Tag: Experience

  • My experience as a Placement Year student

    My experience as a Placement Year student

    • This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Abi Pearson, Employability Project Assistant (Placement Year) at the University of Sheffield and a third-year BA Sociology with Social Policy student

    At the University of Sheffield, the Law Family Ambition Programme aims to support the success of young men from pre-16 through to graduation and beyond, made possible through a philanthropic donation from the Law Family Charitable Foundation. The programme focuses on young men’s educational attainment and delivering support through a whole-provider approach, with targeted support from areas such as the Careers Service and Student Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

    HEPI’s recent report on the educational underachievement of boys and young men provides evidence of the importance of qualifications, demonstrating the significance of programmes like Ambition working to get young men into higher education:

    Men with no qualifications are nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as women with no qualifications but there is virtually no gender gap in unemployment rates for people who have two A-levels or equivalent.

    As a placement student for the Careers and Employability Service, I acted as one of the Careers contacts for recipients of the Law Family Ambition Scholarship (‘Ambition Scholars’). I managed the Equal Opportunities in Careers scheme, tasked with hosting events and improving Careers Service provisions for widening participation students, including Ambition Scholars, as well as supporting the operational delivery of the Ambition Programme itself.

    In the second half of my placement year, I was given the opportunity to lead an internship programme developed for Ambition Scholars and Equal Opportunities students at the University of Sheffield, in which I was able to contribute to change by connecting students to meaningful work experience. Ambition Scholars were given enhanced support at every stage of their application, with some Scholars who did not apply still reaching out to show appreciation at our readiness to support them.

    Being able to work as a placement student in this area has been endlessly fascinating. From witnessing the success of Adolescence in conversations with University peers to working with the demographics its discourses concern, I have been given the rare opportunity to witness a new dimension to a world that I believed myself to be so familiar with in higher education.

    In experiencing higher education practice as both a student and staff member, I also increasingly see the value of keeping students involved with work that affects them. I had the opportunity to work with many Scholars within the Ambition cohort, as well as support the recruitment of an Ambition Student Intern in the Careers Service and work with them for the duration of their internship. The Intern provided us with Scholar insights during various pursuits, ensuring that practice was consistently student-centred and appropriately pragmatic, ending his internship by co-leading a session for staff in the Operations Group based on the recommendations of himself and fellow Scholars. 

    Working on this programme has certainly come with challenges. As is the problem for others across the sector, finding a communication style that works for our key demographic remains difficult as well as attempts at community-building for Scholars who perhaps do not see a benefit in connecting with students from similar backgrounds to themselves once arriving at University. This has meant that engagement with support services and events remains low and relatively unchanging throughout Scholars’ journeys.

    However, in this regard, I was taught one of many defining lessons of my placement year: lack of engagement and success are not mutually exclusive. During some focus groups I was able to lead on, Scholars often remarked that, despite not engaging with much of the support offered within Ambition, the safety net of the programme itself was one of its most valuable assets. It is possible that, for students, success in a programme like this is not defined by its popularity, but rather its durability and consistency through unprecedented times for young people and higher education. This approach means that Scholars are able to thrive on their own terms at University, in the knowledge that there is always a team there to support them.

    And so, as my placement draws to a close, my key reflection is thus: taking a Placement Year at your own University is well worth it. The microcosm of the world that universities present allows me to return to my final year with a multiperspectivity which will benefit me in finishing my degree and beyond. Working on the Ambition Programme, especially, has given me the chance to contribute to challenging belief systems whilst simultaneously experiencing the development of my own, advancing my personal as well as my professional development beyond what I could have imagined at the start.

    Source link

  • Levelling up the student experience

    Levelling up the student experience

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Cheryl Watson, VP of Education, UK at TechnologyOne
    • While you are here, don’t forget to complete the survey on HEPI’s work. It will only take a few minutes and will help inform our future output. You can access the survey here.

    Why we need to redesign student life around inclusion, access and equity 

    There’s no such thing as a typical student anymore. Today’s students are more diverse, stretched, and balancing financial pressures alongside study, care, and work responsibilities.

    Yet many university systems still assume a narrow definition of who students are and how they live. As participation widens, institutions face a challenge: equity of access no longer guarantees equity of experience.

    That’s where the Minimum Income Standards for Students research comes in.

    Today’s students are not a one-size-fits-all

    Universities have made real progress in widening access, but many aspects of student life are still designed around an outdated, one-size-fits-all model. For non-traditional students, the cost of that mismatch can be significant.

    The Minimum Income Standard for Students 2024 (MISS24) report, developed by the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University and published by HEPI and TechnologyOne, revealed that students under financial stress or managing additional responsibilities are more likely to struggle with engagement, persistence, and success.

    The myth of the ‘traditional student experience’

    The image of the ‘traditional’ student – financially supported, living on campus, and attending in person full-time – is increasingly out of step with reality. According to HEPI and Advance HE, 68% of students now work part-time to support themselves.

    Others commute long distances, care for family members or study while managing health conditions. Yet academic and campus life often centres around those with time, money and flexibility, creating barriers for others.

    Who are non-traditional students?

    ‘Non-traditional’ students are those whose lives don’t neatly align with the structures of traditional university study. This includes:

    • commuters who travel in from home each day, often at significant personal cost;
    • students from low-income households, for whom maintenance loans fall well short;
    • mature-age students, carers, or those with parenting responsibilities;
    • students living with disabilities or chronic health conditions; and
    • first-in-family students, navigating systems and expectations without precedent.

