Tag: good

  • Making Fourth Generation Universities intentional: sounds good but what does it mean? 

    Making Fourth Generation Universities intentional: sounds good but what does it mean? 

    • By Lucy Haire, Director of Partnerships at HEPI.

    At a recent roundtable discussion of university leaders convened by HEPI with Elsevier, the focus was the concept of the Fourth Generation University. If first-generation universities focused on teaching, second-generation universities on research, third-generation universities on knowledge exchange, then fourth-generation universities combine all those things for the express purpose of addressing real-world challenges. Rather than universities beavering away and occasionally ‘throwing something out there,’ commented one roundtable guest, the idea is to link university delivery to specific goals in partnerships with other agencies.   

    ‘It is tempting in a time of financial crisis in the UK university sector to withdraw into core activities’ continued the discussion contributor, ‘when in fact the opposite is needed – bold steps into more explicit civic engagement.’  One former head of a medical school said that he had never been asked what society needed of his institution. Fourth Generation Universities, conversely, link their work to health priorities and any number of other pressing public concerns. They respond head-on to the UK Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson’s Five Priorities for Universities outlined in her letter to vice-chancellors in autumn 2024, especially number two about economic growth and number three about civic roles. In addition, the Government has stated that it will be publishing a document this summer setting out some plans for higher education reform. 

    Elsevier is at the heart of developments, establishing a Fourth Generation University global community and a basket of metrics to analyse progress. Eindhoven University of Technology is a trailblazer in the field, and early adopters in the UK include the Universities of Newcastle, Swansea, Aston and Strathclyde, among others. Robert Jan-Smits, recently retired president of the executive board of Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE), and also former Director General of Research and Innovation at the European Commission, offers his reflections on the initiative which, he states, might not suit every institution.  

    One HEPI and Elsevier roundtable participant who has analysed and encouraged university civic engagement across the UK explained that the three components for success were strong leadership, strong relationships and a strong sense of intentionality. He cautioned that the country is divided in terms of public engagement: swaths of the country never or seldom set foot on a university campus, nor have knowledge of higher education’s work and impact. A chorus of university leaders at the discussion acknowledged their need to do more in terms of better serving and communicating with such groups. University-speak and the dreaded sector acronyms should be banned! 

    There are plenty of success stories of universities acting as anchor institutions in their regions. Many boast start-up business support, science and innovation parks and strategic collaboration with regional authorities. Others address skills shortages, health inequalities, local transport deficits and low university participation rates. They are all important employers and many serve local, national and global communities simultaneously. Cybersecurity and defence projects which bring together industry and academia, often from multiple institutions, are in ever-increasing demand. One discussion participant reminded the group that some higher education institutions, such as Coventry University, had been set up with civic goals in mind, while another said that resource and planning were needed to develop the right ecosystems and infrastructure in which Fourth Generation Universities can thrive. 

    While there could be pockets of resistance, most academics can be persuaded that if their students’ job prospects are improved and their own research sharpened, the aims of Fourth Generation Universities are worthwhile. Fully integrating the student voice was key, with a special mention for Arts and Humanities graduates whose storytelling capabilities should be deployed to showcase the positive impact of Fourth Generation initiatives.  

    One roundtable contributor advised that the UK should take note of what is happening in American universities in terms of heated anti-intellectual rhetoric and huge funding cuts since the start of Donald Trump’s second administration. People need to see the ‘tangible impact’ of universities and understand the connections between their lives and the Academy as a bulwark against aggression.  

    Attention around the table turned to the recent UK local elections in which a relative political newcomer, Reform, made huge strides. Those universities working in partnership with councils now controlled by Reform reported positive early engagement and an understanding among new councillors of the importance of the success of their local universities. Meanwhile, when it comes to national politics, higher education policy is not seen as a vote-winner.  

    Perhaps if universities could make their impact on the economy better known, the sector could garner more strategic attention from the government, not least to support the growth agenda. One guest suggested posing a counterfactual: ‘What if there were no, or far fewer, universities? What would the impact be on the economy?’ Another speaker referenced the trend in Australia of universities reporting outcomes like how much growth and employment they had delivered. UK funding systems such as Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) could be developed to better incentivise Fourth-Generation initiatives. The gathered group also remembered that developing more rigorous and consistent methods to measure both the private and public benefits of universities, including social and civic outcomes, was a key priority in Universities UK 2024 Opportunity, Growth and Partnership: a blueprint for change. The metric frameworks being developed by the Fourth Generation University global community could provide a basis on which to start.  

    From publican to professor, fishmonger to founder, cabbie to the cabinet, Fourth Generation Universities need to make sense, deliver outcomes and foster a sense of shared endeavour in a turbulent world. 

    Source link

  • For those in HE cold spots, higher education isn’t presenting as a good bet

    For those in HE cold spots, higher education isn’t presenting as a good bet

    Bridget Phillipson has said she wants to work with universities to widen access, and participation for those from lower income backgrounds is one of the government’s five priorities for higher education.

    But the words of a 17-year-old trainee legal assistant in Doncaster reveals how much of a challenge it will be to overcome the scepticism towards the value of a university education in a “cold spot”’ town;

    I love jobs and I can’t wait to get another job, because I just love getting paid. I want to go to uni, to live on my own and to get drunk all the time – the uni party lifestyle, right? But if I do it just for that, then I’m getting into debt. If I just go straight into work, then I don’t have anything to pay back.

    This quote underlines the findings from the opening paper of the UPP Foundation’s inquiry into widening participation, which showed how alongside gender- and class-based inequalities in rates of progression to HE, there are huge gulfs in the rate at which young people progress to university at 18 across different areas of the country. Almost 70 per cent of Wimbledon 18-year-olds go to university, compared to just 25.9 per cent of those in Houghton and Sunderland South – Bridget Phillipson’s own constituency.

