Tag: Higher

Normalize the Gap Year (opinion)

We’re two admissions leaders working to reframe how families and institutions think about the gap year. I’m Carol, a former college admissions dean with more than 20 years in higher education, and I’m also a therapist who works with teens. My co-author, Becky Mulholland, is director of first-year admission and operations at the University of Rhode Island. Together, we’re building a new kind of gap year model, one that centers on intention, purpose and career readiness for all.

The gap year concept is overdue for a cultural reset. Most popular options on the market focus on travel, outdoor adventure or service learning, but they rarely emphasize self-exploration in conjunction with career readiness or curiosity about the future of work. The term itself is widely misunderstood and sometimes dismissed. Despite its reputation as a luxury for the privileged, it’s often the families juggling cost, stress and uncertainty who stand to gain the most from a well-supported pause.

For many families, college is the most expensive decision they’ll ever make. Taking time to pause, reflect and plan shouldn’t be seen as risky—it should be seen as wise. At 17 or 18, it’s a lot to ask a young person to know what they want to do with the rest of their life. A 2017 federal data report found that about 30 percent of undergrads who had declared majors changed their major at least once, and about 10 percent changed majors more than once. These shifts often lead to extra courses and sometimes an extra semester or even a year. That’s a lot of wasted money for families who could have benefited from a more intentional pause.

And yet for many parents, the phrase “gap year” still stirs anxiety. They imagine their child lying on a couch for three months, doing nothing, or worse, never learning anything useful and losing all momentum to return to school. The idea feels foreign, risky and hard to explain. They don’t know what to tell their friends or extended family. We push back on that fear and work to normalize the idea of intentional, structured time off. It’s not just for the elite—it needs to be reclaimed as a culturally acceptable norm. That’s why we champion paid, structured earn-while-you-learn pathways such as youth apprenticeships, paid internships, stipend-backed fellowships and employer-sponsored projects that keep income stable while skills grow.

We personally promote the value of intentional pauses when talking with families and prospective students about college, helping them reframe what a year of growth and clarity can mean. We also strongly support programs with built-in pause requirements before graduate school. I’ve read thousands of applications as a dean and witnessed how powerful that year can be when it’s well guided.

Gap years, when framed and supported correctly, can foster self-discovery, emotional growth and direction. But the gap year industry itself also needs to evolve. The industry should move toward models that prioritize intentional career exploration, rooted not only in personal growth and self-awareness but in helping students find a sense of fulfillment in their future careers and lives. If colleges acknowledged the value of these experiences more visibly in their advising models and admissions narratives, they could relieve pressure on families and students and potentially reduce dropout rates and improve long-term outcomes.

We believe it’s time for higher education to actively support and normalize the gap year, not as an elite detour, but as a practical and often necessary path to college and career success. It’s time to give students and their families permission to pause.

Carol Langlois is chief academic officer at ESAI, a generative AI platform for college applicants, and a therapist who specializes in working with teens. She previously served in dean, director and vice provost roles in college admissions.

Becky Mulholland is director of first-year admission and operations at the University of Rhode Island.

Becky and Carol both serve on the Policy Subcommittee of the National Association for College Admission Counseling’s AI in College Admission Special Interest Group.

Source link

October 20, 2025
Subcontractual higher education beyond the headlines
We’ve written a lot about subcontractual provision on Wonkhe, and it is fair to say that very little of it has been positive.

What’s repeatedly hit the headlines, here and elsewhere, are the providers that teach large numbers of students in circumstances that have sparked concerns about teaching quality, academic standards, and indeed financial probity or even ethics.

There are a fair number of students that are getting a very bad deal out of subcontractual agreements and, although we’ve been screaming about this for several years, it is good to finally see the beginnings of some action.

Student number tools

The long-awaited release of OfS data is not perfect – there’s lots that we’d love to see that does not appear to have been delivered. One of these is proper student numbers: it should be possible to see data on how many students are studying at each subcontracted provider at the last census point.

Instead, we are scrabbling around with denominators and suppressions trying to build a picture of this part of the sector that is both heavily caveated and three years out of date. This isn’t good enough.

