Tag: Future

  • Embracing Workforce Diversity in Higher Education for a Sustainable Future

    Embracing Workforce Diversity in Higher Education for a Sustainable Future

    • Professor Antony C. Moss is Pro Vice Chancellor Education and Student Experience at London South Bank University.

    The recent announcement from Universities UK that it will be setting up a taskforce to look at efficiency and transformation across the higher education sector is very welcome, if not long overdue. As our sector faces existential challenges regarding financial sustainability, it is absolutely right that we look more critically at the way we organise ourselves and run our institutions. This means more than looking at shared professional service models, moving IT systems into the cloud, or diversifying income streams. The argument I want to develop here is that we desperately need a more diverse workforce to support a higher education sector which serves a far broader purpose for society than it did when our current workforce model was first established.

    The Uneven Growth of the Higher Education Sector

    It is a fascinating exercise to visualise the growth of the UK higher education sector over time. Robbins reported the total number of full-time UK students in 1960 was just short of 200,000. Fast forward to the latest data available via the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and in 2022/23, that number has grown to almost three million. While that 1960 figure does not include student numbers enrolled in the polytechnics of the day (which of course mostly became universities in 1992, stimulating a sudden burst of growth in student numbers), this remains an extraordinary expansion by any standard.

    As a sector, we have weathered much criticism in recent years regarding the extent to which we are recruiting too many students. While this might be a tempting conclusion given the figures cited above, it is worth keeping in mind that the needs of our labour market have also changed dramatically since 1960. For example, in 2021/22, over 160,000 of the 2.25 million students in higher education that year were studying towards a nursing qualification. In other words, the nursing student population of 21/22 equates to more than three-quarters of the entire full-time UK university student population in 1960. We all benefit from advancements in modern medicine, but this requires us to invest in a workforce with an ever-increasing level of technical knowledge and skill. This same argument could be made for the workforce in many other sectors of our economy, and so we should continue to expect expansion and diversification of our education sector to support the types of jobs and skillsets required for the future.

    While we might debate and reflect on the number of students entering higher education, it is less common to hear debates and discussions on the size of the workforce who are the backbone of our own sector. While I have been unable to locate accurate workforce data as far back as 1960, the Higher Education Statistics Agency have published data from 2005/6. At that time, UK higher education providers employed a total of 355,410 staff, of which 164,875 were in academic roles. Moving ahead to 2022/23, we now employ 480,845 staff, of whom 240,420 are in academic roles. In itself, this is a significant workforce expansion – a total increase in staffing of over a third, and a 50% increase in academic staff numbers over a 17-year period. Or in more human terms, that is a net increase of 75,545 full-time equivalent academic staff.

    What is perhaps most remarkable is that this expansion of our workforce has been, at a national level, an organic process. We have no whole-sector workforce plan and no sector-wide discussion around the shape and size of the workforce we need in 5, 10, or 25 years’ time. In their 2021 review of HE sector workforce changes, Alison Wolf and Andrew Jenkins illustrated both the expansion and changing shape of the sector workforce but also demonstrated that this has been largely reactive and not driven by a clear set of principles or plans.

    The reason this all matters in the context of discussions about financial sustainability is that the expansion of the higher education sector has been uneven in terms of the growth of our different areas of activity. As illustrated in Figure 1, over the past ten years, the overwhelming majority of our income growth has been linked to teaching.

    Figure 1: Income of UK Higher Education Providers by income type and academic year (£ millions)

    From a workforce perspective, with teaching income rising sharply against relatively stable income for research, it would be reasonable to assume that the additional 75,454 academic staff noted above would be almost entirely focused on teaching. However, the best available data we have on the proportion of time spent by academics on different activities – the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) returns published by the Office for Students – shows that there has been almost no change in the proportion of academic staff time spent on research activity. For years where there are comparable TRAC data, we can see that in 18/19, research activity accounted for 35.3% of academic activity, while in 22/23 that figure was 34.1% (and from Figure 1, we can see that teaching-related income grew over this period by over £7bn, while research income only grew by £821m). If research income to the sector had been growing at the same rate as teaching income, these figures would not be a concern – but that is very clearly not the case.

    One interpretation of these figures could simply be that this is how higher education has always operated. Tuition fees are, in part, spent on recruiting academic staff, and academics are typically recruited on contracts which include an expectation of them engaging in research and scholarly activities. Moreover, the argument goes, this is fundamental to the mission of universities, which is not solely to teach degree courses but also to generate new knowledge.

    This argument is flawed, however, due to a decade of tuition fee freezes set alongside the massive growth in student numbers, which far outstrips growth in research-related income. Our workforce model cannot simply continue growing in a linear fashion while the demands and expectations placed on the workforce are changing as significantly as they have. To provide an analogy, if the government were to announce a massive boost in research funding for universities, and the sector were to respond to this by indicating that around a third of this money would actually be spent on teaching, I would expect eyebrows to be raised across the board. But this is precisely what we have been doing, over a long period of time, in relation to teaching-related income.

    Developing a Workforce Model for the Future

    As noted above, our sector does not have a workforce plan; we have essentially grown our workforce using traditional contract types and workload models. On the other hand, the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan is an example of taking a whole-sector approach to reflect on workforce needs for a large and complex sector. Importantly, the plan proposes a significant expansion of its workforce, which will depend heavily on the capacity and ability of our further and higher education sectors to deliver. This does not simply entail the expansion of current training routes for existing professions, but the diversification of the types of qualification we offer, and continued development of curricula to ensure the skills being taught reflect long-term workforce needs.

    There are many examples of other sectors and, indeed, government departments developing workforce plans and strategies which similarly rely upon the capacity and expertise of further and higher education institutions to fulfil education and training needs. What is invariably missing from such plans is any meaningful reflection on the assumptions made about the capacity and structure of our tertiary education sector. Shortages in teachers can be addressed by funding more training, but are we confident that we have a large enough workforce of teacher-educators to meet this demand? Similarly for nurses, doctors and allied healthcare professionals and, indeed, for any other sector who may be assuming that the tertiary sector is ready and waiting to absorb a continued expansion of students to meet their own future workforce needs.

    Moving beyond subject expertise and whether we can simply recruit a large enough workforce to teach, the higher education sector has also changed beyond recognition in terms of the range of qualifications we offer. The three-year undergraduate degree remains the most common study route, but higher education providers now also offer degree apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications, and a growing number of professional and technical qualifications which are quite different to traditional university study. These differences arise due to the type of students they attract, the content of the qualifications themselves, and also the very different regulatory frameworks which underpin their delivery and monitoring.