    With some local authorities lacking a university and also exhibiting rates of progression to HE lower than one might expect based on young people’s academic attainment, our new paper, published today, sets out how and why these “cold spots” for progression to HE struggle to inspire young people to go to university.

    Daunted by costs

    During our research trip to Doncaster – one of England’s worst-performing local authorities for progression to university at eighteen, and a case study for cold spots as a result – the scepticism towards university that our trainee legal assistant exhibited came up time and time again. None of the eight parents in our focus group selected university as their preferred post-18 option for their children, and only one of the 16-18 year olds we spoke to in our focus group intended to apply to university. The primary objection was cost.

    Parents, young people, and adults of all ages that we spoke to in our immersive work thought that university was simply too great an expense for most people in the area to justify. Among those who had been to university, or knew those who had, it seemed that everyone had a horror story to tell about a friend or relative who had been burned by astronomical living expenses, or resented being mired in debt after doing a degree that had only passing relevance to their eventual career.

    Even when the long-run opportunities that university provides seem enticing, the mounting cost of maintaining an undergraduate degree is a daunting prospect to many. Few thought that universities, colleges or schools had done a good job of making pathways through higher education seem clear, achievable and valuable.

    Crowd in communities

    The challenge for places like Doncaster is that the opportunities that university provides are anything but obvious. Residents were at pains to stress that Doncaster is a place that feels like the economy has left it behind, with jobs few and far between and graduate careers a luxury seemingly reserved for other places.

    As one woman we spoke to put it: “The jobs in Doncaster, a lot of them you don’t require a degree for – we’re an industrial type of town.” Across our conversations in the area, it became clear that since the job market could not provide the security, stability and prospects that people wanted, family and community took on that role instead.

    In this context, then, going to university is a double-edged sword: the aspirational youngsters we spoke to were excited by the opportunities that university could provide, but they recognised that this probably meant getting out of Doncaster and staying out. To many people we spoke to, leaving home, and one’s hometown, was a hidden psychological cost heaped on top of the very real financial burden of university.

    With all this in mind, the ambivalence of cold spot residents towards university seems not reckless, but rational. If we think of university as a “bet” that people make on the understanding that the “payoff” is a higher graduate salary in the long run, then it is easy to see why those in areas with no university and few graduate jobs would be reluctant to make that sort of commitment.

    If the government wants to make good on its commitment to widen university participation, it will require a multifaceted approach that crowds in whole communities, not just bright teenagers with good prospects. They will need to work with schools, colleges, universities and local employers to make the value of university clear across generations. Cold spots can make university feel like a reckless gamble – it’s up to the government to make it a good bet.

    This article is published in association with the UPP Foundation.

    Source link

  • What Is the Good, Better, Best Model?

    What Is the Good, Better, Best Model?

    Leveraging Staged Growth for Online Learning Infrastructure

    When it comes to building a successful online learning ecosystem in higher education, there’s no magic switch to flip — and certainly no one-size-fits-all strategy to follow. For colleges and universities navigating the complex shift to digital, growth isn’t linear. It’s staged. Enter the Good, Better, Best model, one of the most effective techniques an institution can use to grow online.

    Unlike blanket approaches that assume every school has the same staff, resources, and readiness level, Good, Better, Best offers a practical, capacity-driven road map — a flexible framework that honors where an institution is while guiding it toward where it wants to go. 

    At its core, this model isn’t about chasing perfection; it’s about committing to measurable progress over time. “Best” isn’t a static end point. It’s a moving target that evolves alongside the institution’s goals, stakeholders, and capabilities.

    At Archer, we view Good, Better, Best not as a ranking system, but as a framework for institutional improvement — one that works only when there’s transparency, alignment, and shared ownership across departments. Whether your institution is just beginning its online learning journey or fine-tuning an established program, Good, Better, Best meets you where you are — and grows with you.

    You Might Need a Good, Better, Best Strategy If … 

    If your institution is experiencing any of the following roadblocks, you may benefit from adopting a Good, Better, Best strategy.

    You’re not sure where to start to improve your online operations.

    With so many moving pieces — in areas ranging from tech platforms to student support — it can be hard to know what to tackle first. Good, Better, Best helps you identify which areas should be your priority based on capacity, not guesswork.

    Your leadership team’s alignment with your long-term goals is unclear.

    When leaders aren’t on the same page, it’s easy to spin your wheels. Good, Better, Best creates a common language and plan that fosters alignment across departments and roles.

    You’ve outgrown your current partner model and want more control.

    If your outsourced solutions no longer fit your evolving needs, Archer’s Good, Better, Best partnership model can help you reclaim ownership of your operational processes with a scalable, strategic framework tailored to your team.

    Teams aren’t sure who owns what (and it’s slowing you down).

    Role clarity is critical to success. Good, Better, Best surfaces ownership gaps and overlaps so you can streamline your operations and empower your teams to move forward confidently.

    You have an institutional vision, but no shared plan to execute it.

    Ambition is great — but it needs direction. Good, Better, Best turns a vision into action with clear phases, milestones, and accountability across stakeholders.

    You’ve made progress, but need a strategy to maintain it and scale it.

    Momentum is hard-won, and sustaining it takes intention. Good, Better, Best supports continuous improvement so you can build on your success without burning out your team.

    Why Good, Better, Best Matters in Enrollment Strategy

    For institutions looking to grow their online programs, knowing where to go next starts with understanding where they are now. 