And it is a shame. Because as well as the horror show, the data we do have offers a glimpse of a little known corner of higher education that arguably deserves to be celebrated.

I’ve developed some new visualisations to help you explore the data – these add substantial new features to what I have previously published. Both these dashboards work in broadly the same way – the first allows you to examine relationships at delivery providers, the second at lead providers. You choose your provider of interest at the top left, which shows the various relationships on a map on the left hand side. On the right you can see denominator numbers for each year of data – you can use the filter at the top right to see information about the total number of students who might be continuing, completing, or progressing in a given year.

Each row on the right hand side shows a combination of provider (lead provider on the first dashboard, delivery provider on the second), mode, and level – with denominators and suppression codes available in the coloured squares on the right. The suppression codes are as follows:
- [DQ]: information suppressed due to low data quality from the 2022-23 collection
- [low]: There are more than 2 but fewer than 23 students in the denominator
- [none]: There are 2 students or fewer in the denominator
- [DP]: Data redacted for reasons of data protection
- [DPL]: Data redacted for reasons of data protection (very low numbers,
- [DPH]: Data redacted for reasons of data protection (within 2 of the denominator)
- [RR] below threshold response rate (for progression)
- [BK] no benchmarks (the benchmark includes at least 50 per cent of the provider’s students)
You can see available indicators (including upper and lower confidence intervals at 95%), benchmarks, and numeric thresholds by mousing over one of the coloured squares. The filled circle is the indicator, the outline diamond is the benchmark, and the cross is the threshold.

[Full screen]

[Full screen]

A typology

It’s worth noting the range of providers that are subcontracted to deliver higher education for others. There were an astonishing 681 of these between 2014 and 2022.

A third of those active in delivering provision for others (227) are registered with the Office for Students in their own right. Fifty-nine of these are recognisable as universities or other established higher education providers – including 14 in the Russell Group.

Why would that happen? In some cases, a provider may not have had the degree awarding powers necessary for research degrees, so would partner with another university to deliver particular courses. In other cases, the peculiarities of this data mean that apprenticeship arrangements are shown with the university partner. There’s also some examples of two universities working together to deliver a single programme.

We also find many examples of longstanding collaborations between universities and teaching organisations in the arts. Numerous independent schools of dance, drama, and music have offered higher education qualifications with the support of a university – the Bird School’s relationship with the Doreen Bird College of Performing Arts began in 1997. Italia Conti used to have an arrangement with the University of East London, it now works with the University of Chichester.

There are 135 organisations delivering apprenticeships in a relationship with an OfS-registered higher education provider. Universities often offer end point assessment and administrative support to employers and others who offer apprenticeships between level 4 and level 7.

Two large providers – Navitas and QA – offer foundation courses and accredited year one courses for international students at UK universities: QA also offers a range of programmes aimed at home undergraduates. We could also add Into as a smaller example. This dataset probably isn’t the best place to see this (QA is shown as multiple, linked, organisations) but this is a huge area of provision

Seventy-four subcontracted providers are schools, or school centred initial teacher training (SCITT) organisations. As teacher training has gradually moved closer to the classroom and away from the lecture hall, many schools offer opportunities to gain the industry-standard Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE), which is the main route to qualified teacher status. A PGCE is a postgraduate qualification and is thus only awarded by organisations with postgraduate degree awarding powers.

In total there are 144 providers subcontracted to deliver PGCE (initial teacher training) courses, primarily schools, local councils, and further education colleges (FECs). There are 166 FECs involved in subcontracted delivery – and this extends far beyond teacher training. Most large FECs have a university centre or similar, offering a range of foundation and undergraduate courses often (but not always) in vocational subjects. The Newcastle College Group used its experience of delivering postgraduate taught masters courses for Canterbury Christ Church University to successfully apply for postgraduate degree awarding powers – the first FEC to do so.

