Tag: Crossroads

  • South University 2026 — A University at a Crossroads

    South University 2026 — A University at a Crossroads

    Founded in 1899, South University has long presented itself as a student-centered institution, offering a broad array of undergraduate and graduate programs across multiple campuses and online. As 2026 dawns, the university finds itself at a crossroads. Recent milestones — including renewed accreditation, professional program successes, and new leadership — coexist with financial pressure, a complicated for-profit legacy, and troubling reports from former employees about the institution’s culture and practices.

    In December 2024, SU’s regional accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), removed the university from Warning status and granted a 10-year reaffirmation of its institutional accreditation, contingent upon monitoring. At the programmatic level, the Doctor of Pharmacy program was re-accredited through June 2028 by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the Physician Assistant program at the West Palm Beach campus earned a 10-year Accreditation-Continued status from ARC-PA. These developments underscore the university’s ability to deliver programs meeting professional and regional standards.

    On October 31, 2025, Benjamin J. DeGweck was named CEO and Chancellor, bringing more than two decades of experience in higher-education leadership, legal affairs, and organizational strategy. His appointment reflects an effort to navigate complex challenges with stronger governance and renewed strategic focus.

    Despite these signs of institutional competence, South University enters 2026 under significant financial stress. A $35.4 million balloon payment on a pandemic-era loan from the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending Program looms, while Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM) by the Department of Education means federal student aid is subject to additional scrutiny. These pressures compound the university’s already fraught history. Previously a for-profit institution, SU faced lawsuits and a class-action settlement tied to misconduct allegations and was included among schools eligible for student loan cancellation after findings of fraud. Even after its 2023 transition to independent nonprofit status, the legacy of those practices continues to affect public trust.

    Employee accounts provide an additional lens on the university’s culture and priorities. Reviews on Glassdoor, particularly from admissions and sales staff, describe a workplace dominated by a “con-like mentality” in training and sales tactics, in which management appears focused on producing just enough passing grades to remain financially viable rather than ensuring student success. One reviewer wrote that the university “takes advantage of the poor leveraging they have in life — whether it be financial or criminal records — and charges twice the amount of other schools,” describing the institution as “just above a scam.” Others recounted high-pressure enrollment quotas, constant emphasis on revenue, and a workplace culture that prioritizes organizational survival over transparency or ethical student support. These accounts suggest that revenue imperatives and regulatory pressures may sometimes overshadow educational quality.

    Looking ahead, 2026 could be a pivotal year. The university has the opportunity to stabilize under DeGweck’s leadership, strengthen student outcomes, and leverage accredited professional programs to meet workforce demand. At the same time, financial pressures may force programmatic consolidation or strategic restructuring, and employee critiques alongside HCM oversight could amplify reputational risk. For students, recent accreditations provide cautious optimism, but due diligence regarding program outcomes, job placement rates, and federal aid eligibility remains essential. For policymakers and advocates focused on equity and accountability, the combination of financial strain, regulatory oversight, and internal criticism underscores the continuing need for scrutiny of formerly for-profit institutions.

    South University in 2026 is neither fully secure nor entirely at risk. Its trajectory will depend on leadership, governance, and the ability to reconcile its financial and operational pressures with its educational mission. How the university navigates this moment may determine whether it becomes a revitalized opportunity for students or another cautionary tale in the landscape of American higher education.

    Sources

    South University. South University Achieves 10-Year Reaffirmation of Accreditation by SACSCOC. inside.southuniversity.edu

    Higher Education Inquirer. South University’s Accreditor Takes Institution Off Warning, Requires Monitoring Report. December 2024. highereducationinquirer.org

    South University. Doctor of Pharmacy Program is Accredited Through June 2028. southuniversity.edu

    PR Newswire. South University West Palm Beach Physician Assistant Program Achieves 10-Year Accreditation-Continued Status from ARC-PA. prnewswire.com

    South University. Benjamin J. DeGweck Named New CEO and Chancellor. October 31, 2025. southuniversity.edu

    Higher Education Inquirer. South University Faces $35.4 Million Balloon Payment on Pandemic-Era Loan. November 2025. highereducationinquirer.org

    Wikipedia. South University. en.wikipedia.org

    South University. South University Independent Again. 2023. southuniversity.edu

    Glassdoor. South University Reviews. glassdoor.com

    Source link

  • Everything Must Change So Everything Can Stay the Same: Internationalisation at a Crossroads

    Everything Must Change So Everything Can Stay the Same: Internationalisation at a Crossroads

    • By Vincenzo Raimo, an independent international higher education consultant and a Visiting Fellow at the University of Reading, where he was previously Pro Vice-Chancellor for Global Engagement.
    • Vincenzo Raimo will be joining David Pilsbury and Janet Ilieva at the International Higher Education Forum (IHEF 2025) on 4 June 2025 to discuss the topic: ‘Outdated policy and unfounded optimism drive British universities to the abyss.’