    At Archer, we help colleges and universities assess their current state across the core functions that shape the online student experience — from marketing and enrollment to student support and information technology (IT). Our Readiness Assessment is the first step in building a road map rooted in the Good, Better, Best model.

    Rather than applying a rigid, one-size-fits-all playbook, we use Good, Better, Best to create a customized path forward for each institution, shaped by its unique capacity and goals. Each department involved in the assessment — whether it’s admissions, advising, IT, or marketing — gets to define what “Good,” “Better,” and “Best” look like for them. 

    This is what makes the framework so powerful. It’s not prescriptive; it’s practical and flexible, built around what institutions have today and where they want to grow tomorrow.

    By anchoring their enrollment strategy in this kind of honest, department-level reflection, institutions can align their efforts, set realistic goals, and build momentum toward long-term success.

    The Challenge of Transformation 

    In today’s competitive higher ed landscape — where enrollment patterns are shifting and online options are expanding — many institutional teams find themselves overwhelmed. They’re trying to do everything at once, often with stretched resources, siloed decision-making, and no clear sense of what should come first. 

    The result? Progress that feels more reactive than strategic.

    But what’s missing isn’t more effort. It’s more structure.

    We’ve seen that the most successful institutions don’t attempt to leap straight to “Best” on day one. Instead, they take the time to map out a clear, achievable path forward. That’s where the Good, Better, Best model makes a difference. It gives teams a way to define their current state, envision their future goals, and understand the phased steps required to get there.

    This kind of structured transformation allows institutions to move with purpose — prioritizing what matters most, aligning cross-functional teams, and building momentum one phase at a time.

    Is Your Institution Ready for Good, Better, Best

    At its core, the Good, Better, Best model isn’t about doing everything at once — it’s about doing the right things, at the right time, with the right people. It’s a strategic framework that meets institutions where they are and guides them forward with clarity and intention.

    At Archer, we don’t just help you design your road map — we walk it with you. As your partner in strategy, delivery, and implementation, we’re here to support you as you achieve sustainable, long-term growth that’s aligned with your mission and built for your team’s unique capacity. With Good, Better, Best, progress isn’t just possible. It’s practical. 

    Contact us today to learn more. 

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • Effective academic support requires good data transparency

    Effective academic support requires good data transparency

    Academic support for students is an essential component of their academic success. At a time when resources are stretched, it is critical that academic support structures operate as a well-oiled machine, where each component has a clearly defined purpose and operates effectively as a whole.

    We previously discussed how personal and pastoral tutoring, provided by academic staff, needs to be supplemented by specialist academic support. A natural next step is to consider what that specialist support could look like.

    A nested model

    We’ve identified four core facets of effective academic support, namely personal tutoring (advising/coaching/mentoring etc), the development of academic skills and graduate competencies, all supported by relevant student engagement data. The nested model below displays this framework.

    We also suggest two prerequisites to the provision of academic support.

    Firstly, a student must have access to information related to what academic support entails and how to access this. Secondly, a student’s wellbeing means that they can physically, mentally, emotionally and financially engage with their studies, including academic support opportunities.

    Figure 1: Academic support aspects within a student success nested model

    Focusing on academic support

    Personal tutoring has a central role to play within the curriculum and within academic provision more broadly in enabling student success.

    That said, “academic support” comprises much more than a personal tutoring system where students go for generic advice and support.

    Rather, academic support is an interconnected system with multiple moving parts tailored within each institution and comprising different academic, professional and third-space stakeholders.

    Yet academics remain fundamental to the provision of academic support given their subject matter expertise, industry knowledge and their proximity to students. This is why academics are traditionally personal tutors and historically, this is where the academic support model would have ended. Changes in student needs means the nature of personal tutoring has needed to be increasingly complemented by other forms of academic support.

    Skills and competencies

    Academic skills practitioners can offer rich insights in terms of how best to shape and deliver academic support.

    A broad conception of academic skills that is inclusive of academic literacies, maths, numeracy and stats, study skills, research and information literacy and digital literacy is a key aspect of student academic success. Student acquisition of these skills is complemented by integrated and purposeful involvement of academic skills practitioners across curriculum design, delivery and evaluation.

    Given regulatory focus on graduate outcomes, universities are increasingly expected to ensure that academic support prepares students for graduate-level employability or further study upon graduation. Much like academic skills practitioners, this emphasises the need to include careers and employability consultants in the design and delivery of integrated academic support aligned to the development of both transferable and subject-specific graduate competencies.

    Engaging data

    Data on how students are participating in their learning provides key insights for personal tutors, academic skills practitioners and colleagues working to support the development of graduate competencies.

    Platforms such as StREAM by Kortext enable a data-informed approach to working with students to optimise the provision of academic support. This holistic approach to the sharing of data alongside actionable insights further enables successful transition between support teams.

    Knowing where the support need is situated means that these limited human and financial resources can be directed to where support is most required – whether delivered on an individual or cohort basis. Moreover, targeted provision can be concentrated at relevant points over the academic year. Using engagement data contributes to efficiency drives through balancing the provision of information and guidance to all students. The evidence shows it’s both required and likely to prove effective.

    Academic support is increasingly complicated in terms of how different aspects overlap and interplay within a university’s student success ecosystem. Therefore, when adopting a systems-thinking approach to the design and delivery of academic support, universities must engage key stakeholders, primarily students, academic skills practitioners and personal tutors themselves.

    A priority should be ensuring varied roles of academic support providers are clearly defined both individually and in relation to each other.

    Similarly, facilitating the sharing of data at the individual student level about the provision of academic support should be prioritised to ensure that communication loops are closed and no students fall between service gaps.

