Tag: Higher

Endowment returns climb amid fiscal uncertainty

Endowment returns climbed in fiscal year 2024, offering a boost to university coffers at a time when even the richest institutions have been gripped with financial uncertainty amid the Trump administration’s attempts to freeze federal funding and change research reimbursements.

One-year returns averaged 11.2 percent for FY 2024, according to the latest study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers and the Commonfund Institute—up from 7.7 percent in FY 2023 and negative returns in FY 2022.

The overall 10-year return averaged 6.8 percent, the study found.

In a press call Tuesday, Commonfund Institute executive director George Suttles noted that FY24 “was characterized by a strong U.S. economy, steady consumer spending, strong employment data, including higher wages, easing inflation accompanied by the prospect of lower interest rates, reasonable energy costs” and a prosperous technology sector, among other factors.

The endowment study also noted increased philanthropy in FY 2024. Donors contributed $15.2 billion in new gifts to university endowments included in the study—a nearly 20 percent bump from the $12.7 billion donated in FY23.

Altogether, 658 institutions with combined endowment values of almost $874 billion participated in the voluntary survey, with the median endowment value at $243 million. Nearly a third (30 percent) of the respondents reported an endowment valued at $100 million or less.

“While a handful of institutions receive wide public attention for the size of their endowments, the vast majority of colleges and universities are working with a much smaller set of resources,” NACUBO CEO Kara Freeman said on Tuesday’s press call. “And as we review the total market value, 86 percent was held by endowments with more than $1 billion in assets.”

NACUBO has conducted annual college endowment studies since 1974. This year’s iteration had slightly fewer participants than the 688 who responded last year.

Top Endowments

The nation’s richest institutions kept their status in this year’s study, with no changes among the top 10 and only minor fluctuations among the 25 universities with the largest endowments.

Harvard University is still the nation’s wealthiest institution with an endowment of almost $52 billion, followed by the University of Texas system ($47.4 billion), Yale University ($41.4 billion), Stanford University ($37.6 billion) and Princeton University, with just over $34 billion.

Endowment values grew at all of the five wealthiest universities except Princeton.

Though average annual one-year returns for FY 2024 were 11.2 percent, the nation’s top 25 wealthiest universities mostly missed that mark. The outlier among those was Johns Hopkins University, which had a nearly 24 percent one-year return in FY 2024.

In all, 149 of the 658 participating institutions reported endowments valued at or over $1 billion.

Endowment Performance

Like last year, smaller endowments performed better on one-year returns than large ones. Institutions with endowments valued under $50 million saw an average return of 13 percent, while those with endowments over $5 billion had the lowest one-year returns, with an average of 9.1 percent.

However, larger endowments outperformed smaller ones over the long term.

Across the 10-year mark, institutions with assets above $5 billion reported returns of 8.3 percent, compared to 6.5 percent for those with less than $50 million. Large endowments also fared better on 25-year returns, reporting 8.5 percent compared to 4.5 percent for those under $50 million.

On the spending side, endowments funded an average of 14 percent of the annual operating budgets at the institutions surveyed, up from 10.9 percent in FY23. That figure was slightly higher at institutions with multibillion-dollar endowments.

Study respondents spent a total of $30 billion from their endowments in FY24, up from $28.4 billion in FY23. The most common use of endowment dollars was for financial aid.

Issues Affecting Endowments

With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, college leaders have publicly and privately fretted about the likelihood that Republicans will ratchet up endowment taxes.

During his first term, the Trump administration passed an endowment excise tax of 1.4 percent on investment income at universities with endowment holdings of at least $500,000 per student and a minimum of 500 students. Earlier this month, Republican congressman Mike Lawler proposed raising that rate to 10 percent and changing the per-student endowment threshold from $500,000 to $200,000, which would affect more institutions. Another legislative proposal would raise that rate to 21 percent.

In a question-and-answer session on Tuesday’s press call, the tax issue was the first to arise.

Freeman said NACUBO “remains opposed to the endowment excise tax,” arguing that it “diminishes the charitable resources that would otherwise be available” to universities for financial aid, student services, academic support, research and innovation, among other uses.

Mark Anson, CEO of Commonfund, said the tax could hit some universities hard, including many Ivy League institutions whose robust endowments make up a higher percentage of their operating budgets.

On the press call, Inside Higher Ed asked about the fallout of last spring’s pro-Palestinian protests, in which students at numerous universities demanded divestment of their endowment holdings from Israel or companies profiting off the war in Gaza. While the study did not touch on that issue, experts noted the protests sparked questions from colleges; Anson said some asked for more information about their holdings.

While colleges have largely rejected student divestment demands, one win for protesters has been more transparency around institutional investments.

“What’s come out of this is a continued push for transparency around how endowments are invested,” Suttles said. “Thinking about transparency for stakeholders is an important part of this work. I am encouraged by the calls for transparency, but in terms of actual investment or divestment strategies and a shift in that, we haven’t seen much from our perspective.”

Source link

February 12, 2025
Community college to reconsider removed DEI materials

Des Moines Area Community College is planning to reintroduce to its website some materials related to diversity, equity and inclusion that it had removed in anticipation of anti-DEI legislation, The Iowa Capital Dispatch reported.