    “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”

    — The Leopard, Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

    UK universities are awash with the language of transformation. Internationalisation and Global Engagement strategies speak of partnerships, student mobility, intercultural learning and global citizenship. Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors for Internationalisation describe international education as central to institutional values and academic mission. And yet, for many, the real driver is far simpler: money.

    There is a widening gap between the rhetoric of internationalisation and the reality of its execution. Strategic plans position it as an enabler of diversity, excellence and global reach, but the day-to-day reality is that it functions as a financial lifeline. In a sector facing significant funding pressures, international student income is often the difference between surplus and deficit. That tension matters. It undermines credibility, risks student experience and can lead institutions to prioritise volume over value.

    The quote from The Leopard, Lampedusa’s novel of aristocratic decline during the unification of Italy, captures a central paradox of institutional reform. It speaks to the instinct to embrace the appearance of change in order to preserve the status quo. In recent months, this sentiment has felt uncomfortably familiar in UK higher education. We appear to be entering a period of cosmetic transformation: new job titles, rebranded structures and revised plans, but all too often without the deeper shifts in strategy, culture or resourcing that genuine transformation demands.

    This is particularly evident in international student recruitment.

    Universities in the UK have long faced political headwinds. International students are welcomed in principle but scrutinised in practice. Brief moments of progress, such as allowing students to bring dependents, are quickly reversed in response to migration debates. The result is unpredictability, which undermines confidence in the UK offer.

    Despite this, the UK has historically benefited from a position of passive advantage in international recruitment. We speak the global language of higher education. Our qualifications are widely recognised. Many of our institutions enjoy long-established reputations. And our complex legacy of Commonwealth ties, colonial familiarity and cultural affinity has offered visibility and access in key markets.

    But that advantage is fading.

    Policy instability is only part of the challenge. Global competition is intensifying, and not just from the traditional English-speaking destinations. European countries are increasingly offering high-quality, English-taught programmes at lower cost, often with clearer post-study pathways. In Asia, more students are opting to stay closer to home, choosing emerging regional providers with improving reputations and stronger cultural fit. The UK can no longer assume it is the default choice.

    In response, institutions are making changes, or at least talking about them. The mood music is shifting: towards diversification, resilience and sustainability. Yet much of this amounts to cosmetic change. Beneath the surface, many universities are still operating on the same assumptions, deploying the same strategies, and relying on the same markets and channels as they have for years.

    I have argued that recruitment targets are vanity, quality and retention are sanity, but margin is king. Growth in international enrolments may look impressive, but it means little if acquisition costs are rising, if retention is falling, or if students leave feeling unsupported. In one recent project, I found that recruitment costs, dominated by agent commissions, amounted to nearly a third of the net tuition income per student. That model is unsustainable in the long term.

    And the consequences are already visible: redundancies, departmental reconfigurations and even the closure of entire disciplines. The pursuit of international income has not protected the sector from financial strain. Rather, it may simply have postponed the difficult decisions needed to build genuinely sustainable institutions.

    One apparent solution is transnational education (TNE). There is renewed enthusiasm for TNE as universities seek to diversify income and reach. I have worked with institutions developing long-term TNE partnerships that deliver real benefits: stronger reputation, broader access and more distributed risk. But TNE is not a short-term fix. It takes time to design and deliver well, requires significant investment and cannot plug immediate financial gaps.

    Nor can TNE substitute for a broader rethink of international strategy. In my International Student Recruitment Success and TNE Success scorecards, I offer practical frameworks for assessing capabilities, identifying risks and planning more strategically. These tools are designed to help institutions move beyond tactical fixes and focus on longer-term sustainability. Key questions include:

    • What is our purpose in internationalisation?
    • How distinctive and competitive is our offer?
    • Are our structures and resources aligned to support quality and retention?
    • And are we being honest about what our strategy is really for, and is that clearly communicated across the institution and to our wider stakeholders?

    Too often, international strategies present one set of values, while day-to-day activities pursue another. This misalignment makes success harder to define, measure and achieve.

    The danger today is that we confuse activity with progress. Structural tweaks and strategic refreshes may signal intent, but unless they are anchored in purpose and matched by investment, they will not deliver the resilience the sector needs.

    Lampedusa’s quote reminds us that change can be used either to preserve the status quo or to enable transformation. The UK higher education sector faces a choice: to make difficult, strategic changes now, or to continue changing just enough to maintain the illusion of stability, while the foundations quietly erode.

    Source link

  • Storm in the Quad: A Tale of Universities at the Crossroads

    Storm in the Quad: A Tale of Universities at the Crossroads

    • Rayhan Abdullah Zakaria, Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA).

