Tag: Cost

Reform, overcorrection, and the cost of losing faith in Canada’s international education system

Mark Carney’s visit to India comes at a time when Canada’s international education story is no longer shining the way it once did. For years, the Canadian study-visa ecosystem was a quiet success story – one that created jobs, built regional economies, and gave public colleges the confidence to expand beyond major cities.

It wasn’t just about international students; it was about Canadian citizens working as faculty, administrators, housing providers, transport operators, and small business owners. In many ways, international education functioned like gold mining for Canada – steady, sustainable, and deeply integrated into the economy.

I’ve spent years working inside Canada’s international education ecosystem, and I’ve seen both its strengths and its failures up close. So when I look at where the student-visa system stands today, my question isn’t whether change was needed – it absolutely was. The real question is whether the Canadian government is ready to bring balance back into this ecosystem, or whether it is willing to let long-term damage become permanent.

Let me be clear: some decisions were right. Shutting down questionable PPPs was necessary. Many of them had turned into visa mills – poor teaching standards, weak infrastructure, and no real academic intent. Allowing colleges to operate out of a single floor, with minimal faculty and almost no student support was a serious policy mistake. Issuing visas to such setups diluted Canada’s global reputation and hurt genuine students. Cleaning this up was overdue and the government deserve credit for finally acting.

The real question is whether the Canadian government is ready to bring balance back into this ecosystem, or whether it is willing to let long-term damage become permanent

But reform crossed into overcorrection.

Public colleges – institutions that followed regulations, invested heavily in infrastructure, hired qualified staff, and supported regional economies – were punished alongside bad actors. Caps were imposed abruptly. Approvals slowed overnight. Campuses that took years to build were forced to shut down within months. Public colleges are now struggling just to sustain themselves. That is not acceptable. These institutions are anchors for communities. When they suffer, Canadian citizens lose jobs, towns lose stability, and confidence disappears quietly.

One of the biggest blunders in this entire reset was the decision to scrap the student direct stream (SDS). SDS was not perfect, but it was disciplined, transparent, and financially responsible. Students under SDS were paying over CAD $20,000 in tuition upfront and showing another CAD $20,000 in living funds. That meant financially prepared students, lower default risk, faster processing, and billions of dollars flowing cleanly into the Canadian economy. At a time when Canada spoke about inflation, growth, and sustainability, SDS was doing exactly that – fuelling the economy responsibly.

Scrapping SDS without a credible alternative was a massive setback.

What replaced it? Uncertainty, Confusion and delays. A lack of clarity that has made even genuine students nervous. This was a visa system that many European countries quietly studied and tried to replicate because it worked. Today, that same system has been dismantled so abruptly that it has made a mockery of Canada’s own credibility. Students and families now ask a simple question: If Canada itself doesn’t trust its own system, why should we?

From the ground, this feels less like reform and more like policy panic. Regulation without transition. Control without communication. And worst of all, silence once the damage became visible. There has been little acknowledgment of how deeply public colleges have been affected. No clear roadmap for recovery. No assurance that compliant institutions will be protected. That silence creates fear – fear of closures, forced mergers, and the quiet acceptance of job losses as collateral damage.

This issue is not about agents, visas, or numbers. It’s about trust. Students don’t argue with policy – they simply choose alternatives. I’ve watched families pivot quietly to the UK, Australia, Germany, and emerging European destinations. Once those pathways are established, they don’t disappear overnight. Confidence, once broken, is extremely hard to rebuild. Raising academic standards was necessary. But crippling public colleges and scrapping a globally respected visa pathway without a replacement is not reform – it’s self-inflicted harm.

What the ecosystem needs now is balance. Protect quality without destroying capacity. Regulate without destabilising communities. Admit what worked – like SDS –admit what didn’t, and rebuild with clarity and honesty. Because policies can be rewritten and numbers can be adjusted, but once trust and institutions collapse, rebuilding them costs far more than fixing them in time.