The college first removed information about DEI on Jan. 25 in response both to President Trump’s executive order banning DEI “preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” and to a state bill that would have prohibited DEI offices at community colleges. That bill was later tabled.

The institution’s president, Rob Denson, told the Board of Trustees that the institution is now reviewing what information can be returned to its website. “What can come back, will come back,” he said.

Source link

February 12, 2025
Trump appoints Biden critic Nicholas Kent as undersecretary

The announcement was leaked Tuesday evening.

J. David Ake/Getty Images

A vocal critic of the Biden administration will oversee the nation’s colleges and universities, according to a document obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

The president appears set to pick Nicholas Kent, Virginia’s former deputy secretary of education, to be under secretary at the federal education department—one of several appointees included on the document. Also on the list is Kimberly Richey, senior chancellor of the Florida Department of Education, who will be appointed assistant secretary for civil rights. (The White House has yet to make an official announcement, but sources say the list of appointees should be transmitted to the Senate soon.)

Kent, who previously worked for a trade association representing for-profit colleges, will have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Currently, James Bergeron is serving as acting under secretary. During his first term, Trump didn’t appoint an under secretary, so the pick is the latest signal that his team is more prepared and more focused on higher education this time around.

“Nicholas Kent is one of the most knowledgeable higher education experts, possessing extensive technical expertise and a profound understanding of the complexities of education policy,” Jason Altmire, president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, said in a statement Tuesday night. “He is eminently qualified for the role of Under Secretary and will work on behalf of schools and students across all sectors of higher education.”

The batch of appointees comes a day before Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, Linda McMahon, will appear before a senate committee for her confirmation hearing.

Kent has worked in Virginia since August 2023, overseeing the state’s postsecondary strategy. Before that, he was the chief policy officer at CECU, which represents for-profit colleges. In his role at CECU, Kent pushed back against several of the Biden administration’s policies. Now, he’ll likely be an influential voice on higher education in the Trump administration.

Trump’s first three weeks in office have rocked higher education as he’s moved quickly to target diversity, equity and inclusion programs at colleges and elsewhere in the private sector and the promotion of “gender ideology.” His administration temporarily paused grant reviews at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. That pause and other moves in the last three weeks have created much uncertainty for colleges.

Kent will be a key figure in carrying out Trump’s orders and translating the president’s vision into policy. He’ll also bring more policy experience to the leadership team at the Education Department. Trumps’ president-elect’s nominee for education secretary, Linda McMahon has limited experience in the world of education policy, but is seen as a loyal Trump lieutenant and business mogul.

In Virginia, Kent has worked under Gov. Glenn Youngkin, whom some have described as a Trump surrogate. Younkgin has made it a clear priority to increase the government’s influence and oversight of higher education institutions, disallow diversity, equity and inclusion programs and combat antisemitism and “anti-religious bigotry.”

Before that, Kent worked for for-profit colleges, advocating for cutting the red tape found in several key policies of the Biden administration.

“The Higher Education Act specifically limits the authority of the department to pierce the corporate veil and hold individuals financially responsible,” Kent told Inside Higher Ed in April 2023. “[The Biden] administration proposes to exceed this authority through new regulations and subjective guidance.”

The deputy also holds a master’s degree in higher ed administration from George Washington University and has worked as both director of policy at the D.C. state superintendent of education’s office and a staff member at Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools. He is quite familiar with the Education Department’s complex rulemaking process and policy issues that frequently cross the desks of department officials, including Title IX, student loan repayment, accreditation and online education.

Kent has also indirectly voiced support for Trump’s idea of abolishing the education department, or at least significantly whittling down the scope of its influence.

“Congress established @usedgov 43 years ago today,” he wrote in a post on X. “I can’t help but wonder if lawmakers who voted for the Department of Education Organization Act envisioned a massive Federal takeover of K-12 and postsecondary education.”

Richey, the appointee set to lead the Office for Civil Rights, also spent time in Virginia, serving as deputy superintendent overseeing the division of School Quality, Instruction and Performance at the Virginia Department of Education before she left for Florida. Prior to that, she worked in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s first term.

Richey has spoken out against critical race theory, the Tallahassee Democrat reported.

“The teaching of CRT’s core tenets can be destructive and have a deep impact on students,” she wrote in 2021. “No child is defined by the color of their skin. Moreover, the teaching of these devastating principles violates the basic religious tenets many of these schools claim to uphold.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Richey will play a key role in the Trump administration’s crackdown on transgender athletes. In the last few weeks, Trump has banned transgender athletes from women’s sports, and the Office for Civil Rights has opened up several investigations related to that policy change.

Richey supported the administration’s position during the first term, arguing in September 2020 that transgender girls who play on the sports team that corresponds with their gender identity discriminated against female-student athletes.

Source link

February 12, 2025
Hands off Our Healthcare, Research, Education & Jobs (Higher Ed Labor United)

Without mass resistance, these attacks will
result in layoffs, program & school closures, and devastation to
local economies that depend on the economic impact of our colleges and
universities. Higher ed workers – long facing growing job precarity –
are now facing unprecedented job insecurity.

In February 19, at actions across the country, higher education workers, students, and allies will get in the streets and loudly proclaim: Hands off our healthcare, research, and jobs!