    These changes place a very different set of needs and expectations on our workforce – both academic and professional services colleagues. Degree apprenticeship programmes require a different pedagogic approach to a traditional undergraduate degree, and come with a significant set of additional regulatory expectations. Very few academics will have ever encountered the Education and Skills Funding Agency prior to the growth of apprenticeships standards, and Ofsted was the regulator of everyone except us (outside of university education departments). These changes are not trivial, but they have happened rapidly, and without overt consideration of the way we need to support, develop and expand our own workforce.

    While 1960s higher education was, in relative terms, a fairly monolithic sector, today’s higher education sector is extraordinarily diverse and delivers massive economic and societal benefits, which are incomparable to the past. Our sector has changed, and I would strongly argue it has changed for the better. However, in the current climate of deep financial challenge, we must also reflect critically on the way we develop and diversify our own workforce. This, in my view, means stepping outside the well-trodden path of introducing so-called ‘teaching only contracts’ for academics – essentially, academic contracts where the focus is on professional practice and pedagogic leadership, which still retain a career pathway through to the highest academic ranks. Rather, we need to invest in developing a new segment of our workforce, of expert educators who are specialised in areas such as skills development and technical education. If done well, this has the potential to deliver a range of benefits:

    1. Stabilising the financial precarity of our sector. When teaching income is rising faster than research income, we need to ensure we are not disproportionately growing the cross-subsidy of research from teaching income (while recognising that some degree of cross-subsidy is part of the higher education funding model).
    2. Improving the quality of education. By developing more specialised roles within the sector, we can deliver better experiences and outcomes for students, and ensure that they are better able to succeed beyond their time in higher education.
    3. Improving working conditions for all staff. Through the creation of more specialised roles and career pathways which are better aligned to the needs of the sector as a whole.
    4. Supporting our national ambitions for Growth and Skills. As Skills England looks at our future workforce needs, it is critical that we have a stable and high-performing education sector to educate and train the workforce. We cannot continue to take for granted that our education sector can organically bend itself to meet changing industrial and economic needs, without a strategy to support the reforms which will be required.

    Universities UK and its taskforce on efficiency and transformation should, I suggest, prioritise a review of our underpinning workforce model to ensure that we are collectively fit for the future. But this work cannot happen in isolation. Our sector will be able to respond more effectively to changing demands if we work together with Skills England and the Department for Education to better understand the role that higher education can play in delivering on national ambitions for growth and skills development.

    Source link

  • Any possible tertiary future for England’s post-18 system must lean into college-based HE

    Any possible tertiary future for England’s post-18 system must lean into college-based HE

    The Lifelong Education Institute’s latest report – “Taking Higher Education Further” – shines a spotlight on the contribution of FE colleges to England’s higher education sector.

    In partnership with the Mixed Economy Group of colleges – a group representing the 43 colleges with a strategic interest in HE – we have explored the rationale for college-based higher education, analysed some of the barriers holding it back from expansion, and suggested ways in which policymakers could support its growth.

    The report could hardly come out at a more interesting time for FE/HE relationships. After a decade or more of relative stasis following the introduction of the £9,000 undergraduate student fee cap in England, the tectonic plates of post-18 education are shifting rapidly towards an as-yet-unknown end state. There are three key drivers behind this potential re-setting of the status quo between the college and university sectors.

    First is the dramatic shift in the financial situation of universities and colleges, with many higher education institutions now facing the sort of cost-cutting that further education colleges have endured for years and needing to come up with new, more efficient business models to sustain themselves financially. Following the consolidation of many smaller colleges into large groups, there are now several colleges with larger annual turnovers than smaller universities, and the balance of power between FE and HE is moving steadily away from the traditional template of senior/junior partnership.

    Second is the move towards universities having place-based strategies, with civic university agreements proliferating in all parts of the country. This has partly been driven by the rise in influential devolved authorities across England, and partly by the increase in take up of degree pathways in a range of public sector professions, such as nursing, policing, and social work, which are vital to local communities and tend to recruit from local populations.

    Rising cost of living pressures have also played their part, with commuting students becoming an increasingly important segment of the HE student market. The introduction of degree apprenticeships has also pulled many universities into much more active engagement with local employers and much more of a focus on local skills development. Colleges, which have always had fairly tight catchment areas, now find themselves working their patches alongside local universities, and in some cases, through the network of 21 Institutes of Technology, offering higher technical qualifications and high level short courses directly in partnership with HE institutions.

    Third, and most importantly, the arrival of a new government is rapidly moving the political paradigm away from competition towards collaboration. Education ministers have taken every opportunity since the general election to drive home the message that partnership, cooperation and coordination have now replaced markets, competition and institutional individualism as “the default way of working across all providers,” in the recent words of skills minister Jacqui Smith. We are promised a white paper this summer setting out a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education and skills, and at the same time a “radical” package of HE reforms which will also emphasise the role of HE in collaborating around local and national skills priorities.

    Is the future for England tertiary?

    HE/FE collaboration has tended to be relatively transactional and fluid in England, and there is no standard blueprint for forging partnerships. A small number of colleges can now claim to be tertiary institutions, having been granted degree awarding powers, although with the Office for Students having currently suspended the application process until August, it’s now far from certain how quickly this number will grow in future. There are four universities which by virtue of having absorbed a failing FE college have become tertiary – Derby, London South Bank, Greater Manchester (formerly Bolton University) and the University of West London. But this is the result of specific local circumstances, not national policy.

    Arguably, these institutions are a microcosm of exactly what the government is trying to achieve at a national level. Tertiary institutions are able to develop coherent progression pathways from basic to undergraduate level for students of all aptitudes, embracing both academic and technical education routes without competition between them. David Phoenix, vice chancellor of London South Bank University, has been an articulate advocate for this model, and his vision, as set out in his November 2023 report “Connecting the dots: the need for an effective skills system in England” has been highly influential in Labour-leaning circles.

    It’s possible the government will introduce much greater incentives for universities and colleges to consider merger, and even be prepared to act as “matchmaker” for reluctant or hesitant brides and grooms. It would certainly make it much easier to develop integrated apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications and Lifelong Learning Entitlement offers if there were more tertiary providers.

    The Taking Higher Education Further report is generally supportive of greater tertiary integration, but with several important reservations. To begin with, although most FE colleges are appreciative of the relationships they have with universities – mostly still based on validation agreements – there are many who are critical of the cost and in some cases one-sided nature of the partnership, with some having experienced the disruption caused by an HE institution deciding unilaterally to withdraw from the agreement. Another concern has been the proliferation of foundation years at many universities, which was seen as unwelcome competition for Level 3 students and met with dismay by many in the FE sector. This has abated considerably since the introduction of a much reduced fee cap for foundation years.