About the author: Jasmeet Singh Bhatia is the managing director of Landmark Global Learning Limited, with over 18 years of experience in international education and consulting. A trusted study visa expert and PR strategist, he has mentored thousands of students in achieving their academic and career goals abroad. Known for his principle- based approach and strong industry partnerships, he continues to shape global futures through personalised guidance and strategic insight.

Source link

February 6, 2026
Report Delves Into How Indirect Rate Cost Policies Differ

The Trump administration tried last year to cap indirect rate costs at 15 percent.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | gorodenkoff and Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock/Getty Images | FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Compared to private industry contractors and federal laboratories, universities receive less from the federal government to cover costs indirectly related to research, according to a study commissioned by research university associations.

Indirect costs can include building maintenance, utilities and compliance with patient safety regulations. Currently, individual colleges and universities negotiate reimbursement rates with federal agencies, but the Trump administration has sought unsuccessfully to cap funding for indirect costs at 15 percent of the research grant. Federal courts have blocked those efforts, and a coalition of higher ed associations have since proposed their own model to change how the government funds research.

The Association of American Universities (AAU) and the COGR commissioned Attain Partners, a consulting firm, to conduct the study in part to dispel confusion about the current approach to funding indirect costs.

“It is important to note that the government’s approach to indirect cost accounting and reimbursement for universities and nonprofit research organizations is different than its approach for other entities conducting federally sponsored research,” the report states. “This fact has contributed to the resulting confusion—and that confusion, in turn, is now imperiling the funding needed for America’s research institutions to continue performing groundbreaking research that improves health, saves lives, and nourishes America’s innovation ecosystem.”

One key goal of the study was to ascertain how indirect cost rates and reimbursement policies at universities compare to other research entities. Ultimately, the indirect cost rates weren’t comparable with private industry because policies differed. However, because private companies aren’t subject to the same rate caps as universities, “the effective reimbursement rate for universities’ actual indirect costs is likely lower than that of private industry,” according to the report.

Universities also pay upfront to cover operational costs related to research and only receive some of the money back via reimbursement. Such losses totaled $7.06 billion in fiscal year 2024, according to AAU.

Another key question for the report was whether private and public universities have different reimbursement policies. Private universities tend to have higher reimbursement rates than public ones, leading some to suggest “private universities are gaming the indirect cost system to obtain more funding than other institutions or that are reasonable and necessary costs to conduct research,” according to the report.

But the authors were quick to counter that idea, saying in the report that that belief “misrepresents the actual reasons for differences in rates between various universities.” Instead, the rate differences stem from location and the type of research being conducted, among other factors. Biomedical research and engineering tend to result in higher reimbursement rates.

Source link

January 27, 2026
U.S. Universities Count the Cost After One Year of Trump

Harvard officials wrote in financial statements that fiscal year 2025 “tested Harvard in ways few could have anticipated.”

Zhu Ziyu/VCG/Getty Images

Uncertainty has been the single most damaging aspect of the second Trump administration, professors have said, with university finances taking a hit despite the impact of many of the president’s cuts not yet coming to fruition.

A year on since the U.S. president’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, top universities are counting the cost of persistent attacks—which kicked off with significant cutbacks to federal research funding.

Although many of the harshest cuts have been quietly rescinded or blocked by the courts, universities have suffered considerable damage and are likely to face more systematic reforms to research in future, said Marshall Steinbaum, assistant professor of economics at the University of Utah.

“Beyond the high-profile, ideologically ostentatious cuts to some aspects of federally funded research, the whole enterprise is set to be less lucrative for universities going forward,” he told Times Higher Education.

Even though many of the cuts might not come to fruition, the uncertainty caused by having to plan for potential cuts had been the most damaging aspect, said Phillip Levine, professor of economics at Wellesley College.

“There’s still tremendous damage that’s been done, [but] the damage isn’t as extensive as it could have been.”

Levine said he was most worried about undergraduate international student enrollment, which often takes longer to feel the impacts of policy decisions.

