Tag: Business

  • U of Delaware Creates Yearlong Co-Ops for Business Students

    U of Delaware Creates Yearlong Co-Ops for Business Students

    More colleges and universities are seeking ways to embed work-based learning into the student experience, ensuring graduates are prepared to tackle their first job.

    The University of Delaware’s Lerner College of Business and Economics received a grant in January from the Delaware Workforce Development Board to create yearlong employment opportunities for current students, connecting them with businesses across the state that are interested in hiring local talent. Program leaders say the goal is to provide deeper learning opportunities for students and create a talent pipeline for the region.

    State of play: Delaware has the second-highest rate of brain drain in the U.S., just behind North Dakota, meaning the state educates more workers than it retains and attracts.

    “We want to keep homegrown talent here in Delaware after they graduate,” said Scott Malfitano, chair of the Delaware Workforce Development Board, in a press release. “We also want to keep those students who come from out of state to Delaware here when they see the wonderful opportunities that are available.”

    Part of the challenge is that companies in Delaware compete for talent with employers in nearby regions including Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia; and New York, Malfitano said. “We want [students] to see the opportunities that are here, and they’ll find out that businesses are hungry and they want to keep the talent here.”

    How it works: The Lerner Co-Op program launched in January. The university’s career center solicited businesses in the region to host co-op participants and opened a form for students to apply. In the spring, companies provided job descriptions, and students submitted applications before being selected for interviews by the employers.

    The co-op officially started in June, when students began their full-time summer internships, working 40 hours per week. Since classes started back up in the fall, students continue to work up to 20 hours per week, which they will do until next spring.

    “A lot of our students tend to intern in the summer for eight to 10 weeks, which is great, but we wanted for them to have a much longer experience to build their résumé, build their networks and make money,” Jill Panté, director of Lerner career services, said in a January press release.

    Grant funding was used to hire a program coordinator to oversee the co-op, including posting positions, scheduling interviews and assisting with the offer process, Panté said.

    The impact: For the initial cohort, 25 students were placed with 21 employers, including WSFS Bank, JPMorgan Chase, 2L Race Services, the Siegfried Group and DuPont. Student roles include business operations, event coordination and data product solutions.

    Feedback from participants, collected in surveys and blog posts, showed that continuing the work beyond the summer has been productive for both students and employers. Employers get more work done, and students expand their learning experiences and benefit from longer-term mentors who provide career advice and support during the program.

    Looking ahead, the university hopes to grow the program to 50 companies in the next year, allowing additional students to participate.

    Does your college or university provide paid work experiences for students during the academic year? Tell us more here.

    Source link

  • London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    As the UK prepares for the Graduate Route to be shortened from two years to 18 months, London’s business leaders have had their say on international graduates in the workforce, with 90% showing support.

    The results of London Higher‘s recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that international talent is highly valued across London businesses – 62% of respondents view international talent as essential and a further 28% say it is important. Only 10% say foreign talent is not very important or not at all important.

    “Global graduates give London its competitive edge. Every sector of our economy benefits from the talent and energy they bring. This research shows that they don’t take opportunities away – they help create them,” said Liz Hutchinson, chief executive of London Higher – the membership organisation that promotes and acts as an advocate for higher education in the city.

    The majority of those surveyed believe that international talent plugs skills gaps (93%), drives innovation (89%) and supports London’s global competitiveness, while only a small minority of business leaders felt it reduced scope for domestic talent and innovation.

    Some 93% of respondents say that international talent helps address skills gaps in their industry, with only 4% saying that international workers reduce opportunities for UK talent.

    “By helping businesses expand, [global graduates] generate more jobs and opportunities for everyone. As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors,” added Hutchinson.

    As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors
    Liz Hutchinson, London Higher

    Elsewhere, 91% of those surveyed view international workers as essential or helpful for the city’s competitiveness against global cities such as New York, Singapore or Paris, with only 7% saying that their relevance is limited or non-existent.

    The survey shows that support for international talent is strongest in larger, growth sector companies – and in those that think they are outperforming their competitors.

    The survey comes as anti-immigration rhetoric in the UK intensifies and the government pushes ahead with stricter immigration rules.

    As domestic politics play out in headlines overseas and concerns grow around the UK’s stance as a welcoming destination for international talent, Harry Coath, head of the talent and skills programme at London’s growth agency, London & Partners, said he sees an opportunity for London to position itself as a city that truly embraces diversity – a factor he noted is central to why so many businesses choose to be here.

    Speaking at London Higher’s conference this week, alongside Coath, Ruth Arnold, executive director of external affairs at Study Group, said the latest research is arguably the most important report London Higher has ever produced, taking into consideration this political context and the importance of employability and post-study work to today’s international students.

    The UK government’s decision to cut the Graduate Route visa from two years to 18 months was first announced in May in the UK government’s white paper on immigration, and the change is set to to take effect from January 2027.

    The survey showed that business leaders think international students should be able to access work visas – 59% want to see easier access for international students to stay in the country 28% feel the current system works, while only 10% are vying for tighter controls.

    John Dickie, CEO of BusinessLDN, commented on the report’s findings, highlighting the importance that the UK “does all it can to remain attractive to highly skilled individuals from across the globe, particularly at a time when some of our rivals are closing their doors to international students”.

    Dickie noted the government’s proposed levy on international student fees, and urged ministers to scrap these “misguided plans” that he said would “hit growth, exacerbate the sector’s financial challenges and undermine [the UK’s] soft power”.

    Source link

  • International enrolments at UK business schools on the mend

    International enrolments at UK business schools on the mend

    UK business schools continue to be buffeted by hostile immigration policies, with some institutions noting two consecutive years of declining overseas enrolments, according to 2025/26 results from the 2025 Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS) annual membership survey of 48 members.

    But the picture seems to be improving. Almost half of the schools surveyed (46%) reported an increase in international enrolments, up from just 11% the previous year. At undergraduate level, 45% reported rising numbers, compared with 64% at postgraduate level.

    Nevertheless, the association has pointed to policies affecting international students in the UK as continuing causes for concern for business schools as promises made in Keir Starmer’s immigration white paper become a reality.