    While some institutes of technology have strengthened FE/HE relationships, others have struggled to bridge the gap between the two sectors. One aspect of that gap – the difference in pay and conditions between FE and HE lecturers – has proved particularly troublesome. But those institutes of technology which have been successful have demonstrated that joint working between FE and HE can be highly effective. Overall, despite the caveats, the FE leaders consulted as part of the research for the report were generally positive about the idea of working more closely with HE.

    In a political climate where economically relevant skills and wider access to job-related skills are now central to the government agenda, college-based higher education has both issues at its heart. The HE students who study in FE colleges are overwhelmingly, adult, very local and from disadvantaged backgrounds. The courses they take are typically directly related to opportunities in the local labour market and focused on career progression. Whereas the student loan system has tended to incentivise HE institutions to prioritise three year degree courses, FE colleges offer a much more incremental approach, with multiple entry and exit points and a high proportion of part-time and modular options. This could be a significant advantage as colleges prepare for the implementation of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement in 2026–27.

    In summary, the report is a plea for government to give more support to the expansion of HE in FE, but is not in any way antagonistic towards the HE sector. The aim is to strengthen the relationship between colleges and universities, not to weaken it. As the foreword says, “Working together, colleges and universities can open up accessible opportunities and make a real difference to people’s lives.” In this, FE and HE share a common purpose.

    Source link

  • Shaping the Future of Cancer Treatment and Advocating for Women in STEM

    Shaping the Future of Cancer Treatment and Advocating for Women in STEM

    Megan O’Meara, M.D., head of early-stage development at Pfizer Oncology, is deeply committed to scientific innovation, mentorship, and breaking barriers for the next generation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) industries. In this conversation, Megan shares her journey in oncology, leadership philosophy, and vision of a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.

    Megan O’Meara, M.D.

    Head of Early-Stage Development, Pfizer Oncology

    What drew you to pursue a career in oncology and what is it that inspires you most about working in this field?

    I’ve always been curious about science. My grandfather was a pediatrician, and as a child he read books to me about the history of medicine. In high school, I worked in cancer research labs, and that gave me exposure to the field from an early age. By the time I was in college, there were exciting advancements happening, including broader use of tumor profiling and targeted therapies. I felt there was a huge opportunity to transform cancer treatment, and I knew I wanted to be part of it. I pursued my medical degree and later went into academic research before transitioning to industry, where I felt I might have the broadest impact on the greatest number of people.

    Women make up less than 30% of the global STEM workforce. What has your experience been as a woman in research?

    Being a woman in a historically male-dominated field can come with unique challenges and opportunities. There were times when I was the only woman in the room. On occasion, I felt like the only one leaving the office on time to make dinner for my family and worried about missing opportunities or important conversations that were happening when I wasn’t there.

    Over time, I learned to accept the situation and be confident in setting personal boundaries. I inserted myself in different ways and advanced my career without losing who I am. I developed the confidence to be me — bringing my most authentic and whole self to work. Now, I encourage and empower other women to do the same.

    As an industry, there’s still a long way to go. At a recent oncology conference, research showed that men presenting were introduced as “Dr.” while women were introduced by their first names. It seems nuanced, but it reflects a larger issue. Even in a field like oncology, where we pride ourselves on progress, bias still exists in subtle but pervasive ways. Things are improving, but they’re not where they should be yet. That’s why I feel so strongly about uplifting other women and creating opportunities for women in science.

    Learn more about Pfizer Oncology at Let’s Outdo Cancer.

    How are you working to change the research field to be more inclusive and supportive of women?

    There were many people, particularly female leaders, throughout my career who saw my potential and championed my advancement. I try to do the same for all my team at Pfizer, including the talented women that work with me. I mention their names when I’m in a room with other leaders; I look for opportunities that will showcase their potential.

    Outside of work, I volunteer at my daughter’s elementary school to organize events that engage students with science, such as bringing in Pfizer scientists to demonstrate lab techniques like DNA isolation and talk about how science can be applied to areas they are interested in. Studies show that girls start losing interest in science around age 12, so, if we can work to address that early, it can make a difference in improving female representation in STEM fields.

    I’m also active in the Society for Immunotherapy in Cancer (SITC) Women in Cancer Immunotherapy Network. I’ve spoken about my journey in research at their events, which are often attended by many women in both academia and industry who are at a crossroads in their career. They’re wondering, “Can I do this?” Hearing people’s stories about how they made it work can be incredibly inspiring.

    As head of the division at Pfizer Oncology responsible for developing innovative cancer treatments, what excites you most about the work your team is currently doing?

    Right now, I’m particularly excited about our work in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). ADCs are innovative cancer medicines that specifically target cancer cells and deliver cancer-killing drugs ​directly to tumors, while sparing more of the healthy cells in the body. ​

    ADCs have been the foundation of my career, having worked in the space for almost 15 years. This depth of experience, knowledge, and history is being applied now to what we’re doing at Pfizer to advance the field. And we’ve had a huge impact already — bringing treatments to people with blood cancer for the first time in decades and significantly changing the standard of care across tumor types.

    Now, as a company, we’re asking, “How do we make ADCs even safer and more effective?” We’re exploring new drug linkers, different payloads, and novel combinations, all with the goal of giving patients better options. This kind of innovation is why I pursued a career in STEM — it’s tremendously fulfilling to be bringing us closer to a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.

    How is Pfizer uniquely positioned to make progress in cancer treatment?

    I like to say Pfizer embodies a spirit of innovation and we have some of the most brilliant and dedicated scientists I’ve ever worked with. It’s rare to work at a company, even in big pharma, that has demonstrated leadership across multiple modalities of science the way Pfizer has. We’re constantly learning, adapting, and investing in what’s next across a wide pipeline of products. It’s an amazing powerhouse to be a part of.

    For me, our success is also due to a culture — set by our executives — where each person has the opportunity to thrive. Chris Boshoff, chief scientific officer and president, R&D, is passionate about showcasing the team and giving people opportunities. I’ve experienced the same from other leaders. When I first joined Pfizer, Sally Susman, executive vice president and chief corporate affairs officer, introduced herself and said, “Next time you’re in New York, come meet my team.” She brought me into her leadership meeting and helped me build connections. These are just two of many people that have gone out of their way to create an environment where I am able to bring my best self to work, and I am doing the same to ensure my team of scientists has everything they need to succeed.