Visa concerns were blamed for overseas student numbers falling by a fifth last year, but Harvard University recently announced a record intake, despite Trump’s attempts to ban its international recruitment.

But the institution did report its first operating deficit since 2020 in its financial statements—stating that the 2025 fiscal year “tested Harvard in ways few could have anticipated.”

The University of Southern California, the University of Chicago and Brown University also recorded sizable operating deficits.

Many institutions will suffer in the long term from a series of changes to student loan repayment. Trump has rolled back parts of the student loan origination system and introduced less generous income-based repayment plans and limits on federal loans, which will pose financial challenges to universities.

Recent research found that more than 160,000 students may be unable to find alternative sources of financing when the cap for loans kicks in later this year.

“The three-legged stool of higher education finance in the United States is tuition, federal research funding and state appropriations,” said Steinbaum. “All three legs have been cut down in the last year.”

As of Jan. 1, some wealthy universities also faced paying up to an 8 percent tax on their endowments, which could cost billions of dollars. Yale University has cited this additional burden for layoffs and hiring freezes.

Todd Ely, professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado–Denver, said the traditionally diversified revenue portfolio of higher education had been weakened—which he said was particularly worrying because it coincided with the arrival of the “demographic cliff” and a hostile narrative around the value of a college degree.

Although highly selective and well-endowed private and public institutions will adjust more easily to the new environment, Ely said, “‘Uncertainty’ remains the watchword for U.S. higher education.”

“Research-intensive institutions, historically envied for their diverse revenue streams and lack of dependence on tuition revenue, have had their model of higher education funding thrown into disarray,” Ely added. “The battle for tuition-paying students will only increase, straining the enrollments of less selective and smaller private colleges and regional public universities.”

Robert Kelchen, professor and head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, said cuts within universities are mitigating some of the effects of these pressures.

Stanford University has announced $140 million in budget cuts tied to reduced federal research funding. There have also been budget reductions at Boston University, Cornell University and the University of Minnesota.

“The general financial challenges facing higher education prior to the Trump administration have not abated, and the cuts to federal funding have been notable,” said Kelchen.

But he is skeptical that deals with the White House, to which some institutions have committed, are the right way forward, because they can always be “pulled or renegotiated at a whim.”

“Universities need to try to get funding from other sources, such as students and donors,” Kelchen added, “but that is often easier said than done in a highly competitive landscape.”

Source link

January 23, 2026
Settlements Cost Higher Ed Hundreds of Millions in 2025
Michigan State University paid nearly $30 million to settle with three people injured in a 2023 campus shooting.

Jeffness/Wikimedia Commons
A new report by the United Educators insurance company shows that universities spent hundreds of millions of dollars on damages in 2025, according to an analysis of publicly reported settlements.

Legal cases involved a variety of issues, ranging from deaths on campus to antitrust issues, cybersecurity breaches, discrimination, sexual misconduct and pandemic-era policy fallout.

Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital had the largest settlement at $750 million in a case related to hundreds of instances of sexual abuse by Robert Hadden, a former doctor who worked at both Columbia’s Irving Medical Center and the hospital. United Educators noted that there is no clear breakdown of which entity shouldered the brunt of the settlement.

Michigan State University followed with the next-largest settlement at $29.7 million. Michigan State settled with three victims injured in a campus shooting that killed three students in 2023.

Other notable settlements include:
- Pennsylvania State University paid $17 million to settle claims that it overcharged students when officials shifted from in-person to remote instruction during the coronavirus pandemic. Penn State was one of five institutions in the report to settle lawsuits amid allegations that they overcharged students, with damages ranging from a high of $17 million to a low of $3.5 million.
- The University of Colorado Anschutz reached a $10 million settlement with 18 plaintiffs, both staff and students, who were denied religious exemptions to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The report noted that most of the incidents highlighted did not involve United Educators members. The full report can be read here and also includes major losses for K–12 schools.
Source link
January 21, 2026
Probe Into Alleged UMD President Plagiarism Cost Up to $600K

Pines was cleared of misconduct last month.