    It was a rainy Monday morning, the kind where the grey skies press low and the air smells like old books and wet leaves. I was huddled in our university’s coffee house, steam rising from a chipped mug, when a colleague leaned over and said something that’s stuck with me ever since:

    Universities are the last bastion of free thinking, the engines of progress. How can anyone try to silence that?

    He wasn’t being dramatic. We weren’t swapping dystopian movie ideas. What we were discussing was very real, and it’s happening now.

    Imagine a government freezing research funding, restricting international student recruitment, stripping universities of their tax exemptions, and tightening the grip through a maze of bureaucratic controls. It sounds like fiction, but for many institutions around the world, it’s a lived reality. Even here in the UK, where we pride ourselves on academic excellence, universities are feeling the squeeze,

    As I walked back from that coffee house with my thoughts churning like the storm outside, I realised that beneath the surface of daily lectures, research deadlines, and student support, two major fault lines threaten to destabilise the sector: governance and funding. These are not abstract issues—they shape how we teach, how we research, and how we serve society. Allow me to explain:

    I. The Financial Fault Line

      Higher education institutions in the UK are operating under increasing financial strain. According to recent analysis by Nick Hillman, universities are facing unsustainable deficits, largely due to a combination of frozen domestic tuition fees and rising operational costs.

      Frozen Tuition Fees

      Domestic tuition fees have remained capped at £9,250 since 2012. In real terms, inflation has steadily eroded their value. Universities UK (2024) estimates that this cap now equates to just £6,000 in 2012 money, leading to reduced investment in teaching quality, infrastructure, and student services.

      Over-Reliance on International Students

      Many institutions have sought to bridge the funding gap by increasing their intake of international students. While this has provided a temporary financial cushion, it is a fragile strategy. International enrolments are highly sensitive to visa policies, geopolitical tensions, and global economic shifts. The UK Home Office’s recent tightening of post-study work rights has already triggered concern across the sector.

      Rising Operational Costs

      Operational expenses—including staffing, estate maintenance, and digital infrastructure—continue to rise. Inflation and energy prices compound these challenges, placing institutions in a double bind: cut services or stretch resources even thinner.

      What Could Help?

      1. We need to lobby for a sustainable fee review mechanism that accounts for inflation and rising costs.
      2. We must diversify income streams beyond tuition: think industry partnerships, micro-credentials, alumni ventures, and lifelong learning platforms.
      3. We also need to invest in shared services and cost-efficient digital infrastructure that reduces overhead without compromising quality.

       II. The Governance Conundrum

      The falling rain speeds up crushing against the single pane of my office window.  I see a poor wood pigeon being blown off course by the rain and the wind, just like our university a small dingy lost in the chaotic ocean of governance. I do think alongside financial challenges, governance structures across many universities are in urgent need of reform. My first semester leadership postgrads know that effective governance is critical for institutional resilience, but UK universities current governance models often fall short.

      1. Overcentralisation of Power

      In some institutions, decision-making is concentrated in the hands of a powerful executive team. While strong leadership is essential, University governance HEPI (2024) should not drift toward corporate-style management that sidelines academic voices. This can lead to decisions that prioritise brand and market over mission and integrity.

      2. Ineffective Councils and Boards

      I think governing bodies should act as strategic stewards of the institution, ensuring transparency and long-term sustainability. Yet many lack the sectoral expertise or training to navigate complex challenges. The Committee of University Chairs has long advocated for better induction and development programmes, but uptake is uneven.

      3. Overregulation and Bureaucracy

      While regulation is necessary, the current landscape—especially under the Office for Students  —has created a burden of compliance that can stifle innovation and demoralise staff. As HEPI and others have argued, we need a shift towards smarter regulation: outcome-focused, proportionate, and enabling.

      What Could Help?

      1. We need to rebalance executive and academic leadership to support shared governance.
      2. We should work towards enhancing the capacity and diversity of governing councils.
      3. We must move toward more meaningful regulation that supports innovation rather than obstructs it.

      A Call for Sector-Wide Renewal

      As I left my office and stepped back into the drizzle of a typical term-time Monday, I recognised that the challenges ahead are not insurmountable – but they do demand courage and collective action.

      You see – reform must not be imposed from above but built through authentic dialogue across the sector. I do think that staff, students, alumni, employers, and policymakers all have a role to play. We must centre our vision not just on institutional survival, but on societal value. At the end of the day, universities are not corporations. They are civic institutions with a public mission.

      As I step into my class, I am greeted by my 3rd-semester post grads

      “Hey, how was the weekend?”

      I acknowledge, smile, nod, and make my way to the front to connect my laptop to the overhead projector. The last thought in my head is that if we are to sustain our university mission, we need to rethink how we fund, govern, and ultimately value higher education. Not tomorrow. Now.

    Source link