    What do you hope for the future of women in STEM?

    I hope that in 20 years, women don’t have to navigate as many barriers. I hope everyone can bring their whole self to the table without feeling like they need to sacrifice a piece of their personal life to succeed. Instead of feeling impostor syndrome around big opportunities, I hope women ask themselves, “Why not me?”

    We still have work to do, but I truly believe we’re making progress. By supporting women, we’re supporting a better industry and better science.

    Learn more about Pfizer Oncology at Let’s Outdo Cancer.

    Source link

  • Dismantling Ed Dept. Will Harm More Than 26 Million Kids — and America’s Future – The 74

    Dismantling Ed Dept. Will Harm More Than 26 Million Kids — and America’s Future – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    The layoffs of half of the employees of the U.S. Department of Education clearly demonstrate the Trump administration’s follow-through on one of Project 2025’s mandates, which intends to eliminate the resources, protections and opportunities that millions of children and families across this nation rely on.

    It is evident that the White House will not stop until it wipes out the most basic protections and supports for the American people, including the youngest children. The first step was the attempt to defund Head Start and Early Head Start, impacting 800,000 young children across the nation. This order was halted by a federal judge in Washington, thanks to the lawsuits filed by Democracy Forward and attorneys general from 23 states. 

    The mass layoffs will severely hamper the department’s ability to execute on its core responsibilities. This move is a direct assault on millions of students, teachers and families. It is clearly a precursor to dismantling the department without congressional consent, which would have an even more devastating impact. The department serves and protects the most vulnerable children and young adults, ensuring that they have equal access to education. This includes:

    • 26 million students from low-income backgrounds — more than half of all K-12 students — who rely on the department for reasonable class sizes; school meals; tutoring; afterschool and summer programs; school supplies such as laptops and books; parent engagement programs; and, in some cases, transportation
    • 9.8 million students enrolled in rural schools
    • 7.4. million students with disabilities
    • 5 million English learners
    • 1.1 million students experiencing homelessness
    • 87 million college students who receive Pell Grants and student loans 

    The department was created in 1980 with a single, crucial purpose: to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Its creation followed decades of systemic inequities that left children in disadvantaged communities without the same learning opportunities as their more privileged peers. The department’s work has been a critical safeguard against discrimination in schools, whether on the basis of race, disability, gender or income. 

    Without the federal government’s intervention and oversight, the more than 13 million children who live in poverty would be even more vulnerable to systemic inequities. The department ensures that federal dollars are distributed to those students most in need, ensuring that underserved children have the same opportunities for success as their wealthier peers. Without the federal oversight and the department’s support, these students will fall even further behind, and the national achievement gap will grow wider.

    The federal government is the only entity that can ensure a baseline level of educational equity across the entire nation. The department holds states accountable for ensuring that all children, regardless of where they live or what their socioeconomic status may be, receive a quality education. If this accountability is removed, the children most at risk — those in underfunded schools, children of color, children with disabilities, English learners and those experiencing homelessness — will be the first to suffer. These children would be denied the critical services and protections they need to succeed in school and in life.

    Moreover, the president’s plan to turn education policy over to the states would completely dismantle the federal safety net that ensures that the most vulnerable children are not left behind. Each of the 50 states has different priorities, resources and political climates. While some might be able to provide excellent educational opportunities, others will leave children behind, particularly in rural or economically disadvantaged areas. Inequities between states could widen to an intolerable degree, and the resulting lack of uniform educational standards would only further disadvantage the children who need the most help.

    To be clear, the department cannot be dissolved at the whim of a sitting president. Under the Constitution, only an act of Congress can create or dismantle a federal agency. The president does not have the unilateral power to eliminate an entire federal institution that serves the educational needs of millions of children across this country. Attempting to do so would not only undermine the law, but also inflict tremendous harm to the very foundation of America’s educational system.

    The idea that dismantling the department could somehow improve that system is not only misguided, but dangerously naïve.

    It’s vital that we, as a nation, recognize the long-term damage this action would cause. The attempt to dismantle the Department of Education is not just an attack on a government agency — it is an attack on the future of America’s children.

    To parents across the country: This policy is not only unconstitutional — it is a grave threat to your children’s future. Whether your child is in a classroom in New York, Los Angeles or a small town in the Midwest, the U.S. Department of Education has worked to ensure that their educational opportunities are protected, funded and regulated. A president who seeks to eliminate this essential agency is jeopardizing the future of every single student in America.

    This is why we must all rise up and make our voices heard. We must demand that our leaders stop this dangerous plan in its tracks, that they fix what isn’t working and that they use this opportunity to reimagine public education and invest in a more effective, equitable system that gives all children the opportunity to succeed.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Mark Scott says international students are “a down payment on the future”

    Mark Scott says international students are “a down payment on the future”

    Mark Scott was a major advocate for no overseas student cap last year. Picture: Jane Dempster



    By: Erin Morley

    in International Education, Top Stories


    March 10, 2025

    University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott reaffirmed that all international students are welcome at his university during a meeting of student unions on Wednesday.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • International Women’s Day: Black Women Shaping the Future of Academia

    International Women’s Day: Black Women Shaping the Future of Academia

    • Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris is Professor of Public & Industry Understanding of Capability Driven Design in the School of Mechanical Engineering, and the Engagement Champion for the EPSRC EDI Hub+, at the University of Leeds.

    Women in higher education and industry leadership, especially in Engineering and STEM, have reshaped academia and industry through groundbreaking contributions. Over the past two centuries, they have advanced knowledge, dismantled systemic barriers, and set new standards in innovation and leadership. Yet Black women remain significantly underrepresented, highlighting the urgent need for institutional change.

    After all, when we lack diversity, we limit our ability to evolve and tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing world.

    Despite the progress made, the numbers remain stark. In the UK, women constitute 48% of overall academic staff, yet only 30% hold professorial roles. At present, among these, only 80+ Black women hold professorial positions across all disciplines. In the US, Black women account for just 2% of science and engineering roles. These figures underscore the persistent barriers that hinder progression into leadership roles in academia and industry.

    These disparities highlight the urgent need for fundamental change to ensure equitable access to opportunities and resources.

    The 200-year journey of Black women in academia has been shaped by structural barriers but also by resilience and advocacy. Initiatives like the Black Female Academics’ Network and the national EDI Hub+, led by the University of Leeds, have played pivotal roles in championing change and providing visibility and support for Black women in academia and higher education leadership. But the reality is that real change comes not just from support networks but from institutions and governance bodies truly committed to transformation through policy implementation and its incorporation into operational management.