We find 23 NHS organisations represented within the data. Any provider delivering medical, medical related, or healthcare subjects will have a relationship with one or more NHS foundation trust – as a means to offer student placements, and bring clinical expertise into teaching. This is generally an accreditation requirement. But in many cases, the relationship extends to the university awarding credit or qualifications for the learning and training that NHS staff do. The Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust works with multiple providers (the University of Oxford, Oxford Brookes University, and Buckinghamshire New University), to offer postgraduate apprenticeships in clinical and non-clinical roles.

Nine police organisations (either constabularies or police and crime commissioners) have subcontractual relationships with registered higher education providers. Teesside University works with the Chief Constable of Cleveland to offer an undergraduate apprenticeship for prospective police officers.

All three of the UKs armed forces have subcontractual relationships with higher education providers. The British Army currently works with the University of Reading to offer undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in leadership and strategic studies – in the past it has offered a range of qualifications from Bournemouth University. Kingston University has a relationship with the Royal Navy, currently offering an MSc in Technology (Maritime Operations) undertaken entirely in the workplace.

Ecosystem

When I talk to people about franchise and partnership arrangements, most (perhaps thinking of the examples that make the mainstream press) ask me whether it would not be easier to simply ban such arrangements. After all, it is very difficult to see any benefit from the possibly fraudulent and often low quality behavior that is plastered all over The Times on a regular basis.

As I think the data demonstrates, a straight-ahead ban would be hugely damaging – swathes of national priorities and achievements (from NHS staff development, to offering higher education in “cold spots”, to the quality of performances on London’s West End) would be adversely affected. But the same could be said for increases in regulatory overheads.

There are a handful of very large providers (I’d start with Global Banking School, Elizabeth School of London, Navitas, QA, Into, London School of Science and Technology, and a few others – and from the data you’d have included Oxford Business Colleges) that are, effectively, university-like in size and scope. It is very difficult to understand why these are not registered providers given the scale of their operations (GBS, Into, and Navitas already are) and this does seem to be the right direction of travel.

There are a clutch of medium-sized delivery providers, often in a single long-standing relationship with a higher education institution. Often, these are nano-specialisms, particularly in the creative arts or in locally important industries. In many of these cases oversight on quality and standards from the lead provider has been proven over a number of years to work well – and there seems little benefit to changing this arrangement. I would hope for this group – as is likely to happen for the FECs, SCITTs, NHS, police, and armed forces – that a change to regulatory oversight only happens where there is an issue identified.

There is also a long tail of very small arrangements, often linked to apprenticeships (and regulated accordingly). For others at this end of the scale it is difficult to imagine OfS having the time or the capacity to regulate, so almost by default oversight remains with the lead partners. I know I say this in nearly every article, but at this end it feels like we need some kind of regular review of the way quality processes work for external providers within lead providers – we need to be sure lead providers are able to do what can be a very difficult job and do it well.
Source link
October 19, 2025

How higher education became a get rich quick scheme

Sometimes, the problem with both media coverage and regulation is that critique of a part of the sector taints it all.

When ministers or media outlets find sharp practice in recruitment or failings in student support, everything from OfS Insight Briefs to Sunday Times splashes can feel like the whole class being kept in for lunch when you weren’t making any noise.

So has been the case for franchising. A specific group of universities has been subcontracting out to a specific group of private colleges in recent years – a group which has rightly picked up attention from the media, the National Audit Office (NAO), the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Office for Students (OfS), the Student Loans Company (SLC) and the Department for Education (DfE).

Independent HE, for example, have argued elsewhere on the site that while they strongly support a tougher regime around franchising, the proposed approach of requiring only larger providers (300+ students) to register would be insufficient – missing many bad actors while creating administrative bottlenecks and failing to hold lead providers properly accountable for their partners. Instead, they advocate for universal basic registration for all teaching providers.

Now, following last week’s long-awaited publication of data on subcontractual partnerships from OfS, we’re pretty confident that it’s possible to isolate and identify a specific subset of undergraduate providers in the English sector.

Its defining characteristics are that its providers are privately owned, are (very much) for-profit, deliver non-specialist courses principally in Business and Management, and have been (very) rapidly expanding in recent years.

Last year OfS said that in some cases there has been an “exponential growth” in student numbers in subcontractual partnerships over the last few years, with some lead providers now teaching more students through these arrangements than directly on their own campuses.