    While international enrolments at the undergraduate level were down on 2024/25 for 14% of respondents, this is far lower than the 39% who reported the same trend in 2024/25.

    Similarly, while a sizeable chunk of respondents (39%) said overseas enrolments for postgraduate students were down year on year, this is still a noticeable improvement than over three quarters of respondents the year before.

    But the Chartered ABS noted that international enrolments will still be lower than before 2024/25, with some schools reporting two years of decline in a row.

    The Chartered ABS pointed to hostile policies in the UK as a potential reason for declining international enrolments. The UK government’s decision to reduce the Graduate Route by six months is already having an effect, it said, with 60% of survey respondents saying the incoming policy has had a negative impact.

    “The shortening of the Graduate Route, the ban on student dependants, and the proposals for the international student levy will continue to have a damaging impact on business school finances, and by extension, their parent institutions,” warned Stewart Robinson, chair of the Chartered ABS and dean of Newcastle University Business School.

    “These results reveal that while some institutions are seeing student numbers grow and finances stabilise, many institutions continue to face significant challenges. Budget cuts, restructuring, and redundancies will continue, and many business schools will face another year of declining student numbers and income,” he added. 

    The survey revealed that many UK business schools are feeling the pinch, with an increasing number (48%) reporting a drop in year-on-year income in 2025/26 compared to 36% in 2024/25.

    Budget cuts, restructuring, and redundancies will continue, and many business schools will face another year of declining student numbers and income
    Stewart Robinson, Chartered ABS and Newcastle University Business School

    However, more than half of the schools surveyed (58%) said they expected income to increase in 2025/26 – an improvement on the previous year, when more than half expected further decline.

    A slew of policies affecting the international education sector were announced as part of the immigration white paper, with stakeholders concerned that each could have a serious impact on overseas enrolments.

    The government has decided to cut the Graduate Route from two years to just 18 months, shaving six months off the visa route for international graduates from UK institutions.

    A levy on the income institutions make from international student fees was also announced as part of the changes, with a later decision to ringfence this cash to spend on maintenance grants for domestic students. Critics have warned that the move could decimate international enrolments if students are put off by the higher fees many institutions will have to set to cover the cost of the tax.

    An earlier decision to ban almost all international students from bringing their dependants to the country with them on a student visa. Since 2024, when the policy was announced, net migration numbers in the UK have seen a steep decline.

    Source link

  • Chegg slashes nearly half of its workforce as AI eats into its business

    Chegg slashes nearly half of its workforce as AI eats into its business

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Ed tech specialist Chegg is slashing 388 jobs, or about 45% of its workforce, in a massive restructuring effort expected to save up to $110 million next fiscal year, the public company said this week. 
    • The news comes as Chegg announced it will remain a standalone company following an exploration of strategic options that could have involved selling the company to new ownership or going private. 
    • The company also reshuffled its leadership. Executive Chairman Dan Rosensweig resumed the CEO role on Monday. He replaced Nathan Schultz, who had taken on the chief role from Rosenzweig in June 2024 and is remaining as an executive adviser.

    Dive Insight:

    Chegg pegged its mass layoffs to a change in how it operates its academic learning products, which include online homework and study help, textbook rental and proofreading services, among others. The company also highlighted its investment in artificial intelligence, which it has integrated into products such as its language-learning tools.

    As it restructures, Chegg plans to refocus around its business-to-business skills courses in professional language-learning, workplace readiness and A, which executives expect to collectively generate $70 million in revenue for fiscal 2025 and to grow in double digits next year. This new focus will set up Chegg for sustainable revenue and earnings growth, the company said.

    For now, the company is racing to cut costs as it bleeds subscribers and money. In the second quarter, Chegg’s revenue plummeted by more than a third, to $105.1 million, which came on top of similar declines in Q1.

    Chegg has named Google as the source of many of its woes — specifically the search giant’s artificial intelligence summaries, which led to a sharp decrease in Chegg’s traffic.

    In February, Schultz announced that Chegg filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google and that it was exploring its strategic alternatives to remaining a standalone publicly traded company.

    “These two actions are connected, as we would not need to review strategic alternatives if Google hadn’t launched AI Overviews,” Schultz said then. “Unfortunately, traffic is being blocked from ever coming to Chegg because of Google’s AIO and their use of Chegg’s content to keep visitors on their own platform.”

    In its complaint against Google, Chegg said it gains most of its subscribers through students searching for answers to their study questions on Google. “Chegg thus depends on referrals from Google’s monopoly search engine for a large portion of the revenue that it devotes to producing original online content,” it said. 

    Chegg alleged that Google has leveraged its massive market share in internet searches to “coerce online publishers like Chegg to supply content that Google republishes without permission in AI-generated answers that unfairly compete for the attention of users.”

    Google has moved to dismiss the case. The tech giant argued that it has tailored its AI Overview to best serve consumers and learners, and that Chegg’s revenue struggles are its own. 

    “Instead of competing more effectively, it seeks to blame Google for its business decline,” Google responded in a May court filing. “Chegg’s grab bag of obscure legal theories in support of this effort not only are not cognizable under the antitrust laws, but run directly afoul of those laws.”

    While Chegg looked at possible financial alternatives to going it alone, it ended the process as it began: as a standalone company, for now. 

    “After thoughtful consideration of multiple proposals, the Board unanimously determined that remaining an independent public company offers the best opportunity to maximize long-term shareholder value,” the company said Monday.

    Source link

  • What the saga of Oxford Business College tells us about regulation and franchising

    What the saga of Oxford Business College tells us about regulation and franchising

    One of the basic expectations of a system of regulation is consistency.

    It shouldn’t matter how prestigious you are, how rich you are, or how long you’ve been operating: if you are active in a regulated market then the same rules should apply to all.

    Regulatory overreach can happen when there is public outrage over elements of what is happening in that particular market. The pressure a government feels to “do something” can override processes and requirements – attempting to reach the “right” (political or PR) answer rather than the “correct” (according to the rules) one.