University of Maryland, College Park

The University System of Maryland and its flagship College Park institution are refusing to release the report of an investigation into whether the flagship’s president committed academic misconduct. That probe cost at least $199,999 and may have cost up to $600,000, The Baltimore Banner reported.

In fall 2024, The Daily Wire, a conservative news outlet, alleged that President Darryll Pines lifted 1,500 words from a tutorial website for a 5,000-word paper he co-authored in 2002 and later reused that same text for a 2006 publication. Pines said the claims were meritless, but Joshua Altmann, who wrote the text Pines was accused of lifting, told Inside Higher Ed, “I do consider it to be plagiarism.”

The investigation, led by a law firm, extended to other articles Pines wrote, and it took more than a year. On Dec. 12, system officials released a statement saying an investigation committee “found no evidence of misconduct on the part of President Pines.”

“The committee did determine that the two works highlighted last year contained select portions of text previously published by another author in the introductory sections,” the statement said. “In a separate text, a discrepancy in assignment of authorship was made. However, President Pines was not found responsible for the inclusion of such text in any of the three works, nor was he found responsible for scholarly misconduct of any kind.”

But neither the system nor College Park released the investigative report. College Park spokesperson Katie Lawson referred Inside Higher Ed’s request for the report to the University System of Maryland. System spokesperson Michael Sandler wrote in an email that, “as a personnel record under the Maryland Public Information Act and per UMD’s Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work, the report is confidential.”

The Banner, citing documents it received through a public records request, reported that Ropes & Gray, the international law firm hired for the investigation, had a $1,200 hourly billing rate, was paid $199,999 during an “inquiry phase” and received another contract that allowed the total to grow no larger than $600,000.

Source link

January 9, 2026

A Historical Pattern of Force, Profit, and Human Cost

From the mid‑19th century to today, U.S. interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean have consistently combined military force, political influence, and economic pressure. Across this long arc, millions of lives have been shaped—often shattered—by policies that prioritize strategic advantage over human flourishing. Today’s geopolitical tensions with Venezuela are the latest flashpoint in a historical pattern that rewards elites while exacting profound human costs.

Note on Timing: This article is intentionally posted on Christmas Day 2025, a day traditionally associated with peace, goodwill, and reflection, to underscore the contrast between those ideals and the ongoing human toll of U.S. militarism and intervention abroad. The symbolic timing is a reminder that while many celebrate, others suffer the consequences of policies driven by power, profit, and geopolitics.

A Critical Warning for Students and Young People

As Higher Education Inquirer has repeatedly argued, the United States’ military footprint—its wars, recruitment programs, and entanglements with higher education—has deep consequences not just abroad but at home. ROTC programs and military enlistment are often marketed as pathways to education and economic stability, but they also funnel young people into systems with long‑term obligations, moral hazards, and psychological risk. Prospective enlistees and their families should think twice before committing to military pathways that may bind them to morally questionable conflicts and institutional control.

Moreover, U.S. higher education has become deeply entwined with kleptocracy, militarism, and colonialism, supporting war economies and benefiting from federal research contracts with defense and intelligence partners that obscure the real human costs of empire. These warnings are especially salient in the context of Venezuela and similar interventions, where human toll and geopolitical stakes demand deeper scrutiny.

**Smedley Butler: War Is a Racket and the Business Plot**

Major General Smedley D. Butler, among the most decorated U.S. Marines, became one of the U.S. military’s most outspoken critics. In his 1935 War Is a Racket, Butler rejected romantic notions of military glory and exposed the economic motives behind many interventions:

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.”

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service… being a high‑class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”

“Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.”

Butler’s warnings were not abstract. In 1933, he was approached to lead a coup against President Franklin D. Roosevelt, known as the Business Plot, which he publicly exposed. His testimony before Congress revealed how elite interests sought to use military power to overthrow democratic government, an episode that underscores his critique of war as a tool for entrenched interests at the expense of ordinary people.