    These students comprise a significant portion of the sector. Meeting their needs should not be seen as an add-on, but as essential to building a fairer system.

    The hidden barriers reshaping student life

    Rigid timetables, inflexible systems, and unclear support structures can turn everyday aspects of student life into barriers. For students juggling work, care or long commutes, these barriers can add stress and negatively impact attendance, engagement, and overall well-being.

    The people I know that commute, it’s mostly because they couldn’t afford to live or it would be way more expensive for them to live in student accommodation because they live so close.

    I worked with someone, and she’d be in Uni all day from 9 am to 5 pm because she might have something that started at 9am and then finished at 6pm, because the timetable is not synced up.

    Accommodation contracts and payment schedules often clash with student loan timings, leaving some students short on essentials or reliant on overdrafts and food banks. These are not isolated challenges but systemic issues that call for sector-wide solutions.

    Building a fairer future for higher education

    To build a fairer, more inclusive higher education system, universities and policymakers need clear evidence on what effective support looks like.

    The upcoming Minimum Income Standard for Students 2025 (MISS25) report – a follow-up to MISS24 with HEPI – will provide that evidence, offering the most detailed picture yet of the true cost of participating in university life for first-year students living in purpose-built accommodation.

    It will help the sector understand what it takes for students to stay afloat, take part fully, and succeed, particularly for those managing disabilities, low incomes, or additional responsibilities.

    What students say they need to succeed

    Focus groups from the MISS25 research highlight that students need time, flexibility and support that reflects their real lives. Financial pressure and scheduling conflicts can limit their ability to join societies, attend events, or fully participate in academic life.

    ‘We just need time and space to breathe’

    Many students described university life as overwhelming, mostly because of how tightly packed, inflexible, and unsupported it can feel. Rigid schedules and disconnected systems create extra strain, especially for students who need to manage work, transport, or health appointments.

    As the report will show, even students receiving the maximum maintenance loan must work long hours every week just to meet a minimum standard of living.

    ‘It’s hard to join in when you’re just trying to survive’

    Participating in societies, sports, and social life is a vital part of the university experience. But for many, the rising cost of living means opting out is the only option.

    This impacts wellbeing, confidence, and the chance to build networks that support success.

    These challenges are often most acute in the first year, when students are building social connections and learning to navigate university systems for the first time.

    ‘Uni should be built around real students, not ideal ones’

    Students shared how university systems don’t match their realities. Timetables that assume all-day availability, unclear payment schedules, and expectations around placements can all create friction for students managing extra responsibilities or financial pressures.

    To support success, universities need to understand and address these gaps.

    Why inclusive design must be the next priority

    The barriers many students face are design challenges, not a matter of individual resilience. Inclusive design means creating flexible timetables, accessible learning environments, and clear, consistent support structures that work for all learners.

    When these systems are in place, students can focus on learning and contributing to their communities, rather than constantly navigating obstacles.

    Rethinking support beyond financial aid

    While financial support is still crucial, students need systems that align with their lives to reduce unnecessary stress and uncertainty. Predictable processes, transparent communication, and flexible learning options are all part of enabling participation and success.

    Explore the full MISS25 report

    The upcoming Minimum Income Standard for Students 2025 report (MISS25) offers a data-driven roadmap for a more inclusive student experience. Sign up to receive a copy of the report to explore the findings and discover how better insight can drive better outcomes across your institution.

    Related article: The hidden cost of learning: how financial strain Is reshaping student life

    TechnologyOne is a Partner of HEPI. TechnologyOne is a global Software as a Service (SaaS) company. Their enterprise SaaS solution transforms business and makes life simple for universities by providing powerful, deeply integrated enterprise software that is incredibly easy to use. The company takes complete responsibility to market, sell, implement, support and run solutions for customers, which reduce time, cost and risk. 

    Source link

  • Co-curricular space is where students can find human experience outside the AI bubble

    Co-curricular space is where students can find human experience outside the AI bubble

    In his criminally underread 1978 book The Grasshopper, the philosopher Bernard Suits takes seriously the science-fiction commonplace that, once robots are doing everything for us, humans will have to find something else to do.

    His response is that we’d play, living lives of leisure, like Aesop’s grasshopper, and engaging in activities with a lusory attitude: living playfully, engaging in activities not because we have to, but because we want to. Fully-automated luxury play! As much as I could easily play videogames all day, work isn’t going anywhere any time soon. But the rise of AI in education has prompted me to revisit this topic.

    Universities are, quite rightly, thinking very carefully about what their staff and students do with AI, emphasising the ways in which it can enhance, and perhaps even replace, aspects of our work. But there are separate, parallel questions: what can’t AI do for us, and what shouldn’t it do? And what are we going to do with all the time it saves us?

    Doing and being seen to have done

    Human lives are full of experiences, and there’s a danger with the rise of AI that we weaken our connection with the actual doing of things. AI might help us to plan a holiday itinerary, book a hotel or draft a jealousy-inducing social media post (or even deepfake pics from a holiday that didn’t happen), but it can’t go on holiday for us. And similarly, in learning environments, whilst it can enhance learning, overreliance on AI runs the risk of hollowing out the experiential core of learning and leaving students not having actually done anything.