    Given that academic support is evolving, we would welcome readers’ views of what additional aspects of academic support are necessary to student success.

    To find out more about how StREAM by Kortext can enable data-informed academic support at your institution, why not arrange a StREAM demonstration.

    Source link

  • Cal State is Automatically Admitting High School Students With Good Grades – The 74

    Cal State is Automatically Admitting High School Students With Good Grades – The 74


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

    More than 17,400 high school seniors last fall got the sweetest news any anxious student can get: Congratulations, because of your high school GPA, you’re automatically admitted to one of 10 California State University campuses of your choice — and they’re all relatively affordable.

    Even with less than a week to go before the campuses wrap their final decisions about whom to admit, a pilot program focusing on Riverside County is already showing that more students have been admitted from the county than last year, about 10,600 so far in 2025 compared to last year’s roughly 9,800.

    The pilot builds on Cal State’s efforts to enroll more students and works like this: High school seniors receive a notice in the mail that they’re automatically admitted as long as they maintain their grades, finish the 15 mandatory courses necessary for admission to a Cal State, and complete an admissions form to claim their spot at a campus. Cal State was able to mail the notices because it signed an agreement with the Riverside County Office of Education that gave the university eligible students’ addresses.

    Now in the program’s first year, Cal State joins other public universities across the country in a growing national movement to automatically admit eligible students. From November through January, Cal State informed students they were accepted to the 10 campuses. To claim a spot, students needed to go online and pick at least one campus.

    If past admissions and enrollment trends hold, Cal State as a system will educate hundreds of more students, all from Riverside, than they would have without the pilot. That’d be a boon for a system that prides itself on its affordability and motto that it’s the people’s university; Cal State admits a far higher percentage of students than the University of California. It also could serve as a much-needed budget boost from the extra tuition revenue those students bring, especially at campuses with sinking enrollment.

    Eight campuses — Channel Islands, Chico, East Bay, Humboldt, Maritime Academy, Monterey Bay, San Francisco​, and Sonoma — are so under-enrolled that Cal State is pulling some of their state revenues to send to campuses that are still growing. Cal Maritime is soon merging with another campus because of its perilous finances. The pilot also includes the two closest campuses to the county, San Bernardino and San Marcos.

    The system chose Riverside County because all of its public high school students were already loaded onto a state data platform that can directly transmit student grades to Cal State — a key step in creating automatic admissions. Riverside is also “ethnically and economically representative of the diversity of California — many of the students the CSU is so proud to serve,” a spokesperson for the system, Amy Bentley Smith, wrote in an email.

    At Heritage High School, a public school in Riverside County, the pilot encouraged students who previously didn’t even consider attending a public four-year university to submit the automatic admission forms to a Cal State.

    Silvia Morales, a 17-year-old senior at Heritage, got an automatic admissions letter. “I was pretty set on going to community college and then transferring, because I felt like I wasn’t ready for the four-year commitment to a college,” she said.

    Even with a 3.0 GPA, higher than the 2.5 GPA Cal State requires for admission, she nearly didn’t submit the forms to secure her admission until early January. That’s well past the standard Nov. 30 admissions deadline.

    It wasn’t until her counselor, Chris Tinajero, pulled her into a meeting that she decided to opt into the pilot. “I went through the sales pitch like, ‘Hey, you get this guaranteed admission, you’re an amazing student,’” he recounted.

    The pitch worked. Though Cal State sent a physical pamphlet and her high school also emailed her about the pilot, “I wasn’t really paying attention,” Morales said. She needed an adult she trusted at the school to persuade her that the applications were worth the effort, she said.

    Morales applied to three Cal State campuses in the pilot plus two outside the program that were still accepting late applications — Chico, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Northridge and San Bernardino. She got into each one, she said.

    Her parents are “proud of me because I want to go to college,” Morales said. Neither went to college, she added.

    Final enrollment figures won’t be tallied until August, including how many of the students admitted through the pilot attended one of the 10 campuses. But the system’s chancellor’s office is already planning to replicate the pilot program in a Northern California county, which will be named sometime in April, Cal State officials said.

    A bill by Christopher Cabaldon, a state senator and Democrat from Napa, would make automatic enrollment to Cal State for eligible students a state law. The bill hasn’t been heard in a committee yet.

    A boost in application numbers

    Of the 17,000 students who received an invitation to secure their automatic admissions, about 13,200 submitted the necessary forms. That’s about 3,000 more students who applied from the county than last year.

    Those who otherwise wouldn’t have applied to a Cal State include students who were eyeing private colleges, said Melina Gonzalez, a counselor at Heritage who typically advises students who are already college-bound.

    Nearby private colleges offer all students application fee waivers; at Cal State, typically only low-income students receive fee waivers. But the pilot provided each Cal State student one fee waiver worth $70, which was a draw to students and their parents who don’t qualify for the fee waiver but might struggle to pay.

    Last year, 10 of the 100 senior students Gonzalez counseled didn’t apply to a Cal State. This application season, all her students submitted at least one Cal State application, she said.

    “It was big, it was really cool, their eyes, they were so excited,” she said of the automatically admitted students. “They would come in and show me their letters.”

    Parents called her asking if the pamphlet from Cal State was authentic. With guaranteed admission, some parents ultimately decided to pay for additional applications to campuses in the pilot, knowing it wasn’t in vain.

    At Heritage, high school counselors reviewed Cal State’s provisional list of students eligible for the pilot to add more seniors, such as those who hadn’t yet completed the mandatory courses but were on track to do so.