Source link

February 11, 2025
Three questions for Cornell’s Paul Krause
Whenever I have a question about building a new online program, the first person I go to is almost always Paul Krause. At Cornell University, Paul serves as the vice provost of external education and executive director of eCornell. I asked Paul if he’d be willing to answer my questions for this community, and he graciously agreed.

Q: Help us understand your role at Cornell. What is eCornell, and what role does a vice provost of external education play at the university? Can you share some key metrics?

A: I lead the universitywide effort to extend Cornell’s reach to nontraditional students—those not in a residential degree program. My role includes leading eCornell, a centralized organization within the provost’s office that collaborates with each of our academic units to develop programs. Our portfolio includes online professional certificates, executive education, online degree program support and various social impact initiatives. The eCornell team is also responsible for outreach to organizations and individuals who can benefit from our programs.

Due to an early start—eCornell has been operational for over 24 years—and with the backing of academic leadership, such as the president, provost and deans, eCornell has expanded to encompass all 13 of Cornell’s colleges and schools. Last year, we offered more than 200 noncredit online certificate programs, created with over 250 faculty members. We engaged over 160,000 funded students, including individuals, enterprises supporting employee development or philanthropic partners aiming for social impact.

Q: When you think about the next three to five years in online learning and higher education, what are you most excited about and what keeps you up at night?

A: I’m excited by AI’s potential to revolutionize online courses through personalization and new ways to engage students. We can already incorporate remarkable new ways to engage with students with interactives, simulations and coaching support.

However, I also worry that AI could exacerbate the trend toward online learning becoming a “lone wolf” experience devoid of human interaction—a trend driven by good intentions to lower costs and expand access. Not every individual thrives in a 100 percent self-directed learning setting, and in many cases, something is lost without authentic instructor feedback and structured dialogue with peers. At eCornell, we are seeking to find a balance between integrating AI innovations and real human engagement with instructors and among peers.

Moving forward, I hope that online programs embrace AI to enhance efficiency and engagement while preserving the valuable social aspects of collaborative learning that drive deeper understanding and support student success. Otherwise, online learning will be a very lonely experience and never achieve its full potential.

In line with this theme, especially concerning noncredit professional certificates, colleges and universities should clearly define the educational experiences that merit a certificate from their institution. Currently, professional certificates lack industry standards for regular and substantial student engagement. The rise of prominent marketplaces and aggregators providing certificate programs through affordable subscription models has led to many certificate programs approaching the lowest common denominator of self-paced click-through experiences.

While this instruction might be effective for certain students in certain programs—and AI will certainly enhance those experiences—it fundamentally differs from a program that involves instructors and peer discussions. For certificate programs to signal significance in the long run, institutions must evaluate if the educational experience and outcomes justify awarding a credential linked to their brand.

Q: Your path to a university leadership role in digital and online education did not follow a traditional academic career. For early and midcareer professionals currently working outside a university, and who may be interested in a university leadership role, what career advice would you give?

A: My transition from ed-tech leadership to Cornell University a decade ago offered an extraordinary opportunity to drive meaningful change in higher education. Based on my experience, here is my advice for professionals considering a similar path:
- Advance the mission. In my experience, educational institutions must balance social impact with financial sustainability, particularly in nondegree programs. I’ve found the key is demonstrating how serving external learners advances the institution’s fundamental goals while generating the resources needed to sustain that impact. Success lies in helping stakeholders understand how financial sustainability enables and amplifies our mission-driven outcomes.
- Seek mentors. Throughout my journey, I’ve been fortunate to receive mentorship from experienced academic leaders who have helped me navigate the distinct institutional culture, competing priorities and decision-making processes that characterize higher education.
- Lead through collaboration. I’ve learned that institutional change in academia requires an especially deep level of collaboration and strategic patience. Success comes from building strong partnerships across units and helping stakeholders see shared benefits. In my experience, the key is creating frameworks where stakeholders can advance their priorities together.
For professionals considering this path, I encourage you to embrace your unique perspective while maintaining a learning mindset. Success comes from exercising patience as you adapt to the academic environment and focusing on advancing shared goals through collaborative partnerships.
Source link
February 11, 2025
More college students report history of suicidal behaviors
Colleges and universities can support students with previous history of suicidal ideation or self-harm with long-term counseling or mental health support.

PeopleImages/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Over the past two decades, suicide rates in the U.S. have increased 37 percent, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. Fifteen percent of all deaths by suicide are among individuals ages 10 to 24 years old, making it the second leading cause of death for this age group.

This heightened risk has pushed colleges and universities to invest in preventative measures to address the complex issues that impact student well-being.

A January report from Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH) finds that students with a history of suicidal or self-injurious behaviors report lower levels of distress after engaging with counseling center services, but they remain at higher levels of distress over all compared to their peers.

Methodology

The report includes data from the 2023–24 academic year, beginning July 2023 and closing June 2024. Data was collected from 213 college and university counseling centers, including 173,536 unique students seeking care, 4,954 clinicians and over 1.2 million appointments. The data is not representative of the general student population, only those accessing mental health services.

By the numbers: The number of students reporting previous suicidal or self-injurious behavior (S/SIB) histories jumped four percentage points from 2010–11 to 2023–24, according to CCMH data.

“While counseling centers have historically treated a considerable segment of students with heightened suicide risk, ongoing questions remain about the complexity of co-occurring problems experienced, the scope of services they utilize, and whether gaps in care exist,” according to the report.