    A real challenge for educators is to know how to get students to understand the value of experience in a world that incentivises taking shortcuts. I lead Rise at Manchester Met: a co-curricular programme that is designed to draw together all the things that students do that aren’t their degree, and our team works hard to help students to understand that they are more than their degree subject.

    The traditional catch-all term for this is “extra-curricular” – it’s the things that students do in addition to the curricula they are following. But in practice “co-curricular” is a more accurate term. “Co” indicates that activity happens alongside and with the curriculum. There is a crossover in the experiences that students are having. Picture the curriculum and co-curricular activities as two streams that are sometimes totally divergent, sometimes parallel, and often overlapping in productive ways.

    Identity shapes participation

    Students don’t stop being students when they engage in co-curricular activities, but similarly they don’t stop being a community organiser, or a hockey player, or a freelance arts journalist, when they’re in the classroom. My doctoral thesis argued that half of the “game” of higher education is students understanding how they can bring their own identities to transform their participation, and “position-switch” between roles. The co-curricular is at its most powerful when these distinct identities and experiences begin to transform and enhance each other.

    Moving from “extra” to “co” also challenges the primacy of the core curriculum as the foundation of student experience, and acknowledges that, for many of our students, “student” might not be their primary identity. We must accept that, for some students, their co-curricular activity might be more engaging, more relevant and more career-focused than their core degree programme. For others, the stuff they are doing outside their degree programme might be necessary and unavoidable, and will often pre-date their involvement at university; paid-work and caring responsibilities tend to take precedence over lectures, and there may be ways to make this count too.

    However, when you type “co-curricular” into your search engine of choice, you won’t really see university websites. It’s a term that, at present, seems to be owned by the upper-end of British private boarding schools. In a sense this stands to reason; pupils essentially live in these schools during term time, and activities take place as part of their wider life at school. Here “co-curricular” is an expectation, and provides the social and cultural capital building for which British private schools are famous.

    This conceptual dominance raises an issue of social justice, though. There is a sense that all of the “extra” stuff, at both schools and universities, is the domain of students who are privileged enough to take part, and who have the time and resources to make it happen. Working outside the curriculum is too often seen as a privilege for the privileged, and effectively becomes self-fulfilling as students with the free time to volunteer reap the developmental benefits of volunteering their time. Other students are already on the back foot when it comes to claiming their share of experience.

    Embarrassment of riches

    Rise was set up to challenge this narrative, by giving students time and resource to develop their social capital in flexible ways, and to recognise developmental activities that might not have traditionally been included under the extra-curricular umbrella. There’s a broader conversation to be had in the sector, not about how we encourage already busy students to do more, but about how we encourage students to recognise their learning beyond the curriculum.

    In Manchester and beyond, the skills pendulum seems to swinging once more away from digital skills and towards “soft skills” – again, reflecting AI’s dominance of education conversations. Co-curricular space has a valuable contribution to make to developing empathy, critical thinking and interacting with other human beings. It is, ultimately, about sharing experiences, and the more we can expand this, the more everyone will benefit.

    Students will have experiences outside of their degree programmes whether we design for it or not, but a renewed emphasis on co-curricular activity would allow them (and us) to understand that formal education settings don’t have a monopoly on learning and development. We worry so much about students being “time-poor”; what happens if we understand this as “experience-rich” instead, and recognise their learning accordingly?

    In an AI-dominated dystopia, the co-curricular might be where we find the last vestiges of human experience in higher education. Being more optimistic, in a Grasshopper-influenced utopia, we’d all have the time to luxuriate in human experience. Co-curricular space provides insight into what this might look like, and gives students ways to develop away from the curriculum that might speak to future possibilities.

    Interested in thinking more about co-curricular experience? At Manchester Met we’re pulling together a cross-sector group of HE professionals working in co-curricular space, and we’d love your input. Click here to sign up for updates.

    Source link

  • Who’s listening to the TNE student experience?

    Who’s listening to the TNE student experience?

    Transnational education (TNE) is an increasingly prominent feature in the UK higher education landscape. The sector now has more than 600,000 TNE students, who study outside the UK for awards made by UK providers. Growth in the number and diversity of TNE students shows no sign of stopping. This has implications for institutional strategy and for the UK’s global reputation. At the same time, it asks us to consider the quality of the TNE student experience.

    The 2024 HEPI report recommends practical ways to increase public understanding of the TNE student experience. These include: wider engagement with the Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Enhancement of Transnational Education (QE-TNE) scheme; and greater use of external surveys of TNE students. Jisc’s new report focuses on the digital experience of TNE students and staff.

    Things rarely stay still for very long in the TNE world. What has changed in the six months between the two reports, and what can we learn now?

    • In April, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (part of Jisc) published the latest aggregate offshore record. There were 621,065 UK TNE students in 2022-23, an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year. The total number of TNE students has grown every year since the current record was established in 2019-20. This trend looks set to continue, with India attracting particular recent attention. The government’s revised International Education Strategy is expected to have a renewed emphasis on TNE growth.
    • Meanwhile, at home, higher education providers face financial headwinds, combined with a potentially unfavourable policy environment for international students in the UK. Is TNE part of the answer? TNE projects are notoriously complex and have long lead-in times, making the direct impact on a provider’s bottom line hard to gauge. But many providers recognise the long-term strategic value of TNE projects, and are ready to invest even at a time of financial uncertainty for the sector.
    • April also saw a change of mind by two regulators: the Office for Students in England, and Medr in Wales. They jointly paused the development of TNE data sets based on individual student records, a requirement that would have been excessively burdensome on providers. Instead, there will be an expanded aggregate offshore record, such as was already planned in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the absence of more granular data, it is all the more important that we find ways to understand the quality of the TNE student experience.