    Tinajero was also able to persuade some students who hadn’t completed all the required courses for Cal State entry to take those, including online classes. Still, others with qualifying grades didn’t apply because they weren’t persuaded that a four-year university was for them. Tinajero sees program growth in the coming years, assuming Cal State continues with the pilot. Younger high school students who witnessed the fanfare of automatic admissions may take more seriously the need to pass the 15 required courses to be eligible for a Cal State or University of California campus, he said.

    That’s part of Cal State’s vision for this pilot, said April Grommo, the system’s assistant vice chancellor of strategic enrollment management: Begin encouraging students to take the required courses in ninth grade so that by 11th and 12th grade they’re more receptive to applying to Cal State.

    Pilot leads to more applications

    The automatic admissions pilot is likely what explains the jump in overall applicants, said Grommo. “If you look at the historical numbers of Riverside County students that have applied to the CSU, it’s very consistent at 10,000, so there’s no other accelerator or explanation for the significant increase in the applications,” she said.

    Some campuses in the pilot are probably going to see more students from Riverside County than others. The eight under-enrolled Cal State campuses each enrolled fewer than than 100 Riverside students as freshmen, a CalMatters review of 2024 admissions data show. Two enrolled fewer than 10 Riverside students as freshmen.

    Cal State isn’t solely relying on past trends to enroll more students. Grommo cited research that suggests direct admissions programs are associated with increases in student enrollment, but not among low-income students, who are less familiar with the college-going process or have additional economic and family demands, like work and child care.

    The quad at San Francisco State University in San Francisco on July 7, 2023. Photo by Semantha Norris, CalMatters

    Even after students are admitted, some don’t complete key steps in the enrollment process, such as maintaining their grades in the second semester, completing registration forms to enroll, and paying deposits. Others, especially low-income students, have a change of heart over summer about attending college, which scholars call “summer melt.” Then there are the students who got into typically more selective campuses, such as at elite private schools and the University of California, and choose instead to go to those.

    To prompt more students to actually enroll, Cal State officials in early March hosted two college fairs in Riverside County for students admitted through the pilot. About 2,600 students signed up to be bussed from their high schools to large venues, including the Riverside Convention Center, where they met with staff, alumni and current students from all 10 Cal State campuses participating in the program. Those were followed by receptions with students and parents.

    Grommo said they maxed out capacity at both venues for the student events. While it’s common for individual campuses to host events for admitted students, it was a first for Cal State’s central office.

    The event costs, physical mailers to students about their admissions guarantee, invitation to the college fairs and another flyer about the relative affordability of a Cal State cost the system’s central office around $300,000, Grommo estimates. But if the event moves the needle on students agreeing to attend a Cal State, the tuition revenue at the largely under-enrolled campuses alone would be a huge return on investment.

    The effort is a far more targeted approach than another admissions outreach effort Cal State rolled out last fall to inform students who started but didn’t finish their college applications that they’re provisionally accepted, as long as they complete and send their forms. The notification went to 106,000 students and was the result of a $750,000 grant Cal State won from the Lumina Foundation, a major higher education philanthropy. The system will know by fall if this notification resulted in more students attending a Cal State.

    But that was aimed at students who already applied. The Riverside pilot brings in students, like Morales, who wouldn’t have applied without the mailers and entreaties from counselors. She’s leaning toward picking Cal State San Bernardino for next fall. It’s close to home and an older cousin recently graduated who had a good experience there, she said.

    Her next task? Working with her parents to complete the federal application for financial aid by April 2, the deadline for guaranteed tuition waivers for low- and middle-income students.

    It’s possible that Cal State may take the direct admissions pilot statewide. All counties are required by state law to join the state-funded data system that Riverside is already a part of to electronically transmit students’ high school grades to Cal States and UCs. Doing so removes the need for schools to send campuses paper transcripts. The deadline for all counties to join the state data system is summer of 2026.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


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

    Source link

  • Professional services staff need equal recognition – visibility in sector data would be a good start

    Professional services staff need equal recognition – visibility in sector data would be a good start

    Achieving recognition for the significant contribution of professional services staff is a collaborative, cross-sector effort.

    With HESA’s second consultation on higher education staff statistics welcoming responses until 3 April, AGCAS has come together with a wide range of membership bodies representing professional services staff across higher education to release a statement warmly welcoming HESA’s proposal to widen coverage of the higher education staff record to include technical staff and professional and operational staff.

    By creating a more complete staff record, HESA aim to deliver better understanding of the diverse workforce supporting the delivery of UK higher education. AGCAS, together with AHEP, AMOSSHE, ASET, CRAC-Vitae, NADP and UMHAN, welcome these proposals. We have taken this collaborative approach because we have a common goal of seeking wider recognition for the outstanding contributions and work of our members in professional services roles, and the impact they make on their institutions, regions, graduates and students.

    A matter of visibility

    Since the 2019–20 academic year, higher education providers in England and Northern Ireland have had the option to return data on non-academic staff to HESA. However, this has led to a lack of comprehensive visibility for many professional services staff. In the 2023–24 academic year, out of 228 providers only 125 opted to return data on all their non-academic staff – leaving 103 providers opting out.

    This gap in data collection has raised concerns about the recognition and visibility of these essential staff members – and has not gone unnoticed by professional services staff themselves. As one AGCAS member noted:

    Professional service staff have largely remained invisible when reporting on university staff numbers. Professional services provide critical elements of student experience and outcomes, and this needs to be recognised and reflected better in statutory reporting.

    This sentiment underscores the importance of the proposed changes by HESA, and the reason for our shared response.

    Who is and is not

    A further element of the consultation considers a move away from the term “non-academic” to better reflect the roles and contributions of these staff members and proposes to collect data on staff employment functions.