    So when courses at Oxford Business College were de-designated by the Secretary of State for Education, there’s more to the tale than a provider where legitimate questions had been raised about the student experience getting just desserts. It is a cautionary tale, involving a fascinating high-court judgment and some interesting arguments about the limits of ministerial power, of what happens when political will gets ahead of regulatory processes.

    Business matters

    A splash in The Sunday Times back in the spring concerned the quality of franchised provision from – as it turned out – four Office for Students registered providers taught at Oxford Business College. The story came alongside tough language from Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson:

    I know people across this country, across the world, feel a fierce pride for our universities. I do too. That’s why I am so outraged by these reports, and why I am acting so swiftly and so strongly today to put this right.

    And she was in no way alone in feeling that way. Let’s remind ourselves, the allegations made in The Sunday Times were dreadful. Four million pounds in fraudulent loans. Fake students, and students with no apparent interest in studying. Non-existent entry criteria. And, as we shall see, that’s not even as bad as the allegations got.

    De-designation – removing the eligibility of students at a provider to apply for SLC fee or maintenance loans – is one of the few levers government has to address “low quality” provision at an unregistered provider. Designation comes automatically when a course is franchised from a registered provider: a loophole in the regulatory framework that has caused concern over a number of years. Technically an awarding provider is responsible for maintaining academic quality and standards for its students studying elsewhere.

    The Office for Students didn’t have any regulatory jurisdiction other than pursuing the awarding institutions. OBC had, in fact, tried to register with OfS – withdrawing the application in the teeth of the media firestorm at the end of March.

    So everything depended on the Department for Education overturning precedent.

    Ministering

    It is “one of the biggest financial scandals universities have faced.” That’s what Bridget Phillipson said when presented with The Sunday Times’ findings. She announced that the Public Sector Fraud Authority would coordinate immediate action, and promised to empower the Office for Students to act in such cases.

    In fact, OBC was already under investigation by the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) and had been since 2024. DfE had been notified by the Student Loans Company about trends in the data and other information that might indicate fraud at various points between November 2023 and February 2024 – notifications that we now know were summarised as a report detailing the concerns which was sent to DfE in January 2024. The eventual High Court judgement (the details of which we will get to shortly) outlined just a few of these allegations, which I take from from the court documents:

    • Students enrolled in the Business Management BA (Hons) course did not have basic English language skills.
    • Less than 50 per cent of students enrolled in the London campus participate, and the remainder instead pay staff to record them as in attendance.
    • Students have had bank details altered or new bank accounts opened in their name, to which their maintenance payments were redirected.
    • Staff are encouraging fraud through fake documents sent to SLC, fake diplomas, and fake references. Staff are charging students to draft their UCAS applications and personal statements. Senior staff are aware of this and are uninterested.
    • Students attending OBC do not live in the country. In one instance, a dead student was kept on the attendance list.
    • Students were receiving threats from agents demanding money and, if the students complained, their complaints were often dealt with by those same agents threatening the students.
    • Remote utilities were being used for English language tests where computers were controlled remotely to respond to the questions on behalf of prospective students.
    • At the Nottingham campus, employees and others were demanding money from students for assignments and to mark their attendance to avoid being kicked off their course.

    At the instigation of DfE, and with the cooperation of OBC, GIAA started its investigation on 19 September 2024, continuing to request information from and correspond with the college until 17 January 2025. An “interim report” detailing emerging findings went to DfE on 17 December 2024; the final report arrived on 30 January 2025. The final report made numerous recommendations about OBC processes and policies, but did not recommend de-designation. That recommendation came in a ministerial submission, prepared by civil servants, dated 18 March 2025.

    Process story

    OBC didn’t get sight of these reports until 20 March 2025, after the decisions were made. It got summaries of both the interim and final reports in a letter from DfE notifying it that Phillipson was “minded to” de-designate. The documentation tells us that GIAA reported that OBC had:

    • recruited students without the required experience and qualifications to successfully complete their courses
    • failed to ensure students met the English language proficiency as set out in OBC and lead provider policies
    • failed to ensure attendance is managed effectively
    • failed to withdraw or suspend students that fell below the required thresholds for performance and/or engagement;
    • failed to provide evidence that immigration documents, where required, are being adequately verified.

    The college had 14 days to respond to the summary and provide factual comment for consideration, during which period The Sunday Times published its story. OBC asked DfE for the underlying material that informed the findings and the subsequent decision, and for an extension (it didn’t get all the material, but it got a further five days) – and it submitted 68 pages of argument and evidence to DfE, on 7 April 2025. Another departmental ministerial submission (on 16 April 2025) recommended that the Secretary of State confirm the decision to de-designate.

    According to the OBC legal team, these emerging findings were not backed up by the full GIAA reports, and there were concerns about the way a small student sample had been used to generalise across an entire college. Most concerningly, the reports as eventually shared with the college did not support de-designation (though they supported a number of other concerns about OBC and its admission process). This was supported by a note from GIAA regarding OBC’s submission, which – although conceding that aspects of the report could have been expressed more clearly – concluded:

    The majority of the issues raised relate to interpretation rather than factual accuracy. Crucially, we are satisfied that none of the concerns identified have a material impact on our findings, conclusions or overall assessment.

    Phillipson’s decision to de-designate was sent to the college on 17 April 2025, and it was published as a Written Ministerial Statement. Importantly, in her letter, she noted that:

    The Secretary of State’s decisions have not been made solely on the basis of whether or not fraud has been detected. She has also addressed the issue of whether, on the balance of probabilities, the College has delivered these courses, particularly as regards the recruitment of students and the management of attendance, in such a way that gives her adequate assurance that the substantial amounts of public money it has received in respect of student fees, via its partners, have been managed to the standards she is entitled to expect.

    Appeal

    Oxford Business College appealed the Secretary of State’s decision. Four grounds of challenge were pursued with:

    • Ground 3: the Secretary of State had stepped beyond her powers in prohibiting OBC from receiving public funds from providing new franchised courses in the future.
    • Ground 1: the decision was procedurally unfair, with key materials used by the Secretary of State in making the decision not provided to the college, and the college never being told the criteria it was being assessed against
    • Ground 4: By de-designating courses, DfE breached OBCs rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions – in this case the courses themselves)
    • Ground 7: The decision by the Secretary of State had breached the public sector equality duty

    Of these, ground 3 was not determined, as the Secretary of State had clarified that no decision had been taken regarding future courses delivered by OBC. Ground 4 was deemed to be a “controversial” point of law regarding whether a course and its designation status could be a “possession” under ECHR, but could be proceeded with at a later date. Ground 7 was not decided.