    One aim of the HEPI report was to give a higher profile to TNE students in the policy agenda. This month’s Jisc report maintains the profile of TNE students by summarising the known digital challenges to global educational delivery from the perspective of 21 UK higher education providers. Digital is central to the success of all TNE students: whether learning in classrooms, dialling in or in asynchronous online modes of study. In every case, technology is woven throughout curriculum delivery and beyond. Jisc found that:

    • In aiming to deliver an equitable learning experience, we cannot assume that connectivity, digital resource access and prior digital experience in host countries is the same as in the UK
    • Intermittent access to the internet is common in many countries, often due to disrupted electricity supply. Technology infrastructure is especially vulnerable during times of extreme weather, natural disaster, civil unrest or war
    • Challenges associated with accessing digital resources and learning materials are common. They can be caused by software or publisher licensing restrictions, export control laws and/or host country restrictions
    • Significant fees can be charged for TNE student access to software or e-publications. This reflects how publishers define a student as ‘belonging’ to an institution
    • There are cultural differences in expectations related to how digital is used to support learning, teaching and assessment
    • Cultural differences also create challenges in understanding and adapting to UK academic norms associated with academic integrity, copyright, plagiarism, effective use of AI and assessment rubric
    • The digital skills and capabilities expected of HE students and staff can differ between countries and cultures

    The report also summarises how Jisc, Universities UK International, British Council and The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education are working together to support the sector to better understand the quality of the TNE student experience, and so support effective and successful global educational delivery.

    This month’s Jisc report is the first of two on the TNE student and staff digital experience. The second report will summarise the views of over 4,800 TNE students and 400 staff, across 50 instances of global delivery. It will be published in October 2025 and launched at the Universities UK International TNE conference.

    Source link

  • Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Podcast: Student experience, LLE, civic

    Podcast: Student experience, LLE, civic








    By submitting you agree to our terms and conditions

    Source link

  • Hard up for students, more colleges are offering college credit for life experience, or ‘prior learning’

    Hard up for students, more colleges are offering college credit for life experience, or ‘prior learning’

    PITTSBURGH — Stephen Wells was trained in the Air Force to work on F-16 fighter jets, including critical radar, navigation and weapons systems whose proper functioning meant life or death for pilots.

    Yet when he left the service and tried to apply that expertise toward an education at Pittsburgh’s Community College of Allegheny County, or CCAC, he was given just three credits toward a required class in physical education.

    Wells moved forward anyway, going on to get his bachelor’s and doctoral degrees. Now he’s CCAC’s provost and involved in a citywide project to help other people transform their military and work experience into academic credit.

    What’s happening in Pittsburgh is part of growing national momentum behind letting students — especially the increasing number who started but never completed a degree — cash in their life skills toward finally getting one, saving them time and money. 

    Colleges and universities have long purported to provide what’s known in higher education as credit for prior learning. But they have made the process so complex, slow and expensive that only about 1 in 10 students actually completes it. 

    Many students don’t even try, especially low-income learners who could benefit the most, according to a study by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, or CAEL.

    “It drives me nuts” that this promise has historically proven so elusive, Wells said, in his college’s new Center for Education, Innovation & Training.

    Stephen Wells, provost at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh. An Air Force veteran, Wells got only a handful of academic credits for his military experience. Now he’s part of an effort to expand that opportunity for other students. Credit: Nancy Andrews for The Hechinger Report

    That appears to be changing. Nearly half of institutions surveyed last year by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, or AACRAO, said they have added more ways for students to receive these credits — electricians, for example, who can apply some of their training toward academic courses in electrical engineering, and daycare workers who can use their experience to earn degrees in teaching. 

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    The reason universities and colleges are doing this is simple: Nearly 38 million working-age Americans have spent some time in college but never finished, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Getting at least some of them to come back has become essential to these higher education institutions at a time when changing demographics mean that the number of 18-year-old high school graduates is falling.

    “When higher education institutions are fat and happy, nobody looks for these things. Only when those traditional pipelines dry up do we start looking for other potential populations,” said Jeffrey Harmon, vice provost for strategic initiatives and institutional effectiveness at Thomas Edison State University in New Jersey, which has long given adult learners credit for the skills they bring.

    Being able to get credit for prior learning is a huge potential recruiting tool. Eighty-four percent of adults who are leaning toward going back to college say it would have “a strong influence” on their decision, according to research by CAEL, the Strada Education Foundation and Hanover Research. (Strada is among the funders of The Hechinger Report, which produced this story.)

    The Center for Education, Innovation & Training at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh. The college is part of a citywide effort to give academic credit for older students’ life experiences. Credit: Nancy Andrews for The Hechinger Report

    When Melissa DiMatteo, 38, decided to get an associate degree at CCAC to go further in her job, she got six credits for her previous training in Microsoft Office and her work experience as everything from a receptionist to a supervisor. That spared her from having to take two required courses in computer information and technology and — since she’s going to school part time and taking one course per semester — saved her a year.

    “Taking those classes would have been a complete waste of my time,” DiMatteo said. “These are things that I do every day. I supervise other people and train them on how to do this work.”