    Again, we collectively strongly support these proposed changes, which have the potential to better understand and acknowledge the wide range of staff working to deliver outstanding higher education across the UK. The term non-academic has long been contentious across higher education. While continuing to separate staff into role types may cause issues for those in the third space, shifting away from a term and approach that defines professional services staff by othering them is a welcome change.

    As we move forward, it is essential to continue fostering collaboration and mutual respect between academic and professional services staff. Challenging times across higher education can create or enhance partnership working between academic and professional services staff, in order to tackle shared difficulties, increase collaboration and form strategic alliances.

    A better environment

    By working in this way, we can create a more inclusive and supportive environment that recognises the diverse contributions of all staff members, ultimately enhancing outcomes for all higher education stakeholders, particularly students.

    Due to the nature of our memberships, our shared statement focuses on professional services staff in higher education – but we also welcome the clear focus on operational and technical staff from HESA, who again make vital contributions to their institutions.

    We all know that representation matters to our members, and the higher education staff that we collectively represent. HESA’s proposed changes could help to start a move towards fully and equitably recognising the vital work of professional services staff across higher education. By expanding data collection to include wider staff roles and moving away from the term “non-academic”, we can better understand and acknowledge the wide range of contributions that support the higher education sector.

    This is just the first step towards better representation and recognition, but it is an important one.

    Source link

  • A taste for the good life

    A taste for the good life

    Postcard views, luxurious watches, delicious cheese and chocolate — the country that comes to mind is idyllic Switzerland in central Europe.

    But this seemingly perfect country comes at a price: its high cost of living. According to Coop and Carrefour, two leading supermarket chains in Switzerland and France, one chocolate bar in Switzerland costs more than one and a half times as much as the same chocolate bar in neighbouring France. 

    “The price of chocolate with regards to its quality in Switzerland is fair and for me worth paying,” said Andrina Deragisch, a 17-year-old student of Kantonsschule Zürich Nord, a Swiss high school. 

    Chocolate’s price is affected by various factors, most importantly the price of the cocoa bean. Nowadays that is at an all-time high due to climate change, plant-affecting pests in Africa and East Asia and packaging prices and taxes. Its price is four to five times higher than a year ago, according to Migros, the second-largest retail company in Switzerland. But what makes the difference in Switzerland? 

    “The most significant factor is the labour,” says Richie Gray, global head of SnackFutures, the Corporate Venture Capital Hub of Mondelez that invests in businesses in the snack industry. 

    How much would you pay for a chocolate bar?

    Workers in Switzerland are paid well, which makes them able to keep up with the high cost of living. This leads to a high-end price of chocolate in comparison to neighbouring countries. To avoid such high labour costs, Mondelez moved Toblerone’s production to Slovakia in 2023, imitating various international companies such as Nestlé and Barry Callebaut, that have shifted a great part of their production operations to Eastern Europe and Asia. 

    According to the 2017Swiss Manufacturing Survey from the University of St. Gallen, 46% of the interviewed firms are considering outsourcing parts of their manufacturing operations to China, Germany or Eastern Europe. 

    As a result, the Swiss manufacturing industry is seeing rising unemployment; the number of jobs has already fallen by 10% since 1990, and lower taxes from the international companies to Swiss authorities. In further development this leads to reduced purchasing power of customers and state incomes, weakening the country’s economy.  

    According to data from the Federal Statistical Office and the National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies, the average Swiss person earns a little over 6,750 Swiss francs (CHF) monthly whereas in France, average wages are about 2,570 CHF a month. Switzerland counts as one of the best-earning countries in the world, creating a high-quality of life for its population.  

    According to Human Development Reports, Switzerland’s Human Development Index placed first among the whole world, providing wealth, comfort, material goods and exceptional healthcare and education. 

    A strong labour market

    High productivity and competitiveness shape the Swiss labour market, said Christian Gast, chief economist at Swissrock, an asset management company based in Zurich. “Switzerland is considered to be fully employed, with only 1.3% of the entire population having no job,” he said. 

    The demand for labour results in high pay. Moreover, when people earn more, they have more money to spend on products like chocolate. 

    Another factor is the strong Swiss franc. The European Central Bank reports that the exchange rate between the Swiss franc and the euro has constantly increased from 0.87 EUR per Swiss franc in 2018 to around 1.06 EUR per Swiss franc today.

    “If you’re coming from another country, you need more of your own currency to buy a Swiss franc,” Gast said.

    But what makes the Swiss currency so strong?  

    “Our fiscal policy is strongly regulated,” Gast said. “This means the expenses of the government are largely balanced with its incomes.”

    An attractive place for money

    If there is a stable relationship between expenses and income, there is little debt result and interest rates remain low. This makes Switzerland attractive to international investors. Purchases are made within the country, boosting its economy and simultaneously its prices. 

    However, where does Switzerland’s well-working economy with excessive prices for services and products originate from? The small country in the heart of Europe with no environmental advantages developed into a financial powerhouse with banks as its mines.

    According to the Swiss Bankers Association, Swiss banks held over a quarter of all assets present in all the banks across the globe in 2018. This means that 27.5% of global revenue, amounting to US.$6.5 trillion was stored in Swiss banks. 

    “There are barely any countries with more international banks than Switzerland,” Gast said. Since World War II, countless wealthy people have chosen to store their money in Swiss banks as Switzerland has a proven track record for its secrecy, neutrality and stable political system. 

    But wouldn’t there be frustration towards such high living costs among the population? On average, prices in Switzerland are 58.4% times higher than in the rest of the countries in the European Union. Consider that in the United States, Donald Trump won a second term as president in part because he promised lower prices and affordable living costs. However, Swiss people tend to accept the high prices in the country since the quality of life is also so high.  