    Ground 1 succeeded. The court found that OBC had been subject to an unfair process, where:

    OBC was prejudiced in its ability to understand and respond to the matters of the subject of investigation, including as to the appropriate sanction, and to understand the reasons for the decision.

    Judgement

    OBC itself, or the lawyers it engaged, have perhaps unwisely decided to put the judgement into the public domain – it has yet to be formally published. I say unwisely, because it also puts the initial allegations into the public domain and does not detail any meaningful rebuttal from the college – though The Telegraph has reported that the college now plans to sue the Secretary of State for “tens of millions of pounds.”

    The win, such as it is, was entirely procedural. The Secretary of State should have shared more detail of the findings of the GIAA investigation (at both “emerging” and “final” stages) in order that the college could make its own investigations and dispute any points of fact.

    Much of the judgement deals with the criteria by which a sample of 200 students were selected – OBC was not made aware that this was a sample comprising those “giving the greatest cause for suspicion” rather than a random sample, and the inability of OBC to identify students whose circumstances or behaviour were mentioned in the report. These were omissions, but nowhere is it argued by OBC that these were not real students with real experiences.

    Where allegations are made that students might be being threatened by agents and institutional staff, it is perhaps understandable that identifying details might be redacted – though DfE cited the “”pressure resulting from the attenuated timetable following the order for expedition, the evidence having been filed within 11 days of that order” for difficulties faced in redacting the report properly. On this point, DfE noted that OBC, using the materials provided, “had been able to make detailed representations running to 68 pages, which it had described as ‘comprehensive’ and which had been duly considered by the Secretary of State”.

    The Secretary of State, in evidence, rolled back from the idea that she could automatically de-designate future courses without specific reason, but this does not change the decisions she has made about the five existing courses delivered in partnership. Neither does it change the fact that OBC, having had five courses forcibly de-designated, and seen the specifics of the allegations underpinning this exceptional decision put into the public domain without any meaningful rebuttal, may struggle to find willing academic partners.

    The other chink of legal light came with an argument that a contract (or subcontract) could be deemed a “possession” under certain circumstances, and that article one section one of the European Convention on Human Rights permits the free enjoyment of possessions. The judgement admits that there could be grounds for debate here, but that debate has not yet happened.

    Rules

    Whatever your feelings about OBC, or franchising in general, the way in which DfE appears to have used a carefully redacted and summarised report to remove an institution from the sector is concerning. If the rules of the market permit behaviour that ministers do not like, then these rules need to be re-written. DfE can’t just regulate based on what it thinks the rules should be.

    The college issued a statement on 25 August, three days after the judgement was published – it claims to be engaging with “partner institutions” (named as Buckinghamshire New University, University of West London, Ravensbourne University London, and New College Durham – though all four had already ended their partnerships with the remaining students being “taught out”) about the future of the students affected by the designation decision – many had already transferred to other courses at other providers.

    In fact, the judgement tells us that of 5,000 students registered at OBC on 17 April 2025, around 4,700 had either withdrawn or transferred out of OBC to be taught out. We also learn that 1,500 new students, who had planned to start an OBC-delivered course after 2025, would no longer be doing so. Four lead providers had given notice to terminate franchise agreements between April 2024 and May of 2025. Franchise discussions with another provider – Southampton Solent University – underway shortly before the decision to de-designate, had ended.

    OBC currently offers one course itself (no partnership offers are listed) – a foundation programme covering academic skills and English language including specialisms in law, engineering, and business – which is designed to prepare students for the first year of an undergraduate degree course. It is not clear what award this course leads to, or how it is regulated. It is also expensive – a 6 month version (requiring IELTS 5.5 or above) costs an eyewatering £17,500. And there is no information as to how students might enroll on this course.

    OBC’s statement about the court case indicates that it “rigorously adheres to all regulatory requirements”, but it is not clear which (if any) regulator has jurisdiction over the one course it currently advertises.

    If there are concerns about the quality of teaching, or about academic standards, in any provider in receipt of public funds they clearly need to be addressed – and this is as true for Oxford Business College as it is for the University of Oxford. This should start with a clear plan for quality assurance (ideally one that reflects the current concerns of students) and a watertight process that can be used both to drive compliance and take action against those who don’t measure up. Ministerial legal innovation, it seems, doesn’t quite cut it.

    Source link

  • The Shrinking Research University Business Model

    The Shrinking Research University Business Model

    For most of the past 30 or so years, big Canadian universities have all been working off more or less the same business model: find areas where you can make big profits and use those profits to make yourself more research-intensive.

    That’s it. That’s the whole model.

    International students? Big profit centres. Professional programs? You better believe those are money-makers. Undergraduate studies – well, they might not make that much money in toto but holy moly first-year students are taken advantage of quite hideously to subsidize other activities, most notably research-intensity.

    Just to be clear, when I talk about “research-intensity”, I am not really talking about laboratories or physical infrastructure. I am talking about the entire financial superstructure that allows profs to teach 2 courses per semester and to be paid at rates which are comparable to those at (generally better-funded) large public research universities in the US. It’s about compensation, staffing complements, the whole shebang – everything that allows our institutions to compete internationally for research talent. Governments don’t pay enough, directly, for institutions to do that. So, universities have found ways to offer new products, or re-arrange the products they offer, in such a way as to support these goals of competitive hiring.

    Small universities do not have quite the same imperatives with respect to research, but this business model affects them nonetheless. To the extent that they wish to compete for staff with the research-intensive institutions, they have to pay higher salaries as well. Maybe the most extreme outcome of that arms race occurred at Laurentian, whose financial collapse was at least in part due to the university implicitly trying to align itself to U15 universities’ pay scales rather than, say, the pay scale at Lakehead (unions, which like to write ambitious pay “comparables” into institutional collective agreements, are obviously also a factor here).