    On average, students who get credit for prior learning save between $1,500 and $10,200 apiece and nearly seven months off the time it takes to earn a bachelor’s degree, the nonprofit advocacy group Higher Learning Advocates calculates. The likelihood that they will graduate is 17 percent higher, the organization finds.

    Related: The number of 18-year-olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges — and the economy 

    Justin Hand dropped out of college because of the cost, and became a largely self-taught information technology manager before he decided to go back and get an associate and then a bachelor’s degree so he could move up in his career.

    He got 15 credits — a full semester’s worth — through a program at the University of Memphis for which he wrote essays to prove he had already mastered software development, database management, computer networking and other skills.

    “These were all the things I do on a daily basis,” said Hand, of Memphis, who is 50 and married, with a teenage son. “And I didn’t want to have to prolong college any more than I needed to.”

    Meanwhile, employers and policymakers are pushing colleges to speed up the output of graduates with skills required in the workforce, including by giving more students credit for their prior learning. And online behemoths Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University, with which brick-and-mortar colleges compete, are way ahead of them in conferring credit for past experience.

    “They’ve mastered this and used it as a marketing tool,” said Kristen Vanselow, assistant vice president of innovative education and partnerships at Florida Gulf Coast University, which has expanded its awarding of credit for prior learning. “More traditional higher education institutions have been slower to adapt.”

    It’s also gotten easier to evaluate how skills that someone learns in life equate to academic courses or programs. This has traditionally required students to submit portfolios, take tests or write essays, as Hand did, and faculty to subjectively and individually assess them. 

    Related: As colleges lose enrollment, some turn to one market that’s growing: Hispanic students

    Now some institutions, states, systems and independent companies are standardizing this work or using artificial intelligence to do it. The growth of certifications from professional organizations such as Amazon Web Services and the Computing Technology Industry Association, or CompTIA, has helped, too.

    “You literally punch [an industry certification] into our database and it tells you what credit you can get,” said Philip Giarraffa, executive director of articulation and academic pathways at Miami Dade College. “When I started here, that could take anywhere from two weeks to three months.”

    Data provided by Miami Dade shows it has septupled the number of credits for prior learning awarded since 2020, from 1,197 then to 7,805 last year.

    “These are students that most likely would have looked elsewhere, whether to the [online] University of Phoenix or University of Maryland Global [Campus]” or other big competitors, Giarraffa said.

    Fifteen percent of undergraduates enrolled in higher education full time and 40 percent enrolled part time are 25 or older, federal data show — including people who delayed college to serve in the military, volunteer or do other work that could translate into academic credit. 

    “Nobody wants to sit in a class where they already have all this knowledge,” Giarraffa said. 

    At Thomas Edison, police academy graduates qualify for up to 30 credits toward associate degrees. Carpenters who have completed apprenticeships can get as many as 74 credits in subjects including math, management and safety training. Bachelor’s degrees are often a prerequisite for promotion for people in professions such as these, or who hope to start their own companies.

    Related: To fill ‘education deserts,’ more states want community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees

    The University of Memphis works with FedEx, headquartered nearby, to give employees with supervisory training academic credit they can use toward a degree in organizational leadership, helping them move up in the company.

    The University of North Carolina System last year launched its Military Equivalency System, which lets active-duty and former military service members find out almost instantly, before applying for admission, if their training could be used for academic credit. That had previously required contacting admissions offices, registrars or department chairs. 

    Among the reasons for this reform was that so many of these prospective students — and the federal education benefits they get — were ending up at out-of-state universities, the UNC System’s strategic plan notes.

    “We’re trying to change that,” said Kathie Sidner, the system’s director of workforce and partnerships. It’s not only for the sake of enrollment and revenue, Sidner said. “From a workforce standpoint, these individuals have tremendous skill sets and we want to retain them as opposed to them moving somewhere else.”

    Related: A new way to help some college students: Zero percent, no-fee loans

    California’s community colleges are also expanding their credit for prior learning programs as part of a plan to increase the proportion of the population with educations beyond high school. 

    “How many people do you know who say, ‘College isn’t for me?’ ” asked Sam Lee, senior advisor to the system’s chancellor for credit for prior learning. “It makes a huge difference when you say to them that what they’ve been doing is equivalent to college coursework already.”

    In Pittsburgh, the Regional Upskilling Alliance — of which CCAC is a part — is connecting job centers, community groups, businesses and educational institutions to create comprehensive education and employment records so more workers can get credit for skills they already have.

    That can provide a big push, “especially if you’re talking about parents who think, ‘I’ll never be able to go to school,’ ” said Sabrina Saunders Mosby, president and CEO of the nonprofit Vibrant Pittsburgh, a coalition of business and civic leaders involved in the effort. 

    Pennsylvania is facing among the nation’s most severe declines in the number of 18-year-old high school graduates. 

    “Our members are companies that need talent,” Mosby said. 

    There’s one group that has historically pushed back against awarding credit for prior learning: university and college faculty concerned it might affect enrollment in their courses or unconvinced that training provided elsewhere is of comparable quality. Institutions have worried about the loss of revenue from awarding credits for which students would otherwise have had to pay.

    That also appears to be changing, as universities leverage credit for prior learning to recruit more students and keep them enrolled for longer, resulting in more revenue — not less. 

    “That monetary factor was something of a myth,” said Beth Doyle, chief of strategy at CAEL.

    Faculty have increasingly come around, too. That’s sometimes because they like having experienced students in their classrooms, Florida Gulf Coast’s Vanselow said. 