    Black women have broken barriers in education, research, and industry, driving policy changes and fostering inclusivity. They have led pioneering research, challenged outdated structures, and risen to leadership in historically non-diverse sectors. In Engineering and STEM, figures like Dr. Aprille Ericsson, the first Black woman to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Howard University, have held key roles at NASA. Yewande Akinola, a Nigerian-born engineer, has advanced sustainable water systems while advocating for diversity. In the UK, Professor Esther Akinlabi has made significant contributions to academic leadership, engineering, research, and advocacy.

    These Black women, and countless others, have played critical roles, and yet their paths have not been easy. They have faced barriers, from being underestimated in their abilities to encountering biases that make progression in academia and industry far harder than it should be. It is important to highlight their successes but equally crucial to recognise the dramatic shifts needed to create a more inclusive landscape.

    As the first Black female professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Leeds, I have witnessed firsthand the impact of underrepresentation on individuals and institutions. Without diverse voices in leadership, we lose perspectives that drive innovation and meaningful change. True equity and inclusion require representation at the highest levels, where policies and practices are shaped.

    Mentorship and networking are vital for career progression, yet many Black women in academia and industry lack mentors with shared experiences. Institutions must formalise support systems rather than relying on individual efforts. A cultural shift is needed, one where diversity is not just discussed but reinforced through real structural changes that create lasting opportunities.

    Breaking barriers is not just about individuals but about how institutions respond. Are they fostering environments where Black women can thrive? Are they tackling unconscious bias in hiring and promotions? Are they offering real support for retention and advancement beyond just celebrating ‘firsts’? It’s time to move from symbolic gestures to tangible change that empowers the next generation in academia and industry.

    The legacy of Black women in academia and industry extends beyond their achievements to the opportunities they create for future generations. Recognising and amplifying their voices is essential. Their contributions must be seamlessly woven into the broader narrative of advancement and innovation in women’s higher education and industry leadership.

    Much work remains. Representation is not enough; true progress requires dismantling barriers to access and opportunity. Black women in academia and industry, especially in Engineering and STEM, must be empowered, supported, and able to lead without the constant need to justify their place.

    The goal should be that, in the future, their contributions are not exceptional but expected, and their presence in leadership roles is not a rarity but the norm.

    Source link

  • The future of apprenticeships under Trump

    The future of apprenticeships under Trump

    Advocates for apprenticeship programs came into a second Trump administration with a rosy outlook on their future.

    Historically, these on-the-job training programs have enjoyed bipartisan support, and apprenticeships featured prominently in Project 2025, the conservative policy blueprint for a second Trump administration put forth by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. The plan encouraged their expansion, lauding the programs as a meaningful alternative to “the woke-dominated system of public schools and universities.”

    But now, apprenticeship proponents are divided on how hopeful to feel.

    Some maintain their optimism. They foresee a potential period of growth for the programs, as Trump administration officials and supporters speak positively about apprenticeships and nondegree pathways.

    But others worry that at least some apprenticeship programs—and their financial supports—could be hurt by the administration’s slashing of federal spending. Already, some grants supporting apprenticeship programs have been cut to trim costs or for perceived connections to diversity, equity and inclusion work. The Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship, which advises the Department of Labor on apprenticeship issues, has been disbanded, along with other federal advisory bodies.

    “If the approach is to just cut, cut, cut grants across the government—and the kind of machete-wielding, indiscriminate cutting of things continues—I think that could pose some long-term stress on the system and halt a lot of the momentum that it’s had,” said Taylor White, director of postsecondary pathways for youth at New America, a left-wing think tank, and a former member of the now-defunct advisory committee. She fears the uncertainty caused by federal spending cuts in general could scare off employers or state agencies that otherwise would have invested in these programs.

    Apprenticeship-related grants have gotten “caught up” in efforts to scrutinize government spending, said Vinz Koller, vice president of the Center for Apprenticeship and Work-Based Learning at Jobs for the Future, an organization focused on workforce development, though he doesn’t think “they’ve been the target” or that the moves are necessarily indicative of apprenticeships’ future under Trump.

    “What we are hearing from the administration is a commitment to registered apprenticeship and to apprenticeship writ large and to making it more widely accessible,” he said. “That leads us to believe, looking into the future, that’s where we’re headed.”

    Reasons for Optimism

    John Colborn, executive director of Apprenticeships for America, a nonprofit working to expand apprenticeships in the U.S., said it’s “too early to say for sure” what the next four years hold for apprenticeships. But he sees “plenty of positive signs out there,” including supportive rhetoric from current and nominated Trump administration officials.

    For example, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon posted on X in November that apprenticeship programs “are a pathway to successful careers,” praising Switzerland’s apprenticeship system as “a model the rest of the world can adapt.”

    Similarly, Trump’s pick for secretary of labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, said during her Feb. 19 confirmation hearing that she values investing in and “doubling down” on registered or federally recognized apprenticeships.

    “Right now, we’re focused on the registered apprenticeships, growing those, investing in those and making sure that those are adhered to,” she told lawmakers.

    Her comments were a notable departure from the vision for apprenticeships laid out in Project 2025, which called for a return to an earlier Trump policy of industry-recognized apprenticeships, a separate system to circumvent what Republican lawmakers view as excessive federal regulation. Registered apprenticeships are required to meet certain quality standards to receive federal dollars.

    Chavez-DeRemer’s position “came as good news to many of us listening and watching,” White said, though she wonders if Chavez-DeRemer will retain that stance if there’s pressure from the administration to do otherwise.

    Colborn believes the current administration might improve the registered apprenticeship system, including speeding up program approvals and expanding the types of occupations that offer apprenticeship options.

    He added that so far, the Trump administration hasn’t interfered with financial supports for apprenticeships that the Biden administration instituted. Under Biden, the Department of Labor announced the State Apprenticeship Expansion Formula grant program, which makes $85 million available for states and territories to grow the capacity of existing registered apprenticeships and invest in new offerings.

    “I don’t have any official word on this, but every indication we have is that that grant process is going forward,” Colborn said. “We take that as a signifier that this administration is committed to apprenticeship.”

    Some apprenticeship advocates hope the moment might be ripe to push for more support and see their policy wish lists fulfilled, including more reliable federal and state funding for apprenticeships, rather than one-off grants, and incentives like tax credits for employers to participate in apprenticeship programs.

    “There’s definitely room for the administration to make a mark on the broadening of apprenticeship into more sectors where traditionally they haven’t been as common,” Koller said.

    Causes for Concern

    Still, some advocates worry apprenticeships will be negatively affected by other policies advanced by the Trump administration.