Historical Interventions and Their Toll

Below is a timeline of major U.S. interventions in the Americas, with estimated deaths, showing the human cost of policies that often served strategic or economic interests over humanitarian ones:

Period	Location	Event / Nature of Intervention	Estimated Deaths
1846–1848	Mexico	Mexican-American War: Territorial conquest	~25,000 Mexicans
1898	Cuba/P.R.	Spanish-American War: U.S. seized P.R.; Cuba protectorate	~15,000–60,000 (90% disease)
1914	Mexico	Occupation of Veracruz: U.S. port seizure	~300 Mexicans
1915–1934	Haiti	Military Occupation: Suppression of rebellions	~3,000–15,000
1916–1924	Dominican Rep.	Marine Occupation: Control of customs/finance	~4,000
1954	Guatemala	Op. PBSuccess: CIA coup against Árbenz; led to civil war	150,000–250,000*
1965	Dominican Rep.	Op. Power Pack: U.S. intervention during civil war	~3,000
1973–1990	Chile	U.S.-backed Coup/Regime: Pinochet dictatorship	3,000–28,000*
1975–1983	S. America	Operation Condor: CIA-supported intelligence network	~60,000*
1976–1983	Argentina	Dirty War: U.S.-supported military junta and coup	~30,000*
1979–1992	El Salvador	Civil War: Massive military aid to govt forces	35,000–75,000*
1981–1990	Nicaragua	Iran-Contra Affair: Covert support for Contras	~30,000–50,000*
1989	Panama	Operation Just Cause: Invasion to remove Noriega	500–3,000
2025	Venezuela	Naval Blockade: Active maritime strikes and standoff	100+ (to date)

*Estimates include civilian casualties and deaths indirectly caused by U.S.-supported interventions.

Venezuela and the Global Politics of Intervention

Venezuela’s 2025 crisis is the latest in a long history of U.S. pressure in the hemisphere. A naval blockade—accompanied by maritime strikes and political isolation—has already produced more than 100 confirmed deaths. Historically, interventions like this have often prioritized U.S. strategic or economic interests over local welfare.

The situation is further complicated by global geopolitics. Former President Donald Trump, who recently pardoned key figures involved in controversial interventions, including Iran‑Contra actors, also maintains strategic ties with China and Russia, highlighting how interventions are entangled with global power plays that affect universities, recruitment pipelines, and domestic politics alike.

A Call to Rethink Intervention and Recruitment

Smedley Butler’s critique remains urgent: to “smash the racket,” profit must be removed from war, military force should be strictly defensive, and decisions about war must rest with those who bear its consequences. From Mexico to Venezuela—and including covert operations like Iran‑Contra—the historical record shows how interventions serve a narrow elite while imposing massive human costs.

HEI’s warnings underscore that higher education, ROTC programs, and military recruitment pipelines are not neutral pathways but deeply embedded parts of systems that reproduce extraction, militarism, and inequality. Students, educators, and families must critically evaluate the incentives and promises of military pathways and demand institutions that serve learning, opportunity, and justice rather than empire.

Sources

Butler, Smedley D. War Is a Racket. Round Table Press, 1935.
U.S. Congressional Record and Butler testimony on the Business Plot, 1934.
Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.
Scott, Peter Dale. Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America.
Reporting on Trump pardons, Iran‑Contra participants, and global alliances (2020–2025).
Higher Education Inquirer, “Kleptocracy, Militarism, Colonialism: A Counterrecruiting Call for Students and Families,” December 7, 2025. (link)
Higher Education Inquirer, “The Hidden Costs of ROTC — and the Military Path,” November 28, 2025. (link)
Historical records on U.S. interventions: Mexican‑American War, Spanish‑American War, Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976–1983), El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela (2025).