It said that among other potential concerns, this raises questions about the direction of travel for the lead provider’s own strategic identity, aims and objectives.

Our definition of a specific sub-sector is not perfect. There are a number of providers whose wholly-owned or directly-delivered satellite campus operations share some of those characteristics. Student numbers have not been formally published, and as ever there is lag in the data in general.

In 2023-24, OfS’ student characteristics data dashboard shows that there were 101,950 students enrolled overall on subcontracted Business and Management courses – up from just 5,630 a decade ago.

And if we derive from full-time, first degree continuation statistics, aggregate where companies are owned by the same parent, and attach those characteristics to partnerships where the entrant population was 100 or more in 2023-24, we can see 16 providers that enrolled over 40,000 FT FD entrants in 2022.

Below threshold

Aggregating both multiple providers in a group, and this sub set in general, is not an exact science. For each partnership between a university and private college, OfS has only published a denominator population rounded to 5 – which makes precision impossible. But we can estimate this sub group’s outcomes “performance” by implying a numerator from the percentages, and recompiling the numbers.

The result is not stellar. In OfS’ press release to accompany the data, we learned that 77 per cent of FT FD subcontracted students continued courses into a second year, compared to 88 per cent in the sector as a whole. Against a regulatory minimum of 80 per cent, this group of providers averaged just 70 per cent.

We learned that 74 per cent of subcontracted students completed their course, compared to 87 per cent for the sector as a whole and a regulatory minimum of 75 per cent. This subgroup scored just 70 per cent.

The further out that a metric is from when students start, the longer it takes to pick up results – a real regulatory issue in a subsector that is expanding so rapidly. But when we look at progression to a graduate job or further study, it’s 71 per cent for the sector as a whole, 57 per cent of subcontracted students, and just 53 per cent of this subsector – against a regulatory minimum of 60 per cent.

These providers are almost certainly inflating the sector’s performance on access – especially for those who are doing the franchising-to – access and participation stats are not (yet) split by partnership. But they are also dragging down the sector’s performance on outcomes, and giving subcontracting a bad name – all three of the key metrics would likely be above threshold if this group was removed.

More importantly, if we follow OfS’ logic on outcomes and thresholds – that the figures are signals of whether students have the potential to succeed on the course, and receive good teaching and support through their studies – the group has been expanding yet failing.

One area, though, where the group is not failing, is on financial performance.

Healthy profits

In 2023, the Russell Group estimated that in 2022/23, English universities on average supplemented the cost of educating each UK undergraduate student by £2,500 per year, with all subjects now making a loss on average.

Not so much here in this sub sector. Because most of the 18 providers are not on the OfS register, the format (and even visibility) of annual accounts is uneven. Financial years and levels of disclosure differ, some are showing on Companies House as posting accounts late, and in many cases some of the income from fees moves up into a parent company in a way that prevents proper transparency.

But on the basis that the bulk of their income is tuition fees after any franchising fee retained by the university passing on the SLC money that it gets, and assuming that “cost of sales” usually covers the provision of education rather than administrative expenses that are often dominated by acquisition costs, we can calculate a gross profit for the latest year that figures are available for.

Below that line often huge dividends, director remuneration, domestic agent fees and the costs of renting space or borrowing from a parent co deflate the final profit figures. But in gross terms, notwithstanding that some of the group were micro-entities and exempt at last accounts publication, the group in scope posted gross profits of £504m on an income of £815m.