    White, for example, was jarred by the Department of Labor’s decision to ax its Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship, a group of about 30 employers, labor organization representatives and other stakeholders that advises the department on apprenticeship-related policy.

    She doesn’t believe the move was intended to signal an anti-apprenticeship stance, given that the committee isn’t the only federal advisory body to bite the dust. A February executive order got rid of a handful of them and called on government officials to flag “Federal Advisory Committees that should be terminated on grounds that they are unnecessary.”

    But the disbanding of the committee still feels like a “confusing signal” and a potential obstacle to progress, White said.

    “What’s lost by dissolving a community like that is the connection to the people on the ground who are actually having to interpret regulation, live regulation, build the programs, implement the programs,” she added. She sees such perspectives as critical to making apprenticeships “more efficient, more accessible, more functional and, frankly, a more mainstream training option for Americans to access high-quality training and good middle-class jobs.”

    Like the advisory committee, some federal funding for apprenticeship programs and apprenticeship-related research projects has gotten caught in the crossfire as the administration works to downsize government and curtail DEI work.

    Notably, the Department of Government Efficiency’s website shows about $18 million in cuts to three grants issued by the Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship, according to The Job, a newsletter that covers education and workforce issues.

    Managed by the consulting firm ICF, one of the grants was for “technical assistance and coaching support” and one for “industry engagement and outreach.” DOGE’s documentation said only that the grants were terminated “for convenience,” meaning the cuts were in the government’s interest. Another impacted grant was for “technical and coaching assistance support,” managed by a subsidiary of the American Institutes for Research. The Job also reported in late February that several research projects related to apprenticeships had their federal funding frozen.

    Another victim of federal cuts was Reach University, a nonprofit institution with a mission to offer on-the-job credentials, called apprenticeship degrees. The institution lost three grants, totaling $14.7 million, from the Education Department. (Teacher-training grants at other institutions have also been slashed for supposed connections to DEI. Three teacher preparation groups sued the Department on Monday over the slew of grant cuts in the field.)

    The grants to Reach were supposed to support apprenticeship-based degree programs training teachers in rural Arkansas and Louisiana through 2028. One program helps associate degree holders earn bachelor’s degrees while learning teaching skills on the job in local schools. (The grant application mentioned that the program is a partnership with Delgado Community College, a predominantly Black institution in New Orleans, and would “increase the number of teachers of color in high-need Louisiana schools,” The Job reported.) The other two grants were partnerships with nonprofits to help people in more isolated rural areas earn teaching credentials on the job.

    Joe E. Ross, president and CEO of Reach, wrote to Inside Higher Ed that he remains “hopeful” the university will regain the funds through the Education Department’s internal appeals process, and he said university leaders are in touch with department officials. Despite the financial hits, he’s optimistic the administration will be good news for apprenticeships over all.

    “We are confident that the projects funded by these grants align with long-standing, bipartisan priorities, including those of this administration,” Ross said. “As applied by Reach, all three of these grants are a merit-based, discrimination-free application of federal funds to meet the department’s long-held priority of alleviating the teacher shortage with residents of the local community.”

    Source link

  • Shaping the future before it shapes us

    Shaping the future before it shapes us

    I’ve worked closely with colleagues in Silicon Valley throughout my career. Through these interaction, there are always new ideas, and the level of confidence in predictions typically starts strong and only gets stronger. This time felt different. Last week during a visit to Silicon Valley, I repeatedly heard the following as a preface to a prediction, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard it before when engaging with my most techno-optimistic colleagues: “I could be wrong, but …”

    A few innocent words, but a rhetorical hedge that suggests even the most confident among us understand that the AI era is pretty, pretty complicated.

    I was there to attend the Annual AI+Education Summit 2025, hosted by Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. The theme—Human-Centered AI for a Thriving Learning Ecosystem—framed discussions that were both urgent and inspiring. AI is not just on the horizon; it is actively reshaping the educational landscape. Our responsibility is to ensure this transformation augments human potential rather than diminishes it.

    The summit brought together leading researchers, educators and policymakers to explore AI’s role in personalizing learning, empowering educators and bridging educational divides. The pace of change is staggering—today, half of students use AI tools at least weekly, both inside and outside the classroom. Institutions must act now to shape AI’s role in education intentionally rather than reactively.

    The Power of Collective Action in Higher Education

    One of the key messages from the summit was that no single institution, company, innovator or researcher can tackle this challenge alone. A coordinated effort across higher education is essential to ensure AI serves students, faculty and society in equitable and effective ways.

    At the University of Michigan, we have seen firsthand how faculty innovators are experimenting with generative AI to enhance teaching and learning. Our most recent call for proposals at the Center for Academic Innovation resulted in a diverse set of AI-enhanced teaching and learning projects designed to explore AI’s potential across disciplines, from medical education to humanities. These projects demonstrate not only how AI can enrich classroom experiences but also how it can deepen engagement, personalize learning and extend human creativity. We are helping faculty translate emerging technologies into meaningful applications, creating impactful learning experiences on campus and beyond.

    Organizations like U-M’s Center for Academic Innovation and Stanford’s HAI and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning play a critical role in leading this work—through experimentation, research and convening communities of practice. Without spaces to explore AI’s potential responsibly, without research to test its effectiveness and without convenings to align efforts, the future of AI in education would be left to chance rather than deliberate innovation.

    Michigan’s work is part of a broader movement. Across higher education, institutions are launching AI-driven initiatives to explore the role of AI in teaching, learning and research. One example is the California State University system, which recently announced a partnership with OpenAI to explore AI’s potential across its 23 campuses. This initiative, like many others, underscores the need for systemwide efforts to develop responsible and scalable AI solutions.

    These efforts—faculty-led experiments at Michigan, large-scale system initiatives like CSU’s, and global convenings like Stanford’s AI+Education Summit—demonstrate the range of approaches to AI in education. Stanford’s summit, in particular, highlighted outstanding faculty-led experiments exploring AI’s role in augmenting learning, fostering creativity and addressing challenges in equitable access to technology. These initiatives reinforce the importance of institutional collaboration in shaping the future of AI in education. But the big question remains: How do we shape AI’s role in education to serve our preferred future rather than react to an imposed one?

    5 Key Takeaways From the AI+Education Summit

    1. AI is transforming education, but its role must be purposeful.

    AI is already reshaping how students learn and how educators teach. We must ensure AI serves as a tool for augmentation rather than automation. How do we steer away from optimizing automation and toward optimizing AI’s ability to augment human creativity, problem-solving and collaboration?