Source link

December 25, 2025

Cost of DfE’s school insurance scheme to rise 7.4%

Risk protection arrangement costs have risen by 61 per cent since 2020

Risk protection arrangement costs have risen by 61 per cent since 2020

The Department for Education has confirmed costs for its school insurance programme will rise again by 7.4 per cent this year, with the scheme now costing 60 per cent more than in 2020.

The risk protection arrangement (RPA), first set up in 2014, provides state schools an alternative to commercial insurance.

It covers risks such as material damage, personal accident and employers’ liability, with government covering the losses.

Now, the DfE has confirmed the amount it charges will rise from £27 to £29 per pupil from April 2026. This 7.4 per cent increase is far above the current rate of inflation, around 3.5 per cent.

It said costs were reviewed annually “to ensure breadth of cover and value for money are balanced”.

While the DfE first charged £25 per pupil for schools in 2014, prices were lowered to £18 per pupil in 2019-20.

Prices have since increased year on year, with a 61 per cent change from 2020 to 2026.

Around 12,400 schools were signed up to the RPA in January 2025. The DfE opened the scheme to LA-maintained schools in 2020.

It was originally launched to reduce the public cost of protecting academies against risk.

While schools may join at any time of the year, multi-academy trusts can join in a phased manner, where some academies may still have commercial insurance contracts in place.

The DfE has been approached for comment.

Source link

December 23, 2025
College Students Stress About Cost of Living Postgraduation

Graduation typically brings feelings of jubilation, but with the high cost of living and a competitive job market facing college graduates, students report feeling more anxious about their future prospects.

A recent Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that nearly one in five college students say their top stressor is affording life after graduation. A similar share worry that they don’t have enough internship or work experience to be successful. 

The survey, fielded in August, includes responses from over 5,000 college students, including 1,000 two-year and nearly 2,000 first-generation college students. 

“Stability is really important to this generation of job-seekers,” said Shawn VanDerziel, chief executive officer at the National Association of Colleges and Employers, citing the organization’s own student surveys. “For the last several years, students regularly report to us that, in their first job, the most important thing is stability.”

That means having a reasonable living standard as well as an employer who provides sufficient benefits, work-life balance and assurances against layoffs, VanDerziel said.

Christine Cruzvergara, chief education officer of the job board Handshake, said the trend doesn’t surprise her because it mirrors similar data her organization collected earlier this year, which found that AI, changes to federal policy and a competitive job market are among the factors impeding students’ confidence after graduation.

“The cost-of-living piece is very real,” Cruzvergara said. “That is, anecdotally, something that we do hear from students, even in the four-year space: ‘Everything is so expensive; I don’t know how I’m going to be able to live.’”

Nationally, the American public is feeling strained financially. A recent McKinsey survey found that 45 percent of consumers said “rising prices or inflation” is their top concern; an additional 24 percent pointed to their “ability to make ends meet,” and 19 percent cited job security and unemployment.

“I know no one is going to hire me in an economy like this,” one student at New Mexico State University–Dona Ana wrote in the “other” response option on the Student Voice survey.

The cost-of-living squeeze has pushed more graduates to consider housing and grocery prices when selecting a city to live in.

“In the past, you may have found other things that have risen to the top, like vibrant nightlife, environmental issues, recreation. All those things are still on the list, but cost of living is No. 1 in the minds of graduates today,” VanDerziel said.

Handshake has seen more applicants looking toward smaller markets, or “B-list cities,” for their first destination after college, “because you might be able to get a good enough job that you can actually have the quality of life that you’re looking for at the same time,” Cruzvergara said.

Internships needed: Students’ perception that they lack skills and experience points to a growing need for higher education leaders to provide work-based learning to prepare students for the workforce. Some institutions now guarantee experiential learning or internships as part of their strategic plans, Cruzvergara said.

“I’m pleased to hear that students are concerned about internship opportunities, because that tells me that they are in tune with what’s happening in the world and the fact that employers see internship experience as being the best of everything,” VanDerziel said.