Compared to their peers without a history of S/SIB, these learners had higher levels of self-reported distress, particularly in symptoms of generalized anxiety, general distress and depression. They were also more likely to report a history of trauma or past hospitalization.

Students had a higher likelihood of continuing to demonstrate self-injurious thoughts or behaviors, compared to other students, but the overall rates remained low, with only 3.3 percent of students with past S/SIB reporting it during college counseling.

They were 14.3 times more likely to engage in self-injury and 11.6 times more likely to attempt suicide during treatment, and more than five times more likely to be admitted or referred to a hospital for a mental health concern. This, again, constituted a small number of students (around one in 180) but researchers noted the disproportionate likelihood of these critical case events.

Ultimately, students with suicidal or self-injurious behavior history saw similar benefits from accessing services compared to their peers, with data showing less generalized distress or suicidal ideation among all learners between their first and final assessments. However, they still had greater levels of distress, even if slightly lower than initial intake, showing a need for additional resources, according to researchers.

“The data show that students with a history of suicidal or self-injurious behaviors could benefit from access to longer-term and comprehensive care, including psychological treatment, psychiatric services and case management at counseling centers, as well as adjunctive support that contributes to an overall sense of well-being, such as access to disability services and financial aid programs,” said Brett Scofield, executive director for the CCMH, in a Jan. 28 press release.

Future considerations: Researchers made note that while prior history of suicidal behaviors or self-harm are some of the risk factors for suicide, they are not the only ones, and counseling centers should note other behaviors that could point to suicidal ideation, such as substance use or social isolation.

Additionally, some centers had higher rates of students at risk for suicide, ranging from 20 to 50 percent of clients, so examining local data to understand the need and application of data is critical, researchers wrote.

The data also showed a gap in capacity to facilitate longer-term care, such as case management or psychiatric services available, which can place an additional burden on clinicians or require outsourcing for support, diluting overall quality of care at the center. “Therefore, it is imperative that colleges and universities invest in under-resourced counseling centers to ease the burden on counseling center staff and optimize treatment for students with heightened suicide risk,” according to the report.

Investing in on-site psychological treatment or psychiatric care and finding creative solutions to work alongside outside partners can help deliver more holistic care.
Other trends: In addition to exploring how college counseling centers can address suicidality in young people, CCMH researchers built on past data to illustrate some of the growing concerns for on-campus mental health service providers.

Rates of prior counseling and psychotropic medication usage grew year over year and are at the highest level since data was first collected in 2012. A 2023 TimelyCare survey found six in 10 college students had accessed mental health services prior to entering college, and CCMH data echoed this trend, with 63 percent of students entering with prior counseling history.

The number of clients reporting a history of trauma remains elevated, up eight percentage points compared to 2012, though down slightly year over year, at 45.5 percent, compared to last year’s 46.8 percent.

Anxiety is the most common presenting concern, with 64.4 percent of clients having anxiety, as assessed by clinicians.

In-person counseling services have rebounded since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with 63.7 percent of clients receiving exclusively in-person counseling and 13.5 percent receiving only video care.
We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our weekday newsletter on Student Success.

If you or someone you know are in crisis or considering suicide and need help, call the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing 9-8-8, or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.
Source link
February 11, 2025
Three things to know about AI and the future of work (opinion)
Since the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, artificial intelligence has rocketed from relative obscurity to near ubiquity. The rate of adoption for generative AI tools has outpaced that of personal computers and the internet. There is widespread optimism that, on one hand, AI will generate economic growth, spur innovation and elevate the role of quintessential “human work.” On the other hand, there’s palpable anxiety that AI will disrupt the economy through workforce automation and exacerbate pre-existing inequities.

History shows that education and training are key factors for weathering economic volatility. Yet, it is not entirely clear how postsecondary education providers can equip learners with the resources they need to thrive in an increasingly AI-driven workforce.

Here at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’s Education Research and Opportunity Center, we are leading a three-year study in partnership with the Tennessee Board of Regents, Advance CTE and the Association for Career and Technical Education to explore this very subject. So far, we have interviewed more than 20 experts in AI, labor economics, career and technical education (CTE), and workforce development. Here are three things you should know.
1. Generative AI is the present, not the future.
First, AI is not new. ChatGPT continues to captivate attention because of its striking ability to reason, write and speak like a human. Yet, the science of developing machines and systems to mimic human functions has existed for decades. Many people are hearing about machine learning for the first time, but it has powered their Netflix recommendations for years. That said, generative AI does represent a leap forward—a big one. Simple machine learning cannot compose a concerto, write and debug computer code, or generate a grocery list for your family. Generative AI can do all of these things and infinitely more. It certainly feels futuristic, but it is not; AI is the present. And the generative AI of the present is not the AI of tomorrow.

Our interviews with experts have made clear that no one knows where AI will be in 15, 10 or even five years, but the consensus predicts the pace of change will be dramatic. How can students, education providers and employers keep up?