    Anyways, the issue is that for one reason or another, governments have been chipping away at these various sources of profit that have been used to cross-subsidize research-intensity. The situation with international students is an obvious one, but this is happening in other ways too. Professional master’s degrees are not generating the returns they used to as private universities, both foreign and domestic, begin to compete, particularly in the business sector. (A non-trivial part of the reason that Queen’s found itself in financial difficulty last year was because its business school didn’t turn a profit for the first time in years. I don’t know the ins and outs of this, but I would be surprised if Northeastern’s aggressive push into Toronto wasn’t eating some of its executive education business). 

    Provincial governments – some of them, anyway – are also setting up colleges to compete with universities in a number of areas for undergraduate students. In Ontario, that has been going on for 20-25 years, but in other places like Nova Scotia it is just beginning. Some on the university side complain about these programs, primarily in polytechnics, being preferred by government because they are “cheap”, but they rarely get into specifics about quality. One reason college programs are often better on a per-dollar measure? The colleges aren’t building in a surplus to pay for research-intensity – this is precisely what allows them to do revolutionary things like not stuffing 300 first-year students in a single classroom.  

    In brief then: the feds have taken away a huge source of cross-subsidy. Provinces, to varying degrees (most prominently in Ontario), have been introducing competition to chip-away at other sources of surplus that allowed universities to cross-subsidize research intensity. Together, these two processes are putting the long-standing business model of big Canadian universities at risk.

    The whole issue of cross-subsidization raises two policy questions which are not often discussed in polite company – in Canada, at least. The first has to do with cross-subsidization and whether it is the correct policy or not. I suspect there is a strong majority among higher education’s interested public that think it probably is a good policy; we just don’t know for sure because the policy emerged, as so many Canadian policies do, through a process of extreme passive-aggressiveness. Institutions were mad at governments for not directly funding what they wanted to do, so they went off and did their own thing. Governments, grateful not to be harassed for money, said nothing, which institutions took for approval whereas in fact it was just (temporary) non-disapproval. 

    (I should add here – precisely because of all the passive-aggressiveness – it is not 100% clear to me the extent to which provincial governments understand the implications of introducing competition. When they allow new private or college degree programs, they likely think “we are improving options for students” not “I wonder how this might degrade the ability of institutions to conduct research”. And, of course, the reason they don’t think that is precisely because Canadians achieve everything through passive-aggression rather than open policy debates which might illuminate choices and trade-offs. Yay, us.)

    The second policy question – which we really never ever raise – is whether or not research-intensity, as it is practiced in Canadian universities, is worth subsidizing in the first place. I know, you’re all reading that in shock and horror because what is a university if it is not about research? Well, that’s a pretty partial view, and historically, a pretty recent one.  Even among the U15, there are several institutions whose commitment to being big research enterprises is less than 40 years old. And, of course, we already have plenty of universities (e.g. the Maple League) where research simply isn’t a focus – what’s to say the current balance of research-intensive to non-research-intensive universities is the correct one?

    Now add the following thought: if the country clearly doesn’t think that university research matters because the knowledge economy doesn’t matter and we should all be out there hewing wood and drawing water, and if the federal government not only chops the budget 2024 promises on research but then also cuts deeply into existing budgets, what compelling policy reason is there to keep arranging our universities the way we do?  Why not get off the cross-subsidization treadmill and think of ways of spending money on actually improving undergraduate education (which the sector always claims to be doing, but isn’t much, really).

    I am not, of course, advocating this as a course of policy. But given the way both the politics of research universities and the economics of their business models are heading, we might need to start discussing this stuff. Maybe even openly, for a change.

    Source link

  • Business Development Specialists at U-M

    Business Development Specialists at U-M

    If you have the opportunity to apply for a job at the University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation, do so. If they offer you the gig, accept. 

    The two roles that CAI is recruiting for that I want to highlight are:

    I asked Suzanne Dove, CAI’s chief education solutions officer, to answer four questions about the roles.

    Q: What is the university’s mandate behind these roles? How do they help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

    A: Education Solutions is a new team within the University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation, charged with bringing strategic focus and forward momentum to our partnerships with external organizations, both private and public, seeking an innovative educational provider for workforce development.

    A growing and robust set of high-value strategic partnerships is an essential component of CAI’s growth strategy in the decade ahead. We are responsible for engaging prospective partners, identifying opportunities and crafting relevant educational solutions in collaboration with other CAI teams and U-M faculty and ensuring a high-quality partner experience. We also provide thought leadership around the shifting workforce-development landscape.

    Q: Where do the roles sit within the university structure? How will the hires in these roles engage with other units and leaders across campus?

    A: The Center for Academic Innovation is a strategically focused central campus unit at the University of Michigan. We aim to shape the future of learning by unlocking new opportunities for the University of Michigan community and learners, as well as organizations around the world. Our vision is a future in which education connects and empowers learners everywhere to reach their full potential throughout their lives.

    The people who join our team in these two new business development roles will play a vital role in connecting CAI to organizations outside the university, understanding and supporting solutions that fulfill these organizations’ evolving workforce and talent development needs, and helping us scale these partnerships in alignment with CAI’s mission. Successful candidates will bring expertise in developing and nurturing strong partnerships with external organizations at regional, national and international levels, as well as the ability to adopt an industry perspective.

    Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

    A: Year one is about building the foundations for successful partnerships, both by experimenting with different ways we can serve organizational partners and by taking a systematic approach to deliver, evaluate and learn as we go. We will work together to establish a robust and vibrant pipeline of strategic partner organizations, evaluate their organizational learning needs and determine ways in which our current and future catalog of offerings can serve those needs.

    At three years, I expect we will be engaging with a set of strategic external partnerships and have built our understanding of the educational solutions that we’re best positioned to provide. Beyond that, we want to scale these solutions to match the vast needs of workforce trends and transitions around the world.

    Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took either of these positions be prepared for?