    Additionally, the inflation rates in Switzerland are low — the price level has been relatively constant or only increasing minimally. According to the Federal Statistical Office, inflation rates were only at 1.1% in 2024, whereas in the United States it was at 2.9% in December 2024. People in the United States are displeased with the sudden higher prices which means they want a solution to solve this. At the same time, Swiss people have not experienced a drastic change and therefore are not as keen to make prices lower.  

    As Swiss people consume around 10kg of chocolate per person each year, there’s no doubting its popularity. We are both very fond consumers of Swiss chocolate and eat at least one bar of chocolate a week. The sweetness and comforting feeling of chocolate melting on your tongue is a sensation nobody can resist. 

    Source link

  • It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    Dr. Detris AdelabuOn the day of his death in 2020, an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, pre-written by Congressman John Lewis, urging Americans to stand up for justice and what he called “good trouble, necessary trouble.  Even in his death, Congressman Lewis fought for a more equitable America, where every individual recognizes their moral obligation to persist in the struggle for a more just nation.

    The recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies, followed by anti-equity legislation across more than 40 states and at the highest level of government, erodes decades of collective efforts to rectify a history of gross social and structural inequities. In higher education, these legislative attacks have led to a decline in Black and Latino student enrollment at selective colleges and universities and have prompted institutions to abandon their commitment to equity.  Universities such as Harvard, Rutgers, Northeastern, the University of Texas, and Louisiana State University are scrubbing their website of all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion, shuttering DEI offices and laying off staff, and scrutinizing the curriculum for any references to DEI.  If ever there was a time for “good trouble” in higher education, that time is now.  But can higher education leadership muster the political will to stand firm for equity?

    Institutional Responsibility and Moral Leadership

    Legislative setbacks to equity beckon colleges and universities to take bold and creative strategies to reaffirm their commitment to equitable access to resources and opportunities in education. Institutions can, for example, place greater emphasis on partnering with under-resourced high schools and expand outreach to marginalized communities to signal their commitment to equity. While such measures are imperfect, they signal a refusal to yield to a regressive interpretation of equity and justice.

    Higher education institutions can leverage their platforms to articulate their mission and commitment to equity beyond their campuses by working together to:

    1. Form Multi-Institutional Alliances to Challenge Anti-DEI Legislation: Colleges and universities can form alliances on a national scale to amplify their collective advocacy against policies that restrict access to resources and opportunities. Sharing strategies and best practices can strengthen collective efforts to promote equity. Dr. Felicity CrawfordDr. Felicity Crawford
    2. Invest in Community Partnerships: By deepening relationships with K-12 schools, particularly those in strategically under-resourced areas, institutions can create robust pathways for diverse talent. Mentorship programs, financial support, and academic preparation initiatives can help bridge gaps in access and opportunity.
    3. Prioritize Transparency and Accountability: By publishing detailed reports on their equity and diversity metrics, institutions can enhance accountability and demonstrate their progress towards equity.

    Upholding the Educational Mission of Higher Education

    The mission of higher education extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. It encompasses the cultivation of informed, engaged, and socially responsible citizens. Failing to prioritize equity undermines this mission, leaving graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of a global society. Institutions that acquiesce to the erosion of equity risk not only their reputations but also their relevance in a rapidly changing world.

    Resisting harmful laws and policies that oppose equity is not without risks. Institutions may face political backlash, reduced funding, or legal challenges. However, the cost of inaction—both in terms of societal impact and institutional integrity—is far greater. By taking a principled stand, colleges and universities can position themselves on the right side of history, inspiring future generations to do the same. Equity, when implemented with fidelity, fosters diversity.

    The current sociopolitical landscape presents a defining moment for higher education. Gross social and structural inequities will not resolve themselves. Left unattended, they will continue to generate detrimental social and economic consequences for American society, with effects that can span generations. By developing innovative strategies, advocating for systemic change, and upholding their educational missions, institutions can resist attacks on progress and continue to serve as beacons of opportunity and justice. In doing so, they not only honor their moral and societal obligations but also preserve the transformative power of education for generations to come.Dr. Linda Banks-SantilliDr. Linda Banks-Santilli

    This moment calls for moral leadership in higher education that not only resists the immediate consequences of anti-DEI legislation but also envisions a more just and inclusive future. This moment calls for good trouble. To echo the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

    “In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

    Dr. Detris Honora Adelabu is a Clinical Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Felicity A. Crawford is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Linda Banks-Santilli is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Matt Goodwin’s ‘Bad Education’ isn’t good scholarship, but does that matter?

    WEEKEND READING: Matt Goodwin’s ‘Bad Education’ isn’t good scholarship, but does that matter?

    • Steven Jones is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Manchester and his latest book is Universities Under Fire (2022). This review of Bad Education by Matt Goodwin has been written in a personal capacity.
    • HEPI’s other review of the Matt Goodwin’s book can be accessed here.

    In Bad Education, Matt Goodwin makes the argument that Western universities have moved ‘sharply and radically to the left’ (p.51) over the last six decades, to the extent that diversity is now deemed more important than merit. According to Goodwin, a woke orthodoxy has gripped the sector: free speech is stifled; non-authorised viewpoints are unwanted; and social justice trumps the pursuit of truth. Some minorities flourish within this culture, but other ‘political’ minorities – like the one to which Goodwin claims membership – are structurally disadvantaged. 