    Related: States want adults to return to college. Many roadblocks stand in the way 

    Still, while many recognize it as a recruiting incentive, most public universities and colleges have had to be ordered to confer more credits for prior learning by legislatures or governing boards. Private, nonprofit colleges remain stubbornly less likely to give it.

    More than two-thirds charge a fee for evaluating whether other kinds of learning can be transformed into academic credit, an expense that isn’t covered by financial aid. Roughly one in 12 charge the same as it would cost to take the course for which the credits are awarded. 

    Debra Roach, vice president for workforce development at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh. The college is working on giving academic credit to students for their military, work and other life experience. Credit: Nancy Andrews for The Hechinger Report

    Seventy percent of institutions require that students apply for admission and be accepted before learning whether credits for prior learning will be awarded. Eighty-five percent limit how many credits for prior learning a student can receive.

    There are other confounding roadblocks and seemingly self-defeating policies. CCAC runs a noncredit program to train paramedics, for example, but won’t give people who complete it credits toward its for-credit nursing degree. Many leave and go across town to a private university that will. The college is working on fixing this, said Debra Roach, its vice president of workforce development.

    It’s important to see this from the students’ point of view, said Tracy Robinson, executive director of the University of Memphis Center for Regional Economic Enrichment.

    “Credit for prior learning is a way for us to say, ‘We want you back. We value what you’ve been doing since you’ve been gone,’ ” Robinson said. “And that is a total game changer.”

    Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, [email protected] or jpm.82 on Signal.

    This story about credit for prior learning was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Inside Adelaide uni’s digital experience – Campus Review

    Inside Adelaide uni’s digital experience – Campus Review

    Digital platforms are a key part of a positive student experience and will be a major focus for the new Adelaide University (AU), its digital project lead told an audience of academics on Thursday.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • The student experience is beyond breaking point

    The student experience is beyond breaking point

    The standout headline stat in this year’s HEPI/Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey (SAES) is that there’s been a dramatic rise in the proportion of students at work.

    Full-time undergraduates undertaking paid work (that is not related to their course) during term time is now at 68 per cent, up from 56 per cent in 2024 and just 35 per cent a decade ago.

    That’s tempered a little by the news that of those in work, the average number of hours worked during term time has actually fallen a little – from 14.5 hours to 13.1 hours. The report speculates that some of those who have begun working in the past year may have taken jobs with more moderate, perhaps more manageable, hours.

    Or maybe – in an era when the leisure and hospitality industries are on their knees, and employers have been grappling with a minimum wage rising much faster than inflation, students are struggling to get the hours they need.

    Either way, if we extrapolate up the sample and the overall mean average, and assume that students are roughly accurate in their responses, there’s an even more astonishing stat buried in here:

    That’s right – student numbers over the decade are up 15.5 per cent, while the total hours worked in term time are up 79.6 per cent.

    There’s a touch of numberwang here – so to put the numbers in some vague context, full-time students in the UK working during term time are now contributing over a quarter of the hours that Latvia’s entire workforce produces in a full year.

    Paid employment can be positive for all sorts of reasons – but the idea that an increase like that won’t be having serious negative impacts on health and learning really is for the birds.

    If – as various aspects of this year’s SAES suggest – earning while learning is a “new normal”, the least students should expect is universities developing proper strategies to facilitate it, and the government providing a proper framework to enable it. On European comparisons, we’re miles away from both.

    This is, as ever, a weighty bit of work – 10,232 full-time undergraduate students in the UK, representing a population of 1,759,245 (2023–24 data) all yield a margin of error of ±1% at a 95% confidence level.

    That said, a health warning before we get into it – while the figures weight the sample for ethnicity, type of school attended, discipline and (for the first time) domicile, they don’t weight the sample for age.

    And given the 22-25 age group has nearly doubled from 18 per cent to 36 per cent of the sample year on year, while the 26+ group has collapsed from 23 per cent to just 5 per cent, a pinch of salt is required throughout.

    Various of the questions referred to below can be interrogated for a range of demographic and other splits via the cross-tab tables, which DK has plotted here.

    [Full screen]

    Short-lived celebrations

    Corks were popping last year when the headline “value for money” perception score rose after its Covid collapse to 39 per cent. Short-lived celebrations, sadly – we’re back down at 37 per cent feeling they received good or very good value.

    As ever, Scottish students perceive the highest value, although even then only at 48 per cent – a figure which always baffles some on the socials who forget that a bargain Ryanair flight to Reykjavík still feels like terrible value if your sandwich and coffee at Keflavik International costs double that.

    That’s borne out in the factors considered when judging VFM data – cost of living is some 10 percentage points ahead of any other factor. Tuition fees have declined in relative significance, academic quality concerns are also moderating, and stuff like one-to-one staff time, contact hours, and course organisation remain relatively stable but secondary.

    Down in the splits there are some fascinating differences not picked up in the report – women, first in family and state educated students are less happy than peers, students in non-university halls are 10pp more likely to report poor value than those in university halls or living alone or at home, care experienced and estranged students are almost twice as likely to report poor value than their peers, and degree apprentices are 11pp more likely to report poor value than UGs.

    This is your regular reminder that an apprentice aged 21 in the first year of their apprenticeship is entitled to a princely minimum hourly rate of £7.55 an hour. Earn while you learn indeed.