    A: I am excited for the people we hire as business development specialists because their work will position them at the intersection of building relationships, understanding the dynamic world of workforce learning and building internal processes to allow effective delivery of educational solutions for organizations. The result will be a tangible impact not only on people’s lives but also on the organization’s performance.

    I can envision plenty of doors that would open as a result of success in one of these positions, depending on the individual’s interests: HR or talent development leadership; a workforce or economic development agency at the local, state, federal or even global level; or a larger or more complex business development portfolio.

    One thing I have noticed about CAI since I joined a few months ago is that there are plenty of opportunities for team members to grow and stretch. If you are an intellectually curious, creative problem solver who leads by listening and collaborating, if you love to take an initial concept and help a team and organization bring it to life, I hope you’ll apply!

    Please get in touch if you are conducting a job search at the intersection of learning, technology and organizational change. If your gig is a good fit, featuring your gig on Featured Gigs is free.

    Source link

  • The Family Business: An Open Letter (satire/opinion)

    The Family Business: An Open Letter (satire/opinion)

    Dear Presidents, Chancellors and OTHER Temporary Custodians of My Properties:

    Greetings from the Family—I mean, the Administration. You’ve been running a nice little operation there: world-class labs, libraries, free-thinking faculty, students from all over the globe who still believe in the marketplace of ideas, all asking dangerous questions like “Why?” and “What is your evidence?”

    It’s over.

    As the founder of a MAJOR university, I’m here to say this: We’re gonna do things my way now.

    First Order of Business: You Need My Protection

    As you know, I’m a SUCESSFUL international businessman. I offer certain countries—let’s call them “friends”—deals: They pay me a modest consideration, or maybe a big, beautiful luxury jet, and I won’t slap them with tariffs to make their economy bleed out. I offer the same generous arrangement to higher ed.

    Take Crooked Columbia and Brownnosing Brown—smart enough to come to the table, hand over the dough and watch my charges vanish like magic. Funding? Flowing again … for now.

    High and mighty Harvard’s still holding out, though, thinking they can win a staring contest. Let’s just say their next accreditation visit is gonna be … comprehensive.

    UCLA? Aka Useless College for Leftist Agendas. Rumor is my friends in D.C. have started looking real close at their books. Would be a shame if we had to start collecting on that billion the hard way.

    The rest of you RADICAL LUNATIC LEFT, listen up:

    Investigations into your crimes against America, like “allowing students to protest” or “letting faculty disagree with the government,” can disappear overnight … for a price.

    Call it a FAVOR from a friendly accreditor.

    But remember, what I giveth I can take awayeth.

    I don’t do promises; I do BUSINESS. And it’s business time.

    Apple, Intel, NVIDIA jump when I say jump. Universities? Child’s play.

    Some say I’m an ANTISEMITISM SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR on campus and sure, I like the Jews. I’ll take the compliment, right alongside credit for sprucing up big, beautiful Confederate statues.

    My war on hate? Let’s just say it has … range. And if a few very fine people happen to be nearby, standing back and standing by, waiting for the signal to help CLARIFY my position, well, that’s just business.

    We Don’t Need Stuck-Up Elites Who Think They’re So Smart

    That NASTY WOMAN at the Bureau of Labor Statistics? The one who brought me cooked-up job numbers I didn’t like? FIRED.

    That Georgia political hack who couldn’t find enough votes? ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!

    Judges who cross me? Death threats from my cyber goons have them looking over their shoulders.

    Your degree, your Nobel Prize, your teaching awards—SAD! I’ve built towers with my name in gold, hosted the No. 1 reality show on television, and put my face on steaks, sneakers and Bitcoin.

    So you publish in that fake Ranger Rick Nature magazine. I don’t care if your lab just cured cancer; if your research questions don’t support my worldview, your grant is pulled and your lab reassigned to our friend of the family on the board, Mikey, who’s very confident about his opinion on quantum biology.

    IRB? More like, “I’m Rich, Buddy.”

    Loyalty—to ME—is the only credential that matters.

    WOKE Faculty Hiring and Student Admissions: GONE-ZO

    MARXIST MANIACS who lack American values and good Christian sensibilities have no business shaping our young peoples’ minds. Cover letters with Bible verses or Lee Greenwood lyrics will receive special consideration.

    After I cut more big, beautiful deals with my AI buddies, the bots will weed out candidate files with the words “inclusive excellence” or “diversifying the pipeline.”

    No more “global citizen” snowflake CRAP. In fact, pretty soon, it’s gonna be all AI at the podium—no critical thinking, no unions, no problem.

    International students are allowed, but only RICH ones, with no subversive ideas, like democracy, on their social media feeds. No students from the shithole countries—you know the list. (Come to think of it, I don’t like any country, so being from one of our so-called allies won’t help either.)

    NO “underrepresented” anything. ONLY OVERREPRESENTED. Racial disadvantage, adversity, “lived experience” or some “community-based” qualifications? FORGET ABOUT IT.

    We’re running a university, not a sob story contest!

    You want to admit a Latina who speaks three languages and started her own nonprofit? Great—as long as all three languages are English and she’s truly FEMALE.

    And while we’re at it, ban “optional” diversity statements. The only statement that matters is your pledge of allegiance. To me.

    Academic Freedom, Suckers!

    You thought academic freedom meant hiring the best scholars, encouraging debate and letting a thousand ideas bloom.

    HILARIOUS!

    From now on, FREEDOM means freedom to offer academic programs that look just like the ones we had in 1952, when America was great (minus the jazz) and McCarthy knew what higher education should look like.

    It took Viktor 10 YEARS to bring his universities to heel. I’m doing it in six MONTHS, results like nobody’s ever seen before.

    “woMEN’s” studies? GONE.

    African American literature course? Replaced with Great Books by Even Greater White Men.

    Faculty scholarship on critical race theory, gender equity or, God forbid, climate science, will get an automatic tenure-denial stamp. Come to think of it, tenure? What’s that? More like Permanent Welfare for America-Hating Communists.

    Just watch what you publish, pal. I can make tenure go away real fast, the same way I disappeared USAID.

    My good friend VICE CHANCELLOR Rufo will replace it with rolling one-year contracts, renewable upon click-through loyalty oath training modules.