    1. Faculty innovation is leading the way—with institutional support.

    Some of the most compelling AI applications in education are emerging from faculty-led experimentation. Universities must create conditions for responsible innovation by investing in faculty training, providing resources for experimentation and developing ethical frameworks that support AI integration while prioritizing student learning. We need to understand what’s working for whom and be ready to quickly invest further in the most impactful efforts.

    1. AI ethics and governance must be at the forefront.

    AI’s potential to amplify biases and exacerbate inequities is well documented. Institutions must focus on governance, transparency and bias mitigation to ensure AI benefits all learners. Without clear institutional leadership, regulation will fill the void. Can we build governance frameworks that protect learners and help them to flourish while also fostering innovation and global competitiveness and security?

    1. AI literacy is urgent—but we lack consensus on what it means.

    There is universal agreement that students, educators and institutions need to accelerate AI literacy. However, what constitutes AI literacy remains unclear. Should AI literacy be about technical proficiency? Ethical responsibility? Practical applications? Probably all of the above—but the right balance is elusive. I could be wrong, but if we don’t actively shape this now, we may find that AI literacy is defined for us in ways that don’t align with our values. Definitions vary, but there is broad consensus that we need highly accessible and scalable opportunities for anyone to acquire AI literacy—and soon.

    1. We need a shared vision for AI in education.

    The AI+Education Summit made it clear that AI’s impact should be shaped by the collective choices of educators, institutions and policymakers. Without a shared vision, the future will be dictated by market forces alone. Speakers at the conference described the future they want to see: one that designs for the widest range of learners to support human flourishing, strengthens the essential relationship between teachers and students, and works for everyone—practically, equitably and responsibly.

    Institutions have taken very different approaches to AI—some choosing to ban it, restricting its use until clearer guidelines emerge, while others have opted to embrace it, fostering a culture of experimentation and innovation. Others have decided to take a wait-and-see approach, uncertain about how AI will ultimately shape higher education. Perhaps all of these strategies have their merits. Or maybe in a few years we’ll look back and realize the most effective approach was something we haven’t even considered yet. I could be wrong—but that’s precisely why we need a wide range of perspectives shaping this conversation now.

    Questions for Our Growing AI-in-Education Community

    As institutions embrace AI, we should ask ourselves:

    • How can we ensure AI enhances equity and access rather than reinforcing existing disparities?
    • How do we ensure AI supports human creativity and critical thinking rather than replacing them?
    • How do we balance experimentation with the need for institutional policies that safeguard students and educators?
    • What models of collaboration—between institutions, industry and policymakers—can accelerate responsible AI adoption in higher education?
    • How can institutions maintain trust with learners and faculty as AI adoption accelerates?
    • What does a thriving, AI-enhanced learning ecosystem look like in five years? How do we get there?

    The AI+Education Summit reinforced that we are not passive observers of AI’s impact on education—we are active participants in shaping its trajectory. The work happening at Stanford, Michigan, CSU and across the broader higher ed community signals a growing recognition that AI is not just another technology to integrate but a transformational force that demands intentionality, collaboration and vision.

    Yet, it would be a collective failure if we simply make it easy for students to offload critical thinking. AI must not become a shortcut that undermines the cognitive skills we seek to develop in our learners and citizens.

    Now is the time for institutions and individuals to come together, share knowledge and create our preferred future for AI in education. We don’t have all the answers, and some of today’s best ideas may prove incomplete or even misguided. It feels like there is little time for passive observation. AI’s role in education will be defined—either by us or for us. Let’s build the future we prefer—because if we don’t, well … I could be wrong, but I doubt we’ll like the alternative.

    James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    Source link

  • To stick or pivot? TEF 3.0 and the future of quality

    To stick or pivot? TEF 3.0 and the future of quality

    • Stephanie Marshall is Vice-Principal (Education) at Queen Mary University of London. She is the author of the forthcoming Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education (3rd edition). Ben Hunt is Executive Officer (Education) at Queen Mary University of London.

    In contrast to the adage that ‘good strategy closes doors’, the Office for Students (OfS) Strategy consultation has left many options open. This is true of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), which the OfS intends to bring into alignment with its wider quality regime:            

    ‘TEF will be the core of our new integrated approach to quality, with assessment activity becoming more routine and more widespread to ensure that institutions are delivering high quality academic experiences and positive outcomes’.

    Cart before the horse?

    The OfS has stated in its consultation that it will expand its quality assessment regime without evaluating how this exercise has, or will, enhance education provision.

    Previous investigations were seen as burdensome and lacking transparency.[1] On transparency, Professor Amanda Broderick, Vice-Chancellor & President at the University of East London, reflected on a quality investigation: ‘…we were not informed of what the OfS’s concerns had been at any point of the review’.

    On burden, Professor David Phoenix, Vice-Chancellor of London South Bank University, has written about an investigation at his provider: ‘…providers are already very used to…scrutiny. Professional and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) have their own approaches to course review and validation, and in many instances the level of scrutiny can greatly exceed that of the OfS’.

    And in a recent HEPI blog, the ex-higher education minister and architect of TEF Lord Jo Johnson asserts that the OfS has consistently deprioritised innovation.

    So perhaps the OfS has reached a moment of choice: to stick or pivot.

    Stephanie Marshall has written previously about the different global ‘pivots’ in higher education quality: ‘massification, quality assurance, quality enhancement, and then a move to addressing equity deploying large data’.

    The OfS’s decision to pause new provider entrants has arguably stalled massification. It is duplicative when it comes to assurance with other regulators such as Ofsted. And its deployment of data through the Data Futures process is beset by delays. Instead of enabling providers to embrace change, an unintended consequence of these decisions is that sector innovation is slowed. Amidst this and the sector’s financial challenges, the OfS seeks to expand its investigatory regime without a clear theory of change linked to enhancement.

    Pivot Part 1: From assurance to fremragende

    In a Norwegian report to which Marshall contributed, it was noted that: ‘In English, the term ‘excellence’ is now much overused…In Norwegian the word “fremragende” has a sense of moving forward (frem) and upward (tall or reaching above the rest, ragende) and is reserved to describe something really cutting-edge’.[2] 

    Centres for disciplinary excellence in education were established in Norway through the Centres for Excellence (CfE) Initiative, introduced by their previous Quality Assurance body, NOKUT. To be eligible for CfE status and funding, higher education institutions had to meet baseline standards and evaluate the distinctive quality of their provision. Each Centre selected its own criteria aligned to the provider’s vision and mission.

