even the proposition of a consent decree sets a dangerous precedent for American higher education, one that erodes institutional autonomy and the independence of governing boards.

    At a time when our colleges and universities are navigating political crosswinds, social unrest and increasing scrutiny, the integrity of board governance has never mattered more. Independent governing boards are not symbolic structures—they are foundational to higher education’s ability to serve the public good, safeguard academic freedom and maintain mission-centered leadership through both crisis and calm.

    The concern is not whether institutions should comply with the law. Of course they should. The question is whether legal settlements or government actions should be allowed to intrude on the role of boards, setting terms that weaken governance authority or sideline trustees from their fiduciary duties.

    What should trustees at other colleges and universities do if faced with similar pressure to agree—without legal adjudication—to external controls that appear to compromise governance independence?

    First, they must reaffirm their fiduciary duties—not just as a formality, but as a framework for bold, mission-driven leadership. Boards must remain grounded in their legal and ethical obligations: duty of care, duty of loyalty and duty of obedience to the institution’s mission. In the face of political pressure, these aren’t abstract ideals—they are anchors.

    Second, boards must seek independent legal and governance counsel early in any negotiation process. The interests of compliance and governance are not always aligned. Trustees must understand the distinction between politics, policies and law and be prepared to assert their responsibilities.

    Third, if presented with a consent decree or settlement that overreaches, trustees should insist on clear, limited and transparent terms—not vague provisions that allow for creeping oversight or ambiguous veto powers. A board that relinquishes its authority may be trying to protect its institution in the moment, but in doing so it places the long-term health of not only its own institution but the entire educational sector at risk.

    Finally, boards must speak—together. We need a collective stance among governing boards, higher education associations and institutional leaders that reasserts the value of independent governance in a democratic society. The erosion of board autonomy doesn’t just threaten governance structures—it jeopardizes the trust, freedom, credibility and sustainability of our institutions.

    This is a defining moment. If we allow undue influences—whether government agencies, political appointees, donors, alumni or others—to dictate the terms of campus governance, we risk undoing the foundation of American higher education. Trustees must act independently—with clarity, courage and an unwavering commitment to their institutions’ missions and values.

    The future of higher education depends on it.

    Ross Mugler is the board chair and acting president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Source link

  • Young people from deprived areas can’t afford to consider university

    Young people from deprived areas can’t afford to consider university

    Should the economic fortunes area you grew up in have an impact on your chances of attending university?

    There has always been a stubborn connection between 18 year old participation rates and your (UK) region of residence.

    Currently UCAS data tells us that 18 year olds living in London are more likely than not to go on to attend university, whereas in the North East just 29.9 per cent will get there.

    Can’t get there from here

    And in many parts of the UK the proportion of 18 year olds getting to university has stagnated (or even dropped over recent years), as the population of 18 year olds has expanded.

    [Full screen]

    If you are concerned about left-behind parts of the UK, this is something that should concern you. It’s widely acknowledged that graduates are key to levelling up a region, and a surprisingly large number of graduates return to their home area (at least in the short term) after graduation.

    Costs not culture?

    The counter argument to that is very often cultural – the idea that going to university changes a person, and dilutes the essence of what makes (frankly) a deprived area a deprived area. Polling from Public First for the UPP Foundation (which is kicking off an inquiry into the state of widening participation in higher education) happily suggests that this is not an attitude prevalent among UK parents.

    [Full screen]

    What does worry parents is the sheer cost of study – both in terms of tuition fees (36 per cent cite this as a top three reason to be concerned about their children attending university) and living costs (31 per cent). The overall level of debt on graduation is the other big one (35 per cent).

    But that’s not to say that there are not other reasons – number four in the list is the idea that “they won’t get a better job just because they have been to university” (particularly prevalent in London), number six is “poor value for money” (an East Midlands, North East, and Northern Ireland prevalence). The size of the sample makes the regional splits difficult to draw accurate conclusions from, but the trends are interesting.

    What teachers said

    Teachers are a primary source of information about higher education – happily UPPF also commissioned Public First to look at what teachers felt were the barriers to participation, and there are (some) regional splits.

    [Full screen]

    The question here focuses on why teachers don’t expect some pupils to go to university – we are looking across all types of schools at the top of secondary education. Here we see that the big barriers are academic – teachers tend to feel that students are unlikely to get the required grades (24 per cent) or to rise to the academic challenge (18 per cent). And this is true across all English regions.

    Notably prevalent in the North East and Yorkshire (combining two standard, ILTS1, regions) is the idea that the family will be unable to support a student. In that region this was cited by 13 per cent of teachers – enough to feel concerning, but similar to the proportion that simply don’t want to go to university (again note that the margin of error will be high with small subsamples).