    One thing that’s striking is a kind of Value for Money paradox – there’s a very strong relationship between negative impact of the cost of living crisis and VFM perceptions, and a good value “sweet spot” of working 10-15 hours (4 in 10 happy), with those working fewer or more hours less happy.

    I’d suggest we’re staring here at two “trapped” student profiles – those having to work so many hours that it’s ruining the experience, and those who need to work but are constrained by visa restrictions, health, lack of available employment, course demands or timetabling conflicts – leaving them financially stressed without the ability to address it.

    Grating expectations

    On expectations, bifurcation has been the big story in SAES in recent years – and this year’s no different. 26 per cent of students in 2025 report that their experience exceeded expectations – double the rate seen during the pandemic in 2021.

    But there’s been a corresponding rise in students whose experience was worse than expected too – 15 percent in 2025, up from 8 per cent in 2021.

    For students whose expectations weren’t met, it feels like time and money are the ones hardest to influence – 23 per cent cite less disposable income than expected, 18 per cent are taking on more debt than anticipated, and 17 per cent cite longer commutes.

    Academic issues were up there too, though – poor teaching quality (23 per cent), lack of support for independent study (23 per cent) and course disorganisation (20 per cent) are the notables. Analysis of the qual also suggests that loneliness should have been a box they could tick.

    And down in the splits there are some similar lessons to those seen in the VFM questions – again, only 18 per cent of those in non-university halls have had expectations met, over 10pp worse than those at home or living alone.

    I’ve had a few

    I’ve been following the “regret” question quite closely for a few years now – and I’m afraid to say that this year a record low of 56 per cent said they would make the same decision on course and university again. Significantly, those who would avoid higher education entirely has nearly doubled from 6 per cent to 11 per cent between 2024 and 2025.

    The factors underpinning that are much better explored in the Nicola Dandridge/University of Bristol deep dive we looked at a few weeks back, although sticking out like a sore thumb here are those working but under 10 hours (just 38 per cent would make the same choice), those doing Level 4 or 5 quals (on 46 per cent and 40 per cent respectively), and those with caring responsibilities, those that are themselves care experienced, those estranged and trans students – they languish down on 44, 39, 40 and 41 per cent “no regrets” respectively.

    Non-university halls also make another of their regular appearances – every other type of living arrangement averages out at between 55 and 59 per cent “no regrets”, while those in private PBSA are on 39 per cent. An astonishing 21 per cent of them would avoid HE altogether if they had their time again.

    Considered withdrawing (roughly two-thirds) and the reasons for that (mental health and cost of living) both remain stable – combined with the regret figures, they continue to suggest that the system is better at trapping students onto a conveyor belt than anything else.

    Can I have some more?

    Every year students are asked to make qualitative suggestions on what could be done to improve the quality of the student experience – eight major themes range from requests for more personalised academic support and timely feedback to calls for enhanced mental health services, financial assistance, and improved teaching quality.

    I won’t dwell on them here – suffice to say that almost all of them represent a direct collision between rising expectations and diminishing resources. Students are requesting precisely the kind of labour-intensive, personalised services that universities are routinely subjecting to “shrinkflation”.

    Smaller class sizes, one-to-one interaction with staff, detailed feedback, enhanced mental health support, and reduced fees for international students all feel like things doing in precisely the opposite direction – a potentially vicious cycle where quality is hit, that generates further dissatisfaction. They are not necessarily completely unaffordable – but they either reflect support expectations associated with an expected speed of completion not seen in many other countries, or degree structures which pile on too much pressure unnecessarily.

    That said, if you’re looking for something (anything) resembling good news here, it’s on aspects of teaching. Pretty much every characteristic tested – encouraged you to take responsibility for your own learning, clearly explained course goals and requirements, helpful and supportive, initiated debates and discussion are within margins of error at record satisfaction.

    Assessment feedback has reached new heights, with holistic feedback and draft work feedback achieving record scores – over 15 percentage points higher than 2018 levels. And assignment turnaround times have dramatically improved – 61 per cent are now returned within two weeks (up from just 33 per cent in 2022), exceeding evolving student expectations where 70 per cent expect two-week returns.

    Under pressure

    The problems are in pressure and time. Contact hours are stable at 15-16 hours provided, 13 hours attended, but student satisfaction with contact hours has declined significantly by nine percentage points to its lowest level in a decade (excluding the pandemic blip).

    The data reveal that students generally value contact hours, with those having 10+ hours weekly showing greater satisfaction, but the key factor seems to be the rise in students working for pay. Students without paid employment show notably higher satisfaction with contact hours (64 per cent) compared to working students (57 per cent), suggesting that increased work commitments are creating challenges in balancing total time demands rather than dissatisfaction with the contact hours themselves.

    That pattern intensifies as students progress through their degrees, where they attend fewer contact hours while taking on more paid work responsibilities – and the decline appears linked to students’ difficulty managing their broader commitments, indicating a need for more flexible timetabling to help students balance their academic and work responsibilities effectively.

    That all results in this fairly alarming chart – not only is the amount of time spent in timetabled hours and independent study at its lowest in half a decade (24.2 hours), there’s a significant difference between those who work and those who don’t.

    Worse still, as I’ve noted before, the UK’s notional ECTS-to-hours ratio is already lower than the rest of Europe at 20 hours per credit (everyone else is on 25-30 hours) – these figures suggest that they’re somehow getting their degrees on 15 fewer hours studying than they’re supposed to be able to, all while being expected to complete 5.8 summative assignments per semester and 4.1 formative assignments – both at record highs.