First, we cannot get hung up on specific tools, applications or use cases. The solution is not simply to incorporate ChatGPT in the classroom, though this is a fine starting point. We are in a speeding vehicle; our focus out the window needs to be on the surrounding landscape, not the passing objects. We need education policies that promote organizational efficiency, incentivize innovation and strengthen public-private partnerships. We need educational leadership focused on the processes, infrastructure and resources required to rapidly deploy technologies, break down disciplinary silos and guarantee learner safeguards. We need systemic and sustained professional development and training for incumbent faculty, and we need to reimagine how we prepare and hire new faculty. In short, we need to focus on building more agile, more adaptable, less siloed and less reactive institutions and classrooms because generative AI as we know it is not the future; AI is a harbinger of what is to come.
1. Focus on skills, not jobs.
It is exceedingly difficult to predict which individual occupations will be impacted—positively or negatively—by AI. We simply cannot know for certain whether surgeons or meat slaughterers are at greatest risk of AI-driven automation. Not only is it guesswork, but it is also flawed thinking, rooted in a misunderstanding of how technology impacts work. Tasks constitute jobs, jobs constitute occupations and occupations constitute industries. Lessons from prior technological innovations tell us that technologies act on tasks directly, and occupations only indirectly. If, for example, the human skill required to complete a number of job-related tasks can be substituted by smart machines, the skill composition of the occupation will change. An entire occupation can be eliminated if a sufficiently high share of the skills can be automated by machines. That said, it is equally true (and likely) that new technologies can shift the skill composition of an occupation in a way that actually enhances the demand for human workers. Shifts in demands for skills within the labor market can even generate entirely new jobs. The point is that the traditional approach to thinking of education in terms of majors, courses and degrees does learners a disservice.

By contrast, our focus needs to be on the skills learners acquire, regardless of discipline or degree pathway. A predictable response to the rise of AI is to funnel more learners into STEM and other supposed AI-ready majors. But our conversations, along with existing research, suggest learners can benefit equally from majoring in liberal studies or art history so long as they are equipped with in-demand skills that cannot (yet) be substituted by smart machines.

We can no longer allow disciplines to “own” certain skills. Every student, across every area of study, must be equipped with both technical and transferable skills. Technical skills allow learners to perform occupation-specific tasks. Transferable skills—such as critical thinking, adaptability and creativity—transcend occupations and technologies and position learners for the “work of the future.” To nurture this transition, we need innovative approaches to packaging and delivering education and training. Institutional leaders can help by equipping faculty with professional development resources and incentives to break out of disciplinary silos. We also need to reconsider current approaches to institutional- and course-level assessment. Accreditors can help by pushing institutions to think beyond traditional metrics of institutional effectiveness.
1. AI itself is a skill, and one you need to have.
From our conversations with experts, one realization is apparent: There are few corners of the workforce that will be left untouched by AI. Sure, AI is not (yet) able to unclog a drain, take wedding photos, install or repair jet engines, trim trees, or create a nurturing kindergarten classroom environment. But AI will, if it has not already, change the ways in which these jobs are performed. For example, AI-powered software can analyze plumbing system data to predict problems, such as water leaks, before they happen. AI tools can similarly analyze aircraft systems, sensors and maintenance records to predict aircraft maintenance needs before they become hazardous, minimizing aircraft downtime. There is a viable AI use case for every industry now. The key factor for thriving in the AI economy is, therefore, the ability to use AI effectively and critically regardless of one’s occupation or industry.

AI is good, but it is not yet perfect. Jobs still require human oversight. Discerning the quality of sources or synthesizing contradictory viewpoints to make meaningful judgments remain uniquely human skills that cut across all occupations and industries. To thrive in the present and future of work, we must embrace and nurture this skill set while effectively collaborating with AI technology. This effective collaboration itself is a skill.

To usher in this paradigm shift, we need federal- and state-level policymakers to prioritize AI user privacy and safety so tools can be trusted and deployed rapidly to classrooms across the country. It is also imperative that we make a generational investment in applied research in human-AI interaction so we can identify and scale best practices. In the classroom, students need comprehensive exposure to and experience with AI at the beginnings and ends of their programs. It is a valuable skill to work well with others, and in a modern era, it is equally necessary to work well with machines. Paraphrasing Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia: Students are not going to lose their jobs to AI; they will lose their jobs to someone who uses AI.

Cameron Sublett is associate professor and director of the Education Research and Opportunity Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Lauren Mason is a senior research associate within the Education Research and Opportunity Center.
Source link
February 11, 2025
The Danger of Homogenisation: Why specialist HEIs are crucial to the success of UK Higher Education and the Government’s priorities

Today on the HEPI website, Annamaria Carusi challenges the common assumption that translational research is only relevant to STEM fields, making the case for a broader, more integrated approach that fully values the contributions of the arts and humanities. If we want to maximize the real-world impact of research, she argues, it is time to rethink outdated silos and recognize the creative industries as essential players in innovation and economic growth. You can read that piece here.

Below, as the government considers higher education reform, Dr Brooke Storer-Church and Dr Kate Wicklow make the case for specialist higher education institutions and warn against the dangers of homogenisation.

GuildHE represents the most diverse range of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that are crucial to the prosperity of the sector, the economy, and our global reputation. We therefore argue that in an increasingly complex world, the role of specialist higher education institutions has never been more vital. These institutions, with their deep-rooted expertise and tailored approach, offer a unique and invaluable contribution to the landscape of higher education by providing diverse approaches and pathways to a wide range of students.