    Of course, there were challenges with this process, particularly when it came to differences in judgements of the panel assessing, against the institution being assessed. However, NOKUT was open to evolving its views, positioning itself as a ‘critical friend’. This process set out to be supportive and iterative, focused on both past impact and continuous improvement. The success of this approach has been validated over the years by regular evaluations of the impact of the scheme.

    In England there were 227 providers who participated in TEF. Adopting a system from a country with 21 higher education providers is clearly not practical. The important lessons are, firstly, a critical friend approach can be beneficial to enhancement, and, secondly, institutions can be trusted to evolve some of their quality metrics in line with their mission and values. This is particularly important in a system as diverse as in England where most providers are already above the quality baseline.

    Fremragende may be a more accurate framing of authentic educational enhancement rather than the English buzzword ‘excellence’. Frenragende suggests an ongoing journey: a verb rather than a noun. The higher education environment is and will be in a state of flux where quality frameworks need to be agile and unlock innovation, particularly in the territory of AI.

    Pivot Part 2: Enabling enhancement through data

    The OfS has a basket of lagging indicators: the National Student Survey (NSS) and Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS) which comprise the TEF. If they are utilised in the next TEF, which seems likely, one way to begin to move from assurance to continuous improvement could be for the OfS to encourage greater use of the optional NSS bank. There are additional questions in place regarding the views of healthcare students, and several optional additional questions. An integrated approach could also be taken to the questions within the GOS, either enabling some optional questions for graduates, or mapping the GOS questions to those in the NSS.

    This flexibility would demonstrate trust, give providers a way to articulate ‘learning gain’, and capture the diversity in the sector. It would also maintain many of the positive aspects of TEF for key stakeholders, including the centrality of the student voice through the NSS and other mechanisms.        

    Pivot Part 3: Quality through partnership

    Any approach to integration should be a partnership with students, providers, international organisations and employers. We hope that entrance into the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education will enable the OfS to collaborate with other global quality bodies.

    The OfS should consider how, in its assessment of excellence, it integrates learning from other inspection regimes, such as Ofsted and existing PSRB requirements. Through this, it should reduce regulatory duplication. This is in line with the Regulator’s Code principle of ‘collect once, use many times’.

    A mindset shift from assessing the baseline to forward-facing, continuous enhancement is required, both by the OfS and the sector. With further contextualisation of provision, the sector can exercise its autonomy to drive excellence, and the OfS can fulfil its statutory role in enabling quality and innovation. 

    Let’s join our Norwegian colleagues in adopting the fremragende approach.

     

     

    Source link

  • Shaping Future Healthcare Leaders: The Journey of Mielad Ziaee

    Shaping Future Healthcare Leaders: The Journey of Mielad Ziaee

    Mielad Ziaee

    Healthcare is constantly evolving, and the future of the industry depends on the next generation of skilled professionals who are prepared to lead with knowledge, innovation, and compassion. Organizations like HOSA-Future Health Professionals play a critical role in shaping these future healthcare leaders by providing students with the resources, experiences, and mentorship needed to thrive in various medical and health-related careers.

    HOSA is an international student organization dedicated to empowering young people who are passionate about healthcare. Through leadership development, competitive events, networking opportunities, and hands-on learning experiences, HOSA helps students build the essential skills they need to succeed in the medical field. Members engage in real-world healthcare scenarios, gain exposure to public health initiatives, and develop professional competencies that set them apart in their future careers.

    Mielad Ziaee

    Alumni and Former International Executive Council Member, HOSA-Future Health Professionals

    One such success story is Mielad Ziaee, a Marshall Scholar, Truman Scholar, public health advocate, and innovator. Ziaee’s parents immigrated from Iran to the United States to manifest a new life. Their resilience and perspective deeply influenced his understanding of community, determination, and health from an early age. Before hitting the labs of prestigious institutions, Ziaee joined HOSA as a high school freshman thanks to their support. He saw it as a promising steppingstone to engage in his healthcare aspirations.

    “I really wanted to hit the ground running with HOSA. It was so empowering to have [an organization] created for students interested in healthcare, where we could all sort of geek out together,” Ziaee recalled.

    Climbing the ranks

    His two advisors, Angela Vong and Zenia Ridley, provided mentorship and guidance to immerse Ziaee in all HOSA could offer. His leadership journey quickly unfolded — from member to area officer, to Texas state officer, and eventually, to serving on HOSA’s International Executive Council. His tenure coincided with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Finding creative ways to engage members across middle school, high school, and college in virtual settings connected the dots between leadership and innovation.

    “Being part of the ‘COVID generation’ was both challenging and inspiring,” Ziaee shared. “It taught me how to build community and how that community can enact change.”

    Ziaee’s experiences ignited a passion for research, where he found the intersection of policy, public health, technology, and community engagement. In particular, food insecurity has become a focal point of his academic work.

    “I’m a proud Houstonian. I go to the University of Houston, so one of the biggest challenges that my community faces is food insecurity,” Ziaee said. “I work with our Data Science Institute to try to understand both technological and community-based cultural approaches to food insecurity. A lot of the skills I learned in HOSA, like Zoom calls or identifying key problems and addressing them, are the same things I do in my research — just different vocabulary.”

    Gaining global experience

    Ziaee will continue his study of public health as a Marshall Scholar at the University of Edinburgh this fall. He beamed with excitement as he described studying at an institution that nurtured scientific legends such as Charles Darwin and Alexander Graham Bell and exploring Scotland’s unique healthcare system.

    “Edinburgh, specifically, is where they did the Dolly the Sheep experiment, which is super cool,” Ziaee said. “It’s very interesting as an American to see how they’re doing things [in Scotland], and to hopefully bring that back and promote policy innovation here in public health.”

    Reflecting on his journey, Ziaee underscores the importance of seizing opportunities and embracing HOSA as more than just an organization. As Ziaee embarks on this next chapter, his story exemplifies how HOSA-Future Health Professionals and strong family values can shape a life of innovation and impact. Following in his footsteps, his younger sister has now joined HOSA, continuing the family’s commitment to making a difference in healthcare.

    “The connections and experiences you gain will inspire and guide you for years to come. It’s one of the main constants in my life,” he said.

    Ziaee’s journey highlights that HOSA is more than just a steppingstone — it’s a foundation for lifelong growth, leadership, and meaningful connections. For students aspiring to make a difference in healthcare, organizations like HOSA offer an unparalleled opportunity to gain real-world experience, develop leadership skills, and join a network of like-minded individuals committed to improving health outcomes worldwide.

    To join this inspiring legacy, become part of the HOSA alumni network today at www.hosa.org/alumni.

    Source link