Four-year students are more likely to have enrolled in college directly after graduating from high school, which could explain why this group of students is more likely to fret about their lack of work experience, Cruzvergara said.

“If they didn’t do an internship, or they only did a part-time job in the summer, they might feel as if they’re at a disadvantage because they haven’t been in a more traditional white-collar work environment,” Cruzvergara said. 

Older students (25 and up) or those who have worked full-time were less likely to cite anxieties over a lack of work or internship experience, despite being statistically less likely to complete an internship while in college. Handshake data from earlier this year found that about one in eight students have not participated in an internship and do not expect to before finishing their degree, in large part due to time constraints caused by other work or homework, or because they weren’t selected for an internship role.

While some employers value all work equally, others believe it’s important for students to have work experiences specific to their intended professions, VanDerziel said.

A soft landing: College and university career centers can help address some of students’ anxieties about graduation by connecting them to employers the traditional way at career fairs, Cruzvergara said.

“In the face of emerging AI in more industries, roles and sectors, I actually find that what’s become really quite popular again for students in order to get a job or an internship is good old-fashioned networking,” Cruzvergara said.

Attendance at networking and employer-led events hosted on Handshake (either virtual or for registration purposes) has tripled this year, according to the job board’s data.

“I know it’s not new; career centers have been doing this for a long time, but do we need to do it more? Do we need to do it in a different way?” Cruzvergara said.

Colleges should also consider their own departments as employers to host interns.

“The school is a business in and of itself that has all these different functions,” Cruzvergara pointed out. “So how are you creating an internship within your own finance department? How are you creating an internship within your own legal department?”

Source link

December 10, 2025
Cost Is Graduate Enrollment “Gatekeeper”

Many graduate programs face funding cuts, enrollment declines and uncertain futures, but a new report describes cost of attendance as the “ultimate gatekeeper” to enrollment.

Between Aug. 20 and Sept. 8, 2025, the enrollment management consulting firm EAB surveyed 8,106 current and prospective graduate and adult learners about their motivations, financial concerns, program search methods and program preferences.

The findings, published Thursday in EAB’s 2025 Adult Learner Survey, show that cost ranked as the most important factor in enrollment decisions, surpassing program accreditation, which was last year’s top factor.

The majority of prospective students (60 percent) said they would eliminate a program from consideration if they perceived it to be “too expensive.” Although data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows that the average annual cost of graduate school is more than $20,000, EAB’s survey found that 39 percent of learners believe anything more than $10,000 is too expensive; 62 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to pay more than $20,000 a year for graduate school.

“The hopes and expectations of today’s adult learners are colliding with a financial aid system in a period of significant transition,” Val Fox, a senior director and principal in EAB’s adult learner recruitment division, said in a news release. “Federal aid sources are shrinking, and students with low credit scores may not qualify for private loans. This mismatch will make it even harder to sustain enrollment at a time when institutions need domestic adult learners more than ever.”

Learners’ heightened concerns about cost come as graduate programs also grapple with new federal policies—including caps on graduate student loans, cuts to research funding and visa restrictions for international students—that are making it even harder for institutions to balance their budgets and attract new students.

At the same time, however, graduate students and adult learners increasingly rely on outside funding. Scholarships were the most commonly cited funding source (52 percent), followed by financial aid, loans or grants, though both categories fell several percentage points compared to last year. Meanwhile, the report found that 25 percent of respondents cited personal or household income as one of their top five funding sources this year, compared to more than 40 percent last year.

“Success for U.S. graduate schools in 2026 will depend heavily on their ability to adapt recruiting strategies to accommodate policy shifts and evolving student priorities,” Fox said. “Schools need to communicate costs clearly, especially on digital channels, and align their value propositions to individual student interests through hyperpersonalized marketing.”

Source link

December 4, 2025
Counting the cost of financial challenges in English higher education

The financial health of UK universities has become a pressing concern, with widespread reports of deficits and shrinking operating surpluses. Yet until now, robust evidence on how these pressures shape institutional decisions – on investment, staffing, research, and student services – has been limited.