Diversity is a necessary ingredient for a successful and sustainable higher education sector, and this is becoming clearer from an analysis of the United States landscape, along with Australia and other large higher education systems. Expert commentators grappling with some of the current challenges for American universities and colleges offer a hypothesis, positing that losing the diversity of mission and distinctiveness, objectives and audiences has been key to its diminishing public support. This homogenisation includes institutional, mission, operational, and aspirational similarities, which see every institution strive to ‘be all things to all people’ and thereby offer ‘the same thing for only some of the people.’

In November, the Secretary of State wrote to the higher education sector outlining five areas for reform. GuildHE has scrutinised these areas and suggested to the Department for Education (DfE) ways to use the strengths of our sector to meet these challenges. However, some of the debate surrounding reform includes calls for consolidation and institutional mergers to offer the best ‘efficiencies’ in the sector.

While GuildHE members drive innovation, enrich communities and ensure access to high-quality education, their impact is often overlooked because they are not traditional, large-scale, multi-faculty universities. Funding and regulatory systems and government policies often fail to recognise institutions that do not fit this conventional university image. We, therefore, argue consolidation in the sector puts institutional diversity and student choice at risk, jeopardises our world-leading status, and undermines the Government’s missions of supporting local communities, equality of opportunity and our national economy.

Overall, we want to see Government reform which champions our diversity, avoids policies that undermine the unique contributions of our diverse institutions, and actively invests to protect them.

A focus on depth and industrial relevance

Unlike their more generalist counterparts, specialist HEIs prioritise depth over breadth. They delve into specific disciplines, professions or industries, providing students with a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their chosen field. This focused approach fosters a level of knowledge and skills that is often unmatched elsewhere and is increasingly in demand to tackle 21st-century challenges.

Whilst GuildHE is known for representing specialist creative arts institutions, which together train about 40% of all creative HE students in England, we represent a wider range of specialists, including healthcare specialists like Health Sciences University, specialists in the built environment like University College of Estate Management (which is also a specialist in online delivery) and all the land-based specialist universities in the sector. The agri-food sector employs almost 4 million people and is larger than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. Technological innovations and sustainability and productivity improvements are driven by our specialist land-based institutions, which work closely with industrial partners. This specialist expertise is transforming the future of food production, bringing together disciplines such as robotics and artificial intelligence and contributing to the broader push towards net-zero food and farming. Several agriculture-focused higher education providers have their own farms and industrial research centres for testing and development.

Nationally, our institutions work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, right across government and with industry sector bodies; for example, Harper Adams University has advised the government on matters related to food security. Their impact is also international, as agri-food HEIs work with the Department for International Trade to boost the profile of UK agricultural innovation overseas and educational and research and development programmes are forged with international partners from the US and China to Kenya, Australia and the Netherlands.

A culture of innovation

As natural innovators, many specialist institutions know their regions well and will be a critical part of generating economic growth there. They are locally significant as employers and community anchors and active partners in Local Enterprise Partnerships and other local bodies, such as Chambers of Commerce. Below is just a small sample of the innovations delivered by our specialist institutions.

Norwich University of the Arts collaborated with regional businesses to innovate film technology that mid-size regional film production companies use. The project created new jobs in Norfolk, boosted film production for regional, small-scale productions and start-ups, and the insights gained from the project were incorporated into the university curriculum. By equipping students with cutting-edge knowledge and skills, NUA is empowering them to contribute to the region’s growing knowledge-based economy by equipping them with cutting-edge knowledge and skills.

Dyson Institute for Engineering and Technology is training the future workforce of engineers with a particular focus on pioneering new technologies that make intrinsically relevant real-world impacts. Innovation areas include delivering safe, cleaner, energy-efficient batteries, prototyping products in aerodynamics, mechatronics and microbiology and robotics for clinical imaging, navigation technology and machine learning.

Hartpury University is a leading institution for agriculture, agri-tech, animal and veterinary sciences. Its Agri-Tech Centre is a state-of-the-art complex, connecting research, knowledge, data, and people in a real-world and applied setting. Through the Centre, it provides industry-led services for the advancement of agricultural technologies and delivers proven solutions and services to farms and suppliers across the UK. This hub offers a path for innovative agri-tech businesses to trial new products and services to modernise and sustain British farming.

A sense of community

One of the defining characteristics of specialist HEIs is their strong sense of community. Students, staff and alumni often share a common passion for their field, creating a supportive and inspiring environment. This sense of community fosters a deep sense of belonging and can lead to lifelong friendships and professional networks.

Arts University Plymouth’s Young Arts programme was established in 1988. It features the university’s renowned Saturday Arts Clubs and for over 30 years, has worked to bridge the gap in arts provision for young people created by increasingly limited access to creative activity in schools. Young Arts uses art as a catalyst for learning, shaping the artists, makers and creative thinkers of the future, supporting learning and social development, often working with specific widening participation groups.

Starting in September 2025, Harper Adams University (HAU) will open a suite of undergraduate courses at The Quad, Telford; its first additional site in 124 years and a new base from which the university can extend its collaboration with and connection to its local community. In The Quad, HAU is co-located with Telford College, Invest Telford, and the local MP to broaden access for local learners to future-focused courses like data science, robotics mechatronics and automation, and digital business. HAU is also providing short courses and upskilling for local businesses to support local growth.