    Also, just a heads-up. Any course material still using the outdated term “Gulf of Mexico” will be flagged in our next surveillance round. My top patriot and loyal adviser, Stephen, suggests: “The Gulf of AMERICA FIRST.” And you so-called political scientists, get your facts right on who won the 2020 election. You’d best update those course materials, nice and clean, and nobody’s sabbatical turns into an extended stay at Alligator Alcatraz.

    Capishe? I don’t want to have to slam any more heads together.

    It’s time you got the picture, EGGHEADS: Knowledge isn’t power. Power is power.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter!

    Your Don

    P.S. I’ll let you keep your football program. You’re welcome.

    Jennifer Lundquist is a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her satirical observations in this essay are hers alone and not intended to represent the views of her employer.

    Source link

  • College business officers survey finds risks, resilience

    College business officers survey finds risks, resilience

    The latest Inside Higher Ed/Hanover Research Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, released today, reveals concerns about near-term uncertainty and financial sustainability—buoyed by confidence in the longer-term outlook.

    One of the most significant findings is that federal policy uncertainty has created difficulties in conducting basic financial planning as the Trump administration has introduced a flurry of changes impacting federal funding for higher education, international students, how students pay for college and more.

    That uncertainty, experts noted, has had a palpable effect on the sector.

    “Chief business officers like certainty, whether it’s certainty about revenue streams or potential costs,” said Kara Freeman, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers. “And right now they just are not getting it and that leads to anxiety.”

    The annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, now in its 15th year, offers insights from financial leaders at 169 institutions in 2025, both public and private nonprofits. Responses were gathered in April and May.

    Amid the uncertainty, about three in five CBOs (58 percent) rate their institution’s financial health as good or excellent, with differences by institution type.

    Pressure Tests

    In last year’s survey, 56 percent of CBOs expected that their institution would be in better financial shape a year later. That number fell to 43 percent in this year’s survey, which asked the same question.

    CBOs who believe their institution will be worse off financially next year cited concerns about the federal policy/funding environment for the sector (82 percent), potential increases to nonlabor operating costs (67 percent), rising labor costs (67 percent) and general economic concerns (62 percent).

    More on the Survey

    On Wednesday, Aug. 20 at 2 p.m. E.T., Inside Higher Ed will present a free webcast to discuss the results of the survey, with experts who can answer your most pressing questions about higher education finance—including how to plan effectively amid the current financial and policy uncertainty. Please register here.

    The 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers was made possible by support from Strata Decision Technology and CollegeVine.

    Inside Higher Ed’s 15th annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers was conducted by Hanover Research. The survey included chief business officers, mostly from public and private nonprofit institutions, for a margin of error of 7 percent. The response rate was 7 percent. A copy of the free report can be downloaded here.

    Larry Ladd, a subject matter specialist at AGB Consulting, noted that colleges are taking a number of measures to protect themselves in the short term, such as delaying building projects, freezing hiring and/or travel, and pulling other levers to protect themselves this coming fall.

    “You’re seeing colleges do everything they can to preserve their liquidity,” Ladd said. “The biggest reason to do that of course is that they don’t know what their fall enrollment will be.”

    Of particular concern, he noted, is the potential for disruption to federal financial aid funds, given mass layoffs at the Education Department, which has raised concerns about disbursement. Just 12 percent of CBOs support the elimination of the department.

    Other possible signs of caution: On deferred maintenance, 63 percent of respondents said that their institution was poised to fund less than a quarter of identified needs in the then-current fiscal year. Some 24 percent said their institution was freezing hiring to control costs for students; another 62 percent said their institution would consider doing this.

    Despite these challenges, respondents were much more confident in their institution’s five- to 10-year outlooks, with 73 percent believing their college or university will be financially stable over the next five years and 71 percent expressing that same level of confidence over the next decade. For reference, in 2024, 85 percent of CBOs were confident in the five-year outlook, and 73 percent in the 10-year outlook.

    Some 11 percent of CBOs say senior administrators at their institution have had serious internal discussions in the last year about merging with another college or university, about the same as last year’s survey. Most of these CBOs indicate such conversations are about proactively ensuring the institution’s financial stability rather than risk of imminent closure.

    Another 16 percent of CBOs report serious internal discussions about consolidating some programs or operations with another college or university. Two in five (42 percent) say it’s highly likely that that their college will share administrative functions with another institution within five years. CBOs in the Northeast, with its relative concentration of institutions, are especially likely to say so, at 63 percent.

    Beyond the Fog

    Ruth Johnston, vice president of NACUBO consulting, said that while business officers may be stressed by the immediate pressures, they are confident in their scenario planning for the future.

    “I think we’ll figure it out. Higher ed, even if it’s slow to change, is resilient. So I expect that we’re going to see new, creative solutions that will help bolster higher education,” Johnston said.

    That said, just 28 percent of CBOs described themselves as very or extremely confident in their institution’s current business model. Another third expressed moderate confidence.

    View online

    Top issues for those CBOs with just some or no confidence in their institution’s business model: lack of diverse revenue streams (64 percent of this group), ineffective cost containment and/or operational efficiency (54 percent), and insufficient cash reserves for “rainy days” or strategic investments (50 percent).

    Tuition discounting is another standing concern. Among all CBOs, more than half (54 percent) are at least moderately concerned about the financial sustainability of their institution’s tuition discount rate; two in 10 (21 percent) are highly concerned. Similarly, 50 percent of CBOs are at least moderately concerned about the sustainability of their institution’s tuition sticker price increases. In both cases, private nonprofit CBOs are the most concerned, by sector.

    Respondents also saw government efforts to influence institutional strategy and policy as an increasing risk to their institutions, with 71 percent registering this as a concern. That number is up slightly from last year’s 65 percent.

    CBOs in 2025 were much less concerned about donor efforts to influence institutional strategy, with 16 percent worrying that this amounts to an increasing financial risk to their college or university.

    Internally, at least, some 81 percent of CBOs agree that they have sufficient agency influence within their institution to ensure its financial stability. Most also report a strong working relationship with their president, and understanding among trustees of the financial challenges facing their institution.