    To stand this argument up, Goodwin needs the reader to accept two fundamental premises. The first is that the author’s sense of victimhood is real, while others are imaginary or exaggerated. Goodwin achieves this by attributing his every professional setback – from having journal articles and funding bids declined to being overlooked for invited talks (p.47) – to his whiteness, his maleness, or his political positions, such as his refusal to participate in ‘cult-like worship of the EU on campus’ (p.44). No other explanation is countenanced. 

    The second premise is that the real power in universities is cultural, not economic, and therefore held by diversity champions and other woke activists. The evidence Goodwin offers here is underwhelming. Where academic scholarship is cited, the sources are mostly US-based, and the author shows no curiosity about the think-tanks and lobby groups that funded the surveys in which he places his faith. Critical higher educational research is studiously avoided, though Goodwin does turn to Elon Musk for a quote about the ‘woke mind virus’ (p.104). In places, Bad Education reads as a checklist of debunked myths and personal memoirs (‘as I’ve seen first-hand’ is a familiar clause). Yet in the final chapter, Goodwin addresses the reader directly to assert: ‘I’ve bombarded you at times with statistics and research because I wanted you to read it for yourself and make up your own mind’ (p.198). 

    I tried hard to make up my own mind, but it’s difficult to be persuaded by Goodwin’s case against universities when the bulk of empirical data point in an opposite direction. If recruitment practices are so diversity conscious, why were there only 25 Black British female professors in the UK as recently as 2019? If ‘reverse racism’ is such a problem, why did the awarding gap between White and Black students achieving high degrees stand at 18.4% in 2021? In my experience, and according to my research, minority groups are far from over-represented in senior levels of university management and governance, and board cultures tend to be driven by corporate principles, not woke ideologies. As for no-platforming, fewer than 0.8 per cent of university events or speaker invitations were cancelled in 2021-22. In other words, the truths that Goodwin is so boldly willing to speak may be his truths, but they are not universal.

    Among the fellow marginalised white men willing to support Goodwin is the University of Buckingham’s Eric Kaufmann, who is quoted extensively, and whose back-cover endorsement describes Bad Education as ‘deeply personal and impeccably researched.’ It’s certainly deeply personal. Take Goodwin’s indignation towards a lecturer who unfriended some Conservative voters on Facebook after the 2015 UK general election (p.89). The reader is not told what this incident is supposed to signify, let alone why Goodwin’s cherished free speech principles appear not to extend to academics’ private social media accounts.

    That’s not to say that the sector is always operating to the highest ethical standards. Goodwin is on firmest ground when highlighting human rights violations in China (p.90), and calling out universities for turning a blind eye. But rather than take this argument to its logical conclusion – by critiquing a fee model that leaves sectors reliant on income from overseas students – Goodwin pivots back into anger and anecdote, rebuking universities for being defensive about their historic links with the slave trade (p.91) and sharing stories about junior colleagues too scared to disclose their pro-Brexit leanings (p.94).

    Despite Goodwin’s stated aim to ‘push back against authoritarianism’ (p.208), there are echoes of Donald Trump’s playbook throughout Bad Education. The author’s anti-diversity bombast recalls the President’s recent claim that a fatal air crash near Washington DC was connected to DEI programmes in federal government. It’s not entirely clear to which level of institutional bureaucracy Goodwin is referring when he imagines a ‘hyper-political and highly activist managerial blob’ (p.157), but the language is redolent of that being deployed in the US to justify a purge of federal bureaucrats. According to Goodwin, this ‘managerial blob’ is defined by an insistence on rainbow lanyards and flags on campus, among other things. This is not a characterisation of senior leaders that most university staff would recognise. Could it be that the author is so distracted by empty performative gestures that he fails to see where power is really located?

    Goodwin has now left academia, a story he tells in most chapters, steadily elevating it to the level of Shakespearean tragedy: ‘my professorship – everything I had ever wanted, everything I had worked for – was over’ (p.195). At a time when 10,000 jobs are on the line at UK universities, such self-indulgence is unfortunate. Goodwin’s contrast between the ‘luxury beliefs’ of academics and the ‘real world’ he claims to inhabit (p.78) encapsulates what makes Bad Education read like a ‘prolonged gripe,’ as another reviewer put it. Paradoxically, Goodwin now enjoys a range of high-profile platforms from which to air his grievances about being no-platformed, regularly appearing on television to blame wokeism for various social ills. Why is it that only ‘cancelled’ academics seem to have media agents?

    Bad Education builds towards what Goodwin calls a ‘manifesto’ for universities (pp.217-19) that want to have ‘good, not bad, education’ (p.217). It’s a simplistic way to wrap up any book, comprising a bullet-pointed list of the same few complaints expressed in slightly different terms. Those of us in higher education will quickly recognise Bad Education’s distortions: universities haven’t lurched radically left and there’s no woke coup. But does that matter? Are we the target readership? Or is the book speaking to external audiences? What if a review like this merely confirms what Goodwin and his fellow academic outcasts have been saying all along?

    Since accepting the terms of the market, English universities have struggled to articulate their role in society. Academic expertise has been devalued and the status of higher education as a public good compromised, with universities increasingly embroiled in unwinnable culture wars. These are perfect conditions for someone like Goodwin to ‘blow up’ his own career (p.4), break the ‘secret code of silence’ (p.3) and position himself as the fearless ‘rogue professor’ (p.16). In such ways, important debates become framed by individuals with the shallowest insights but the deepest grudges. Bad Education does a passable job of confirming suspicions about what really goes on inside a secretive and often aloof sector, guiding its readers further down an anti-university, anti-expert rabbit hole. If we continue to leave vacuums in the discourse, then diversity-blaming narratives like Goodwin’s will continue to fill them.

    Source link