Company	Period end	Turnover (£)	Gross profit (£)	Note
Cecos Computing International Limited	31 Mar 2024	£ 20,269,818	£ 9,916,813
Elizabeth School of London Limited	31 Aug 2024	£ 74,947,093	£ 46,856,529
Fairfield School of Business Ltd	31 Aug 2024	£ 10,463,430	£ 7,254,024
Global Banking School Limited	29 Feb 2024	£ 233,566,242	£ 128,068,724
LCA (Education LTD + London LTD)	31 Dec 2024	£ 70,068,058	£ 36,388,054
Ld Training Services Limited	31 Aug 2024	£ 10,185,134	£ 9,460,083
London College of Contemporary Arts Ltd	31 May 2024	£ 25,360,932	£ 17,223,552
London PT College Limited	—	—	—	Not disclosed in abridged filings
London School of Commerce & IT Limited	31 Mar 2024	£ 6,385,138	£ 3,434,817
London School of Science & Technology Limited	30 Jun 2024 (15months)	£ 83,771,009	£ 62,903,105	Group figures as filed
Mont Rose College of Management and Sciences Limited	31 Aug 2024	£ 9,904,941	£ 8,489,293
Navitas UK Holdings Limited (group)	30 Jun 2024	£ 57,222,133	£ 27,004,304
Oxford Business College UK Limited	31 Aug 2023	£ 49,734,100	£ 31,030,795
QAHE (LM+NU+UR) Limited	31 May 2024	£ 60,800,000	£ 34,400,000
St. Piran’s School (GB) Limited	31 Dec 2024	£ 72,470,964	£ 59,211,778
UK College of Business and Computing Ltd	31 Jul 2024	£ 18,032,506	£ 14,196,396
Waltham International College Limited	31 Jul 2024	£ 12,127,614	£ 8,118,100
TOTAL		£ 815,309,112	£ 503,956,367

Figures like that should push any sensible policymaker into windfall tax territory – or at the very least taking some of that profit and using it to relieve students burdened by a lifetime of debt of some of the balance. But more broadly, perhaps policymakers should take a step back and ask whether what’s being facilitated here should be.

Avoiding scandals

Ever since I was sent a photo back in 2022 of a domestic agent’s pull-up banner in a London shopping centre inviting students to claim their £15,000 in maintenance support, we’ve been trying to get to the bottom of what’s been happening with franchising.

There’s a compelling reason for that. Franchising scandals over the last decade caused huge reputational damage for the sector and created an enormous regulatory distraction. When HEFCE and the Department for Education were spending their time devising ways to crack down on sharp practice, they weren’t focusing on improving the sector. The opportunity costs of franchising scandals are significant.

We could see what was coming – a repeat of the problem. The Office for Students, already stretched, would end up spending much of its time attempting to regulate the rapid expansion. There was real danger of further reputational damage for the sector.

What we’ve found are highly litigious providers, and real difficulty in getting the data we needed. We wanted to see who these rapidly expanding private companies were – companies specialising in “widening access” students, and lead providers appearing in graphs showing students claiming maintenance loans without fee loans.

And from a student perspective, one of the issues has long been that if they want to find out what the outcomes would be like, they can’t really tell.

This matters because almost all higher education advertising says “here’s what this has been like in the past, and so here’s what might happen to you.” The big problem was that when they apply to those providers, they are often told about the franchising provider’s outcomes – not the franchisee provider’s. They hear about the university’s figures for business studies, but can’t see the actual provider’s numbers.

Franchise partners change frequently, and course names change often. The historical data needed to support statistics on Discover Uni simply aren’t available. Given that providers often have franchising deals with multiple universities, it can’t be unreasonable to ask how well these colleges perform on continuation, completion and graduate employment – especially when so much advertising focuses on careers and improving life chances, while obscuring debt.

In OfS’ words:

This [data] will be useful for prospective students, lead providers responsible for registering the students, and institutions responsible for teaching students on these courses.

Even if the regulation was tightened, the incentives for the latter two of the parties on that list may be too strong to ever aspire beyond minimums. And for students – who have characteristics that are least frequently associated with an “informed actors in a choice market” ideal, even OfS’ data doesn’t show each of the franchised-to providers in aggregate.

Why?

This leaves us with a simple question. If the problem is non-specialist franchised provision – which certainly appears to be the case – why is the Department for Education funding it?

It’s not provision that’s otherwise unavailable. It’s not serving some niche that doesn’t already exist. Students with talent, drive and aspiration would still access traditional universities. Students unsuitable for full-time study would pursue other routes. Students who need more support would have more money spent on them if it wasn’t being delivered to the bottom line in profit.