    The pressures of work, what is starting to look clearly like over-assessment, cost of living and so on – all in a system and culture set up to get UGs through their degrees faster than pretty much every other country – will almost certainly be generating support demands, mental health issues and (Al related) “efficiencies” that are harming students’ health and learning.

    Hence wellbeing remains concerningly low, with only 14-18 per cent reporting high scores on key measures (life satisfaction, happiness, feeling worthwhile, and low anxiety) – half the levels seen in the general population. Students have very high, perhaps unrealistic expectations for institutional mental health support too – 40 per cent believe universities should provide comprehensive services including severe cases, and another 41 per cent expect preventative programs and counselling for less severe issues.

    Students with existing mental health difficulties, those significantly affected by cost-of-living pressures, trans students, first-years, and those studying in Scotland show even higher expectations, with nearly half (47 per cent) of students with mental health challenges expecting comprehensive university support.

    All about the money

    Back on money again, three-quarters of students continue to report that cost-of-living pressures have notably impacted their studies, nearly one-in-five students have taken on more debt than planned (particularly affecting home students), and other impacts include reduced spending on course equipment, lower participation in sports and societies, and increased commuting costs.

    The reduction in extracurricular activities is particularly worrying given existing student mental health challenges – and miserably, financial challenges mean that 6 per cent of home students selected a different course than they had planned to, and 7 per cent selected a different institution than they had planned to.

    This year there’s also a strange set of questions testing students’ attitudes towards maintaining, increasing or decreasing tuition fee levels with some associated quality trade-offs – it’s not clear that that tells us much given the range of other factors underpinning their value perceptions.

    Breaking points

    So what are we to make of all that? Similar to previous years, the data suggests a system under extraordinary strain – but this year’s findings suggest to me that we’ve crossed a threshold from manageable pressure into systematic breakdown.

    One way to understand what’s happening is through the lens of the Study Demands-Resources model we found in European student research. Eurostudent’s analysis distinguishes between stress-inducing demands (excessive workload, time pressure, financial obligations) and supportive resources (peer contact, teacher guidance, family support, adequate funding) – where wellbeing depends on the balance between these forces.

    The SAES figures suggest we’re witnessing unprecedented demand escalation alongside systematic resource depletion. Students face more assignments per semester (up 47 per cent since 2017), their capacity to engage has collapsed, independent study time has fallen below contact hours for many subjects, and the employment reality means students are operating at 44.3 total weekly hours while UK full-time workers average 36.6 hours.

    Another lens is Maslow. Universities are investing heavily in what I’ve previously described as self-actualisation interventions (creative assignments, intellectual debates, community building) while students struggle with basic physiological and safety needs. As I’ve noted before on here, when basic needs are unmet, higher-order educational experiences become impossible regardless of quality – and every extra hour of effort up the top of Maslow has diminishing returns.

    The control paradox is also troubling. We’re used to universities being held accountable for outcomes – retention, belonging, wellbeing, satisfaction, completion – that are increasingly driven by factors outside their control. Universities might perfect contact hour delivery, but students working extreme hours can’t attend. They can enhance support services, but working students can’t access them during traditional hours. I’m usually the first to argue that universities should look at what they can control – but the multi-car pile up of issues inside that which they can’t is starting to look overwhelming.

    Most troubling of all is what this all means for “full-time” study. Every student finance review and the credit system itself puts its meaning at 35 to 40 hours a week of academic work. 24.7 hours of actual academic engagement, with a record number of deadlines to hit is a 35 to 40 per cent shortfall. When “full-time” students operate at part-time academic intensity while longer hours than full-time employees, something has to give – their health, their wider intellectual and social development, academic integrity or all three.

    I’m also starting to worry profoundly about choice, equality and institutional mission. Take the Russell Group’s recent home student expansion. These are universities predominantly located in expensive cities, increasing their numbers (but not necessarily proportions) from lower tariff applicants and lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The mathematics are cruel – poor(er) students recruited to institutions they cannot afford to attend properly, forced into extreme employment that excludes them from the very experiences that make those institutions valuable.

    A two-tier system – where financially supported students engaging fully with campus life, relationships and opportunities, while “widening participation” students work 30-plus hours, miss relationship-building opportunities, and graduate with the same credentials but fundamentally different educational experiences. This isn’t inclusion, or positive choice – it’s a sophisticated form of educational inequality that maintains the appearance of social mobility while perpetuating class advantages.

    On this evidence, the efficiency imperative – on both universities and students – is harming what makes higher education valuable beyond qualification acquisition. The slow elimination of intellectual curiosity, community membership, personal development, and critical thinking is what distinguishes higher education from job training. It’s melting away.

    It all points at a need for much radical thinking than is on offer either in the SAES report’s recommendations or in the portfolio reviews and strategic collaborations being planned in documents like this. If nothing else, you can’t pull off a transformation and efficiency taskforce on provision without one looking at the student experience.

    The UK does, on admittedly shaky OECD evidence, have a curiously expensive way of delivering higher education. Unless the sector is prepared to be more radical over curriculum design, subject specialisation, assessment and credit acquisition, and be matched in maintenance and flexibility efforts by a government prepared to own the problems its predecessor created, it will continue down a fatal path – of demanding more and more from staff and students while paying the former less and less and charging the latter (through commercial debt and lifetime repayments) more and more.

    Source link