    Survey respondents were notably concerned about federal student aid policies, overwhelmingly picking that as the top federal policy-related risk over the next four years, at 68 percent. Some experts suggest that concerns about other federal policy matters may have been heightened if the survey were administered after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month. It included major changes for higher education as well as cuts to other public programs that could have downstream effects on the sector.

    “There are both direct and indirect implications of the bill, some of which have not fully been explored by colleges and universities,” Ladd said. “I think of the Medicaid cuts—even those will have implications for colleges and universities.”

    When asked about general financial risks to their institution over the next five years, many CBOs—especially those at publics—flagged state and federal policy changes, along with state and federal funding reductions. Enrollment declines, rising personnel costs and infrastructure and deferred maintenance costs also registered.

    As for what would most improve their institution’s financial situation and sustainability, CBOs’ top responses from a list of options were: growing enrollment through targeted recruitment and improved retention programs; optimizing operational efficiency through process improvement and strategic cost management; and—in a more distant choice—forming strategic partnerships with employers, community organizations and/or other educational institutions. Cutting faculty and cutting staff were especially unpopular options.

    Asked about value and affordability, CBOs largely agreed that their institution offers good value for what it charges for an undergraduate degree (93 percent) and that its net price is affordable (88 percent). Two in three (65 percent) said their institution has increased institutional financial aid/grants in the last year to address affordability concerns.

    The survey also found that CBOs are increasingly using artificial intelligence. Nearly half of respondents—46 percent—indicated that AI helps them make more informed decisions in their role. That number is up from 33 percent in last year’s survey.

    Despite that uptick, respondents at most institutions aren’t all-in on artificial intelligence yet. Only 6 percent reported that their college has made a comprehensive, strategic investment in AI. But many are experimenting: 39 percent of CBOs noted that their institution is in the early exploration phase with AI, while another 28 percent are piloting such tools in select departments.

    “AI is here to stay,” Johnston said.

    Source link

  • This Is Not Business as Usual. This Is What’s Next.

    This Is Not Business as Usual. This Is What’s Next.

    This Is Not Business as Usual. This Is What’s Next.

    The future of higher education belongs to those willing to build it. We’re not waiting for enrollment trends to rebound or for funding streams to stabilize. We believe growth is possible, sustainable and measurable when institutions take control of their narrative and align their strategies around what really moves the needle: revenue and reputation.

    That belief is at the heart of why the unique capabilities of EducationDynamics and RW Jones have come together. We recognized the need for a new kind of partner in higher ed, one that doesn’t just respond to the market but helps institutions shape it. By integrating experts in strategic communications, brand development, enrollment and performance strategy under one roof, we are offering something institutions haven’t had before: clarity, speed, and cohesion across the full student and stakeholder journey.

    This isn’t a campaign. It’s a movement to redefine what growth looks like for colleges and universities that are ready to lead.

    The Power of Revenue and Reputation Working Together

    For too long, institutions have operated as if revenue and reputation were separate tracks. Reputation was seen as a branding exercise. Revenue was the responsibility of enrollment, retention and advancement teams. But in reality, the two have always been connected. The strength of your brand directly influences your ability to attract students, secure funding, build partnerships, and earn public trust. Today’s stakeholders are making decisions based on value, outcomes and credibility. They are not just choosing programs. They are choosing institutions they believe in. When that belief is strong, growth follows. When it is not, performance slips.

    Modern Learners are sophisticated decision-makers. They are comparison shoppers, outcome seekers and relevance-driven consumers. They expect personalization, transparency and ROI. And they won’t be moved by static messaging or outdated enrollment models. Each semester is a new sales cycle, and if your strategy isn’t aligned from brand to enrollment to advancement, you’re starting from behind.

    This is where our integrated approach comes in. We are helping institutions stop chasing fragmented goals and start building unified momentum. We align strategic communications with enrollment strategy. We turn brand equity into market performance. And we help institutions speak to all their audiences from prospective students to policymakers with a single, compelling voice.

    Growth That Doesn’t Guess

    We don’t deal in vague promises. Our outcomes speak for themselves.

    Top clients working with our teams exceed national average enrollment growth by 47 percent. In the first year of partnership, institutions see an average application growth rate of 22 percent and a 30 percent improvement in cost-per-start. And we deliver measurable demand generation, with one recent partner experiencing a 51 percent increase in search demand and a 33 percent rise in organic traffic within a single year.

    These results aren’t coincidental. They are the product of a philosophy rooted in research, strategy, action and measurement. We build systems that connect mission with the market. We deliver insight and execution. And we do it with the confidence that comes from knowing how institutional ecosystems really work—from the boardroom to the enrollment office to the faculty senate.

    A Model Built for What Comes Next

    Higher education is under pressure, but the opportunity to adapt has never been more tangible. The cost of inaction is growing, and so are the expectations of students, families and communities. Waiting for federal funding shifts or traditional student populations to rebound isn’t a plan. Institutions need proactive strategies that account for inflation, shifting demographics and public skepticism, while still holding true to their mission and academic excellence.

    The model we’ve built is designed for exactly this moment. We are not a vendor, and we are not selling tactics. We are a strategic growth partner working across the institution to create alignment, drive outcomes and reestablish trust in the value of higher education.

    That includes helping leaders take action across every dimension of growth. Whether it’s enrollment and retention, brand and messaging, advancement communications or integrated marketing strategy, we provide tailored solutions backed by data and guided by impact. And when institutions face moments of reputational risk or public scrutiny, we are there too with the kind of steady, experienced counsel that only comes from decades in the field.

    Leading Institutions Are Choosing a New Path

    We are proud to work with colleges and universities that are ready to defy outdated models. The ones that don’t want to blend in or coast on legacy. The ones that know sustainability comes not from cutting corners, but from cutting through the noise with clarity and conviction.

    When revenue and reputation are treated as part of the same strategic engine, institutions don’t just survive, they grow.

    If you are ready to build a smarter institution—one that is aligned, strategic and built to thrive—we’re ready to help.

    Brent Ramdin

    CEO, EducationDynamics + RW Jones

    Source link