This is, lest we forget, a part of the sector where expectations on harassment and sexual misconduct, or free speech, or charter work on mental health or fair admissions, are established only in part and often only in theory – and where student protection in the event of course, campus or provider closure is even thinner than it is elsewhere. Why are these risks concentrated on some of the least advantaged students in the sector?

There are now real risks in contraction. Already some of the providers on the list have closed campuses and shuttered courses. Have reportable events been made? Are students being compensated for any breach of contract? And what happens if any of these companies just collapse – when the lead provider is often hundreds of miles away? These are tasks the government needs to take on.

There are risks to allowing franchising, risks to allowing private providers to access the loan book, and risks to having no student number caps. In the last decade, the view was that the potential rewards were greater than risks. But notwithstanding the need to contract with care, it simply cannot be true that the world would be worse if these providers didn’t exist.

Many things could be done. We’ve made proposals over on the Post-18 Project on different ways to regulate and restrict what’s happening here that draw on valuable lessons from colleagues in FE. But at the simple core, it comes down to this – why does DfE think it’s worth the risk to keep open the student loan book to private providers through franchise agreements for non-specialist subject higher education?

The faster the government changes course, the faster all of us can turn our attention to improving higher education’s contribution to society and economic growth – rather than chasing around owners of colleges who, collectively, are getting rich off outcomes which OfS says are unacceptably poor.

Source link

October 19, 2025

Five myths: Higher education at this weekend’s Battle of Ideas
- HEPI Director, Nick Hillman OBE, spent some of his weekend listening to, and participating in, discussions about higher education at the Battle of Ideas at Church House in Westminster.
- Here are his remarks from a debate on whether we are now in ‘The Era of the Downwardly Mobile Graduate’.
Thanks for inviting me to speak. I agreed to do so for two reasons. First, the Battle of Ideas is a wonderful grassroots event. Secondly, Claire Fox invited me to speak immediately after the murder of Charlie Kirk. My daughter is keen on telling me where Charlie Kirk was misguided but, whether she is right or wrong, universities should be places where free and fervent debate thrives; not places where discussion gets closed down with a bullet. That should not need saying but, sadly, of course it does.

Last night, I went to a gig in Oxford by the fabulous band EMF – I first saw them as a fresher 35 years ago and, yes, they are still going. As you doubtless know, their most famous song is ‘Unbelievable’. And most of what we have heard, and are going to hear, is exactly that: unbelievable. Not in the ‘incroyable’ sense of the word, but in the sense that the claims are simply not true.

Let me explain in my few minutes why pretty much every point in the advertising blurb for this event is a myth.

Myth 1

We are told there are millions upon millions of people in ‘non-graduate roles’. But this relies on weird and poorly understood definitions of what graduate jobs are. Official definitions obviously rely on jobs being categorised into graduate and non-graduate.

My favourite critique of what this means comes from an – admittedly – old article by Peter Brant (on Wonkhe), which looked at the official classification from a few years ago, writing:

A civil servant who was promoted from an Executive Officer to a Higher Executive Officer would be moving from a graduate job to a non-graduate job. Managing an off-licence is a graduate job, managing a pub or a wine bar is a non-graduate job. A singer is a graduate role, a dancer is a non-graduate role. A clown is a graduate job, the manager of a circus is a non-graduate job. And – my personal favourite – a rag-and-bone man is a graduate job, an antiques dealer is a non-graduate job. The list goes on and on.

Myth 2

Myth number 2 is the idea that graduates ‘face grim prospects’. The OECD’s new Education at a Glance, which is an annual compendium of global education facts, shows this to be untrue.

Unemployment is much lower among UK graduates than among non-graduates – irrespective of subject area studied. Indeed, unemployment is much lower among UK graduates than graduates in other developed countries too.

OECD data, Education at a Glance https://www.hepi.ac.uk/events/launch-of-oecds-flagship-report-education-at-a-glance-2025-hosted-by-hepi-on-tuesday-9-september-2025/

There isn’t time to go into the huge other benefits of higher education but they include better physical and better mental health.

The OECD also show the UK does have a problem of low incomes. But this is not among graduates, where our outcomes are positive and comparable with those in other countries. We are literally at the bottom of the OECD league when it comes to earnings for people who have left school with low or no qualifications. They are the people being most let down.

