Tag: gatekeepers

  • ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    Dive Brief:

    • Some higher education experts slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reshape the accreditation system, raising warnings about government intrusion into academic matters, while the accreditation sector defended its work. 
    • The president took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity and equity while calling for new requirements of what he called “intellectual diversity” in faculty. He also called on U.S. Secretary Linda McMahon to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability.” 
    • The order was part of a bevy of higher education-related executive orders that Trump signed late Wednesday night affecting different aspects of the sector, including workforce development and historically Black colleges.

    Dive Insight:

     In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”

    He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”

    In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria. 

    He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools. 

    The ABA is suing the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations the department canceled federal grants as retaliation for the association “taking positions the current Administration disfavors,” including its diversity requirements. 

    “Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.

    Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.” 

    His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”

    Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.

    The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”

    Trump also issued executive orders Wednesday on workforce development, artificial intelligence, foreign funding reporting requirements for colleges, and historically Black colleges and universities.

    Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.

    Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions are accessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday. 

    It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”

    AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”

    Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”

    Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.” 

    Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.  

    Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.  

    C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”

    The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions. 

    “Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”

    She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”

    Source link

  • Unveiling the gatekeepers in PGR admissions

    Unveiling the gatekeepers in PGR admissions

    The journey to postgraduate research (PGR) remains cloaked in ambiguity.

    For many students, gaining access to PGR programmes is less about merit and more about chance encounters and privilege. The perceived casual tap on the shoulder culture — an informal recommendation by a supervisor or academic insider — can often play a significant role in greasing the wheels for a fortunate few but risks perpetuating systemic inequities that disproportionately affect those from a non-research-intensive (NRI) institution, where there is a greater focus on teaching and vocational practice rather than research.

    While Wellcome and UKRI have done significant work in mandating equitable admissions practices into their programmes over the past five years with reasonable success, there remain significant barriers and structural biases that prevent talented students from progressing. The reality is that the landscape is murky at best and for those students who are trying to navigate the space without the right support network and background, postgraduate study remains inaccessible and opaque.

    Our recent report, delivered as a partnership between the Martingale Foundation and Public First, shines a stark light on these challenges, revealing how admissions to research-intensive (RI) universities frequently sidestep fairness in favour of tradition and unconscious bias. While undergraduate admissions strive toward equity – for example the recent removal of the UCAS personal statement – PGR selections often rest on unspoken networks, opaque criteria, and subjective judgment, exacerbating inequalities in the academic pipeline.

    Funding remains one of the most significant barriers to supporting more talented PhD students, with the situation getting increasingly competitive. However, this only exacerbates the importance of ensuring that the funded places available are awarded fairly through a transparent process, not just to those privileged people with the right networks and ‘know how’.

    The power of privilege in the pipeline

    In PGR admissions, luck and proximity can outweigh potential and merit. Informal processes, such as a direct supervisor’s recommendation, can act as a decisive factor, leaving out candidates unfamiliar with academic norms or lacking the cultural capital to navigate these unspoken rules. This is especially evident for students who attend NRI universities, where exposure to PGR pathways is limited, and interactions with research-focused mentors are less frequent.

    Students from NRI institutions are not only underrepresented in RI postgraduate programmes but face significant barriers even when they are academically qualified. These barriers are not associated with a candidate’s potential but more to do with their prior training that will enable them to thrive in RI postgraduate research. However, it should be noted that the impact of these barriers varies by subject with some subjects like mathematics relying heavily on the building blocks of the knowledge gained in prior years, while other disciplines are more flexible to learning and upskilling during PGR study.

    Transparency: The missing link

    The Equity in Doctoral Education through Partnership and Innovation (EDEPI) project underscores the opaque nature of the admissions process with only 47 per cent of admissions tutors believing current selection criteria are effective indicators of a candidate’s potential as an independent researcher. This lack of consensus results in admissions practices that reward familiarity over talent, further marginalising students without access to insider knowledge.