Our asks of government

As we argue extensively in our submission to DfE, specialist HEIs offer a diverse range of programmes and courses that meet the needs of a wide range of students and community partners and meet each of the five areas of higher education reform. They are, therefore, the essential threads in the fabric of our diverse, rich and successful higher education landscape; threads that have been regrettably lost in other systems around the world. Their focus on depth, industry partnerships, innovation and community makes them uniquely positioned to prepare students for success in a rapidly changing world. As we look to the future, it is clear that specialist HEIs must continue to play a vital role in shaping the next generation of leaders and innovators.

Observations about the increasing homogeneity of higher education have been available publicly for at least 2 decades, with some suggesting that a combination of government policies, regulation and academic communities are all playing their part. Regardless of the reasons behind it, there is widespread agreement that such homogeneity restricts access for students with different educational backgrounds or achievements.

Global trend analysis has shown that government policies, regulation and academic communities have all contributed to the homogeneity of higher education in other countries. This reduces social mobility by reducing modes of entry and delivery. It also weakens applied research and innovation and the pipeline of experts into the labour market, as it loses its ability to create the growing variety of specialisations needed for economic and social development.

At a time when we, as a sector, are grappling with the twin pressures of making our contributions to wider society clearer and delivering the promise with fewer resources, we must all protect the very diversity within it that ensures we can rise to the 21st-century challenges on our doorstep and retain a world-leading and (possibly) increasingly unique higher education sector.

We have published a summary of our submission to DfE with our various policy asks to protect the diversity of our system here.

Source link

February 11, 2025
A call for more transparent college pricing (opinion)

Despite frequent media reports about the high cost of college, many students pay much less than the eye-catching sticker price. Students enrolled at four-year institutions living away from their parents face the highest sticker prices. But only around a quarter or fewer of those enrolled at public institutions (for state residents) or private nonprofit four-year institutions pay that sticker price. The remainder receive financial aid. Even most high-income students receive merit-based aid. How are they supposed to know how much they will have to pay?

Here is how colleges and universities could help. They can provide students with tools that lead them through a financial aid “information funnel.” Provide limited financial details (just family income?) and get an instant ballpark estimate at the top of the funnel. Provide a few more details, get a better, but still ballpark estimate. Keep going until you get an actual price. Extreme simplicity at the beginning of the process facilitates entry; the funnel should have a wide mouth. If the result is below sticker price, it can promote further investigation. Along the way, positive reinforcement through favorable results (if they occur) supports students continuing through the funnel.

Courtesy of Phillip Levine

This approach represents a significant advance over past practices, as I detail in a report newly released by the Aspen Economic Strategy Group (AESG). Historically, colleges provided no preliminary estimates. Students filed their financial aid forms (FAFSA and perhaps CSS Profile), applied to a college, and received their admissions decision and financial aid offer (if admitted) at the same time. Who knows how many students didn’t bother to apply because they believed they couldn’t afford it?

This began to change in 2008. The Higher Education Act was amended at that time to require institutions to provide “net price calculators” by 2011 that were intended to provide early cost estimates. Unfortunately, the well-intended policy hasn’t been very effective because these tools often are not user-friendly. They may represent a useful step higher up the funnel relative to the ultimate financial aid offer, but they remain toward its bottom.

Other steps have been taken along the way attempting to provide greater pricing information to prospective students. The government launched new webpages (the College Navigator and the College Scorecard), which provide college-specific details regarding the average “net price” (the amount students pay after factoring in financial aid). But the average net price mainly helps students with average finances determine their net price. Besides, using the median rather than the average would lessen the impact of outliers. It’s a much better statistic to capture the amount a typical student would pay in this context. Additional data on net prices within certain income bands are also available, but they still suffer from the biases introduced by using the average net price as well. What students really want and need is an accurate estimate of what college will cost them.

The most recent advance in college price transparency is the creation of the College Cost Transparency Initiative. This effort represents the response of hundreds of participating institutions to a Government Accountability Office report detailing the inconsistency and lack of clarity in financial aid offer letters. To participate, institutions agreed to certain principles and standards in the offer letters they transmit. It is an improvement relative to past practice, but it also is a bottom-of-the-funnel improvement. It does not provide greater price transparency to prospective students prior to submitting an application.

Institutions have also engaged in other marketing activities designed to facilitate communication of affordability messaging. Some institutions have begun to provide offers of free tuition to students with incomes below some threshold. The success of the Hail Scholarship (now repackaged as the Go Blue Guarantee) at the University of Michigan supports such an approach. Many of these offers, though, do not cover living expenses, which is a particular problem for students living away from their parents. In those instances, such offers may be more misleading than illuminating.

In 2017, I founded MyinTuition Corp. as a nonprofit entity designed to provide pricing information higher up in the financial aid information funnel. Its original tool, now used by dozens of mainly highly endowed private institutions, requires users to provide basic financial inputs and receive a ballpark price estimate. More recently, MyinTuition introduced an instant net price estimator, which is currently operational at Washington University in St. Louis, based solely on family income. Given the limited financial details provided, those estimates include some imprecision; the tool also provides a range of estimates within which the actual price is likely to fall. These tools are an easy entry point into the process, which is what the top of the funnel is designed to accomplish. More such efforts are necessary.