    Your chances are variable

    Twenty per cent of teachers in London feel like all of the last class they taught will go on to university – just four per cent of teachers in the North West, North East, and Yorkshire had similar confidence. Indeed 14 per cent of teachers in the North East and Yorkshire felt that only 10 per cent of their class would go on to university. As you might expect, the modal answer for most regions was “about half” of pupils – the North East and Yorkshire is the only exception.

    [Full screen]

    This, then, is what access and participation in the north is up against. Attainment and capacity is an issue everywhere, and one that the access and participation regime in England attempts to address via collaboration between universities and schools – something that also contributes to aspiration.

    But aspiration and attainment count for little when parents and teachers are agreeing that for many in the UK’s most deprived areas university study simply is not affordable. And though participation among disadvantaged groups is improving – disadvantaged areas continue to struggle.

    Source link

  • With higher education under siege, college presidents cannot afford to stay silent 

    With higher education under siege, college presidents cannot afford to stay silent 

    Higher education is under siege from the Trump administration. Those opposing this siege and the administration’s attacks on democracy would do well to heed the wise advice of Benjamin Franklin given just prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” 

    This is particularly true right now for college and university presidents.

    College presidents come from a tradition based on the importance of ideas, of fairness, of speaking the truth as they understand it, whatever the consequences. If they don’t speak out, what will later generations say when they look back at this dark, dark time?

    The idea that Trump’s attacks on higher education are necessary to combat antisemitism is the thinnest of covers, and yet only a very few college presidents have been brave enough to call this what it is. 

    The president and those around him don’t care about antisemitism. Trump said people who chanted “Jews will not replace us” were “very fine people”; he dined with avowed antisemites like Nick Fuentes and Ye (Kanye West). 

    Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed the California wildfires of 2018 on space lasers paid for by Jewish bankers. Robert Kennedy claimed that Covid “targeted” white and Black people but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. The Proud Boys pardoned by Trump for their part in the January 6 insurrection have routinely proclaimed their antisemitism; they include at least one member who has openly declared admiration for Adolf Hitler.

    Fighting antisemitism? That was never the motive for the Trump administration’s attacks on colleges and universities. The motive was — and continues to be — to discipline and tame institutions of higher learning, to bring them to heel, to turn them into mouthpieces of a single ideology, to put an end to the free flow of ideas under the alleged need to combat “wokeism.”

    Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweeklyHigher Education newsletter.

    Columbia University has been a prime target of the Trump administration’s financial threats. I’ve been a university provost. I’m not naïve about the tremendous damage the withholding of federal support can have on a school. But the fate of Columbia should be a cautionary tale for those who think keeping their heads down will help them survive. (The Hechinger Report is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based at Teachers College, Columbia University.) 

    Columbia was more than conciliatory in responding to concerns of antisemitism. The administration suspended two student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, for holding rallies that allegedly included “threatening rhetoric and intimidation.” 

    They suspended four students in connection with an event featuring speakers who “support terrorism and promote violence.” 

    They called in police to dismantle the encampment created to protest the War in Gaza. Over 100 protesters were arrested. 

    They created a Task Force on Antisemitism, and accepted its recommendations. They dismissed three deans for exchanging text messages that seemed to minimize Jewish students’ concerns and referenced antisemitic tropes. 

    President Minouche Shafik resigned after little more than a year in office. (Last week, the university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, also resigned.) In September 2024, the ADL reports, the university went so far as to introduce “new policies prohibiting the use of terms like ‘Zionist’ when employed to target Jews or Israelis.” 

    None of this prevented the Trump administration from cancelling $400 million worth of grants and contracts to Columbia — because responding to antisemitism was never the real impetus for the attack. 

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    Was Marjorie Taylor Greene asked to renounce antisemitism as a condition for her leadership in Congress? 

    Was Robert Kennedy asked to renounce antisemitism in order to be nominated for a Cabinet position?

    Were the Proud Boys asked to renounce antisemitism as a condition for their pardoning? 

    This is an attack on higher education as a whole, and it requires a collective defense. Columbia yesterday. Harvard today, your school tomorrow. College presidents cannot be silent as individual schools are attacked. They need to speak out as a group against each and every incursion. 

    They need to pledge to share resources, including financial resources, to resist these attacks; they should mount a joint legal resistance and a joint public response to an attack on any single institution. 

    These days, as many have observed, are much like the dark days of McCarthyism in the 1950s. In retrospect, we wonder why it took so long for so many to speak up. 

    Today we celebrate those who had the moral strength to stand up right then and say, “No. This isn’t right, and I won’t be part of it.” 

    The politicians of the Republican Party have made it clear they won’t do that, though most of them understand that Trumpism is attacking the very values — freedom, democracy, fairness — that they celebrate as “American.” 

    They have earned the low opinion most people have of politicians. But college and university presidents should — and must — take a stand. 

    Rob Rosenthal is John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University. 

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about higher education and the Trump administration was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’sweekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Despite being global leader, UK cannot afford to rest on its laurels in digital, AI and green skills

    Despite being global leader, UK cannot afford to rest on its laurels in digital, AI and green skills

    By Matteo Quacquarelli, Vice President of Strategy and Analytics at QS Quacquarelli Symonds.