To address this evidence gap, interviews were conducted with chief financial officers and directors of finance in 74 of the 133 higher education institutions in England between March and May 2025, covering 56 per cent of institutions.

The study covered all TRAC peer groups, from research-intensive universities to specialist arts and music colleges. The findings reveal stark differences in financial resilience across the sector, but also common themes that underscore systemic vulnerabilities.

A striking 85 per cent of institutions reported either an operating deficit, break-even position, or reduced surplus in the current year. Only 11 institutions – just under 15 per cent – maintained or improved their operating surplus. Even among these, financial pressures were evident, with cost-cutting and efficiency drives mirroring those in deficit institutions.

Low research intensity institutions are most exposed, with 95 per cent in deficit or reduced surplus, while high research intensity universities fare slightly better at 79 per cent. Arts and music colleges also show significant vulnerability, with nearly nine in ten reporting financial strain.

Strategies and trade-offs

The origins of financial weakness vary by institutional type. For research intensive universities, the decline in international tuition fee income is the dominant concern, compounded by visa restrictions and heightened global competition. Medium and low research intensity institutions cite rising staff and estate costs, alongside pension liabilities. For arts and music colleges, the freeze on UK tuition fees was a critical issue, although face additional challenges given the liability of smallness.

These challenges are not short-term blips. An overwhelming 97 per cent of respondents view the current situation as a structural, long-term problem. Many argue that the sector’s business model – heavily reliant on international student income and constrained by capped domestic fees – is fundamentally unsustainable. And more worryingly difficult to change in the short to medium term.

Faced with financial stringency, universities are deploying a mix of defensive and adaptive strategies. Borrowing has been rare – only five per cent of deficit institutions increased debt – but asset sales and diversification of income streams are common. Over three-quarters of institutions are actively seeking new revenue sources, from commercialisation and estate rental to online learning and transnational education partnerships.

Interestingly, financial pressure is not uniformly leading to retrenchment. While some institutions have closed departments or dropped programmes – particularly among medium and less research-intensive universities – many are introducing new courses, both undergraduate and postgraduate, to attract students and generate income.

Staffing, however, tells a more sobering story. Nearly half of deficit institutions have implemented voluntary redundancy schemes, and around one-fifth have resorted to compulsory redundancies. Recruitment freezes are widespread, affecting academic and professional staff alike. These measures, while necessary for financial stability, risk eroding institutional capacity and morale.

Counting the cost

The ripple effects of financial constraint extend beyond staffing. Research support is under significant strain: over a third of institutions report cuts to research facilities and internal consortia. Yet there are pockets of investment – 18 per cent of institutions have increased funding for libraries and data services, and nearly one-fifth have boosted support for industrial collaborations, reflecting a strategic pivot toward partnerships and innovation.

Student experience has, so far, been relatively protected. Most institutions have maintained spending on mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion initiatives, though career development and academic support have seen reductions in about a quarter of cases. Investment in estates is more uneven: while many institutions are deferring maintenance and new builds, over half are increasing spending on digital transformation – a clear signal of shifting priorities.

Financial turbulence is also reshaping leadership dynamics. Nearly 90 per cent of respondents agree that leadership teams are under heightened pressure and scrutiny, with a growing emphasis on short-term decision-making. This environment is taking a toll on staff wellbeing: two-thirds of respondents report negative impacts on mental health, alongside rising workloads and job insecurity. Trust in leadership has declined in almost half of institutions, underscoring the human dimension of the financial crisis.

Perhaps the most sobering finding is the sector’s view of external support. Over 60 per cent of respondents rated government and regional assistance as ineffective. The message is clear: incremental adjustments will not suffice. Respondents called for a fundamental review of the funding model in higher education. Without decisive intervention, the risk is not just institutional hardship but systemic decline – jeopardising the UK’s global standing in higher education and research.

Source link

December 2, 2025