If we could do a better job communicating the availability of financial aid, it would also contribute to better-informed public discussions about college pricing and access. One recent survey found that only 19 percent of adults correctly recognized that lower-income students pay less to attend college than higher-income students. It is a legitimate question to ask whether the price those students pay is low enough. But we cannot even start the discussion with such limited public understanding of how much students across the income distribution pay now. Any step that colleges and universities can take to facilitate that understanding would be helpful. Improving the transparency in their own pricing certainly would be an important step they can take.

Phillip Levine is the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College and the founder and CEO of MyinTuition Corp.

Source link

February 10, 2025
Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

Many readers might have had an experience along the following lines. You’re on a call, in a meeting, at an event – and someone just happens to let slip that they are doing a postgraduate apprenticeship through their work.

Questions bubble up: isn’t this person someone in a position to fund their own studies? Or perhaps: don’t they already have a master’s degree? You might even be thinking: your manager really lets you duck out of work for training so often?

Now this is pure anecdote – and forgive me if it’s not quite as frequent as I’m assuming – but it’s proved to be a pretty powerful one as debates over apprenticeships have percolated in the press and in the back of policymakers’ minds for the last few years. Allied with controversies over supposed “MBA apprenticeships” (or more recently, MBA top-ups and management training for senior executives), it’s led fairly directly to where we are now.

The government has announced that “a significant number” of level 7 apprenticeships will be removed from levy eligibility in England. The accompanying enjoinder for employers to fund them by other means (if they so choose) is likely the death knell for most of the affected courses, given that without the incentive of levy spending they will largely look like ungainly, over-regulated and rather long bits of exec ed.

Now we still don’t know exactly what decision the government is going to take. And Labour’s moves here do have other motivations – the policy intention is to stop employers spending their allowances on (older, already qualified) existing staff, and therefore give them a free hand to take on younger apprentices at lower levels, including with so-called “foundation apprenticeships”, though there is zero detail on how this shift in employer training priorities is expected to come about.

But still – if this was the only priority, money could have come from elsewhere. The fact remains that level 7 apprenticeships have various black marks hanging over them, whether or not justified, which have made them a safe target to go after. Is it really a good use of taxpayers’ money to fund long and expensive courses of what is overwhelmingly in-work training?

Whose fund is it anyway?

A big part of the issue, however, is this sense that the levy is really “taxpayers’ money”. It isn’t – it’s half a per cent of an employer’s annual pay bill, assuming said pay bill is £3m or more. Alison Wolf’s recent report for the Social Market Foundation vividly spells out the issue here – employers have become hyper-aware of what they “owe” and are incentivised to spend it as fast as they can, a perverse incentive of the current system which has made level 7 programmes more attractive than policymakers assumed.

Much of Labour’s current skills policies have their genesis in a period when employers were not successfully deploying their own levy contributions, and there was a question of how better to direct underspends. This is very much not where we are now. And there are many employers who are not well set-up to pivot to entry-level apprenticeships (think solicitors, for example), or who are stressing their own workforce’s need for higher-level upskilling and pursuing productivity gains rather than a larger headcount.

It could be that the non-apprenticeship part of the growth and skills levy will help square this circle – employers will be able to invest in shorter, possibly more useful workforce training this way, rather than running headlong towards level 7 programmes as the only game in town. The problem is that the government has gone very quiet about this, and we have no sense of what kind of courses will be in scope here.

And much like with the employer national insurance rise, it doesn’t seem to have been thought through how publicly-funded bodies are meant to respond here – NHS trusts and local councils being big users of the apprenticeship levy, by dint of their size. If the government doesn’t want them spending their levy funds on this type of provision, is it asking them to spend cash from elsewhere in their budgets?

Caught in the middle

Stuck between employers’ wishes and government’s aims (or the imagined taxpayer investment) are those education and training providers who have poured resources into making higher-level apprenticeships work. And when we’re talking about level 7 qualifications, it’s universities that have done a lot of the running.

If you had said a decade ago that many if not most universities would be founding and scaling up teams dedicated to reaching out to employers, thinking about training needs, even coordinating levy transfers across partners and supply chains (as the Edge Foundation’s recent research found) – well, it would have sounded like something dreamed up by a think tank, a laudable ambition unlikely to ever come true. And yet, here we are.

The Department for Education and Skills England may decide to limit only a couple of standards – as the chart below shows, simply scrapping the Accountancy and Taxation Professional and Senior Leader standards would dramatically change the landscape (though we’d likely be back in the same position in a few years having a similar conversation about the Senior People Professional and Systems Thinking Practitioner ones).

But once the government starts taking a pick-and-mix approach to standards (as opposed to letting a properly independent arms-length body do so), it opens the door to it happening again and again. If there is a substantial defunding of level 7 apprenticeship standards, expect the next few years to see targets on the back of others, even at level 6 – and an accompanying disincentive for universities to keep pressing ahead seeking out partnerships with employers.

The removal from levy eligibility of standards that currently have a high uptake will have an immediate impact on those providers invested in them. Below, DK has charted apprenticeship starts by higher education institution (and a few other public bodies as they are lumped together in the DfE data, though as you may have noticed above some for-profit universities appear in the private sector category instead).

The default view in this chart shows level 7 starts in 2023–24, broken down by standards, so that you can plumb the impact on different providers of different approaches to defunding. And if you’re getting nervous about what else Skills England might fancy doing once it’s finally got the level 7 announcement out of the way, you can look at provision at other levels too.

Source link

February 10, 2025