    Across the globe, economies are grappling with skills and talent challenges. From talent saturation to workforce reskilling, each country is facing its own unique issues as it prepares for the evolution of the digital age.

    The QS World Future Skills Index, just launched, offers a detailed breakdown of the globe’s higher education systems, their links with industries and how countries are preparing for the next industrial evolution. Using exclusive QS data, it identifies where economies and countries need to align their higher education outcomes with the needs of industry in three key areas – green, AI and digital.

    The analysis delves into 81 economies and finds that UK higher education is currently one of the world’s best for cultivating students with the future skills business and industry are calling out for.

    It measures four indicators linked to skills like AI proficiency, digital literacy and environmental sustainability that will form the bedrock of the industries of tomorrow.

    Skills Fit measures how well countries are equipping graduates with the skills employers desire. In this, no country is currently better than the UK. Using data from both our own largest-of-its-kind QS Global Employer Survey and the World Bank Group, we identified that UK employers have the highest satisfaction rates with the skills graduates bring with them, anywhere in the world – but perhaps only for the time being.

    Additionally, the UK received top marks in the Academic Readiness dimension, measuring the preparedness of a country in regard to the future of work. The UK’s success in the QS World University Rankings by Subject allowed it to flourish here.

    However, the UK must not rest on its laurels. Higher education in other markets globally is innovating at a far more rapid rate than in the UK. The reputational strength of the UK – built on its history and tradition of delivering excellent teaching and learning – is unlikely to be the key driver of satisfaction going forward.

    The UK was slightly less successful than its closest rivals in the areas of Future of Work and Economic Transformation.

    Future of Work measures how well the job market is prepared to meet the growing demand for digital, AI and green skills, using 1Mentor data of over 280m job postings worldwide.

    Economic Transformation analyzes whether a country has the infrastructure, investment power, and talent available to transition to industries driven by AI, digital transformation, green technologies and high-skilled work. This indicator used data from the World Bank Group, UNESCO Institute for Statistics and the Education Policy Institute.

    This lower score is reflective of the slow-to-no economic growth seen in the UK over the past decade and the tightening of the public purse strings strangling investment in R&D and new business innovation (evidenced by decline not only in public but also private sector funding in the UK).

    The latest economic forecasts signal a further period of stagnation for the UK economy might be on the horizon.

    Just as the importance of investment in future skills cannot be understated, nor can the importance of higher education in AI breakthroughs and innovation.

    Funnelling research innovation down the value chain into industry has been the bedrock of economic innovation worldwide. Without Stanford University, there would be no Silicon Valley. In Germany, the universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen are key in the country’s Cyber Valley initiative. If Melbourne didn’t have its outstanding higher education institutions, the city would not hold the crown of tech capital of Australia.

    The QS Future World Skills Index highlights the example of South Korea, where there is a correlation between increasing numbers of young adults attaining tertiary education and GDP growth.

    The UK government’s new AI Opportunities Action Plan, announced earlier this week sets out a clear ambition strategy to maintain Britain’s position as one of the world’s AI superpowers and has been widely welcomed by industry.

    The prime minister says his government will make it easier for experts to come to the UK via its talent visas and for future leaders to learn here. Tens of thousands of additional AI professionals will be needed by 2030, he has said.

    The Government also wants to ‘increase its share of the world’s top 1,000 AI researchers’ and will launch an AI scholarship scheme to support 100 students to study in the UK.

    While the UK was also top in Europe for talent creation, with 46,000 students graduating from an AI-relevant higher education program ahead of Germany in terms of absolute numbers with 32,000, the UK is still behind Finland on a per capita basis. Without specific policy and commitment, the UK risks losing its leading position.

    The UK is missing ‘frontier conceptual, cutting-edge companies‘. DeepMind, the AI research laboratory, was one such company that was founded in the UK before being acquired by Google in 2014. But where was it established? The three co-founders meet while studying at University College London.

    The new AI Growth Zones the government has announced, with the first starting in Culham, will need to engage universities up and down the country. Higher education must also be closely involved in the Digital and Technology Sector Plan, which is set to be published in the coming months.

    The government has also previously pledged to become a green energy superpower. The QS Future World Skills Index suggests that both the UK’s job market and its higher education system is well set up to capitalise on that opportunity.

    To succeed, government policy, the needs of industry and higher education curricula must all align to create an environment where the country can succeed and be future-ready.

    Economies and higher education systems that invest in high-quality academic programmes in AI, digital and sustainability are setting themselves up for long-term success.

    For the full QS World Future Skills Index: https://www.qs.com/reports-whitepapers/world-future-skills-index

    The UK Spotlight is available here: https://www.qs.com/reports-whitepapers/uk-spotlight-qs-world-future-skills-index

    Source link