    The opacity of these systems reinforces privilege, creating a hidden curriculum that rewards those who already know how to play the game. Without explicit guidelines, students from underrepresented backgrounds are left guessing what is expected. On the other hand, their more advantaged peers often benefit from UG degrees in a RI institution, and family knowledge of the HE sector and professional networks to help navigate the process into PGR.

    Undermatching and the domino effect

    For many students from NRI backgrounds, their educational trajectory is shaped long before postgraduate study becomes a consideration. The report identifies undermatching as a critical barrier — a phenomenon where students, often due to financial or geographical constraints, attend institutions below their academic attainment. These decisions, made as early as age 17 or 18, have far-reaching consequences. NRI universities, while excelling in teaching and certain research areas, typically lack the resources and networks that RI institutions possess to guide students into PGR pathways.

    This mismatch compounds inequities. When these students attempt to transition to RI universities for postgraduate study, they are not only underprepared for the research culture but also more likely to face feelings of isolation and imposter syndrome. According to a survey understanding the mental health of doctoral researchers by McPhearson et al, these challenges significantly impact mental health for those who feel like outsiders in elite academic spaces.

    Supervisor bias: A double-edged sword

    The role of the supervisor is another critical factor in perpetuating inequities. Supervisors often act as gatekeepers to PGR opportunities, and their personal biases—whether conscious or unconscious—can shape admissions outcomes. The report highlights that some disciplines depend heavily on supervisors for admissions decisions, creating a single point of failure in the system. This affinity bias can exacerbate inequities, as supervisors may prefer candidates who resemble their own academic profiles or fit traditional moulds of excellence.

    Moreover, supervisors may hesitate to take on students perceived as requiring additional support, especially in resource-constrained environments where time and funding are limited – something that is increasingly a factor with further demands on academic time. This disproportionately affects candidates from NRI backgrounds, who may need additional guidance to bridge gaps in their academic preparation.

    Pathways to change

    Addressing entrenched inequities in PGR admissions requires decisive action across multiple fronts. Developing a standardised admissions framework, akin to UCAS but tailored for the diverse needs of PGR programmes, could enhance transparency and accountability while reducing reliance on subjective criteria. Though creating a universal system for all disciplines may not be feasible, unifying processes within institutions would be a significant step forward.

    Bridging knowledge gaps through initiatives like summer research internships and pre-doctoral courses can equip students from NRI institutions with vital skills and cultural capital. Established programmes like UNIQ+ and In2research highlight the effectiveness of such interventions, which require sustained support from both institutions and funders to expand their reach.

    Collaborative models, exemplified by partnerships like the London Interdisciplinary Doctoral Programme (LIDo), foster inclusivity by sharing resources and expertise between research-intensive and NRI institutions. Similarly, enhancing supervisor training on inclusive practices and unconscious bias, along with encouraging co-supervision models, ensures a broader support network for students and reduces over-reliance on individual supervisors.

    Regulatory oversight is crucial in setting standards and incentivising equitable practices in PGR admissions. Bodies such as the Office for Students and UKRI must actively enforce diversity and transparency measures. Furthermore, funders, including smaller charitable organisations, should adopt structural initiatives to support equitable access to postgraduate study, building on the progress made by UKRI and Wellcome. These combined efforts can create a more inclusive and equitable PGR landscape.

    Toward a more equitable future

    The hidden hierarchies in PGR admissions are not insurmountable. By acknowledging the biases embedded in current practices and committing to systemic reforms, the sector can unlock the potential of a more diverse pool of talent. As the Martingale Foundation and Public First report makes clear, this is not just a moral imperative but a practical necessity. The challenges of the 21st century demand innovative, inclusive research cultures capable of harnessing the full spectrum of human potential.

    The lingering “tap on the shoulder” recruitment pathways need to be replaced with a fair and transparent system, where every student, regardless of their background, has an equal opportunity to thrive. Only then can we build a truly meritocratic academic landscape—one that recognises talent over tradition and potential over privilege.

    Source link