Myth 3

The third myth in the blurb for today is that AI will remove the need for employers to recruit people with higher level skills. This is just a revamped version of John Maynard Keynes’s nonsense prediction that people at the end of this current decade would in future work for just 15-hours a week.

We published a collection of essays on AI last week. Perhaps the most thought-provoking one was by Professor Rose Luckin of the UCL Knowledge Lab. She argues persuasively that:

The AI revolution represents a pivotal moment where humans need to become more intelligent, not less, as we develop increasingly sophisticated tools.

Do come to our webinar on the back of the report early next month.

Myth 4

The fourth myth is that there are multiple really good alternative options to higher education. Ministers of different stripes have been telling us for years that there is about to be a huge expansion of apprenticeships for young people. Meanwhile, your children and mine are being pumped full of information about why they should do an apprenticeship rather than traditional higher education.

Yet the number of degree apprenticeships for school leaver is tiny, the number of apprenticeships has fallen since the Apprenticeship Levy was introduced and all those people who worry about university drop-outs should take a look at the high non-continuation rate for apprenticeships.

Apprenticeships don’t just happen because Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch say they should. Apprenticeships are jobs with training attached and the state of the labour market and the regulation of apprenticeships, not to mention the structure of the British economy, are not conducive to big increases in supply.

Myth 5

The final myth is the idea that there are tonnes of ‘disaffected university leavers’. Of course, higher education does not work out for all those who go all of the time. Indeed, we have shown in work with the University of Bristol that a high proportion of graduates would make a different choice, such as a different course and / or institution, if they were going back in time.

However, whether they chose exactly the right course or not, in our new work with King’s College Policy Institute, we show shows that a mere 8% of graduates regret their decision to enter higher education. Meanwhile other work shows younger graduates might have even lower regret rates than that.
Source link
October 19, 2025
Why Isn’t RSS More Popular By Now? – Teaching in Higher Ed

It was a bit of a relief to have well-traveled terrain as the today’s topic in Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop: Aggregators and RSS.

While I still want to drop everything going on in my life right now and dive deep into the topic from two days ago (the Cynefin Framework), that just isn’t realistic. This PKMastery workshop has been a wonderful blend of ideas that challenge me, coupled with topics that I always enjoy learning more about, but am not starting from scratch with…

RSS – Not-So-Popular

It seems RSS could really have used some help from Galinda in the musical, Wicked, in terms of getting popular. I wish aggregators and RSS were something that the vast majority of people knew about and had incorporated into their lifelong learning and sense-making. It’s strange to me that RSS has been around such a long time, yet still isn’t very common in organizations at all.

In case the terms (RSS and aggregators) are new to you, Common Craft’s RSS in Plain English from 18 years ago still checks out:

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I’ve got some good news for you, some bad news, and some real ugly news.

The good: There’s a ton of information on the internet, which has the potential to be transformative for us, as sense-making human beings.

The bad: We can’t keep up and the quantity of information just keeps on growing, yet not enough of us know ways to harness the possibilities.

The ugly: Some of us give up on thinking we’ll never be able to have a way of seeking, sensing, and sharing, so we resolve to just search for things at the exact moment we realize we have a specific question about something (a gap in our knowledge that we are aware of in that moment).

What gets missed here in “the ugly” (among other things) are the questions we don’t even realize that we have… The unknown unknowns… Not to mention misinformation/disinformation, etc.

Getting to Know RSS

Here are some RSS-related articles that I’ve saved on my digital bookmarking tool of choice: Raindrop:

Next, let’s take a look at how I’ve set things up to be a tap away from a world of possibilities for sense-making…

My RSS + Aggregation Tools

I use Inoreader as my RSS aggregator. That means that when I discover a source (news site, blog, newsletter, YouTube channel, etc.) that I discern will serve me up potentially useful information, I add it to Inoreader inside my existing folders (e.g. News, Technology, Business, Digital Pedagogy, Higher Ed, Thinkers). Each time one of those sources (called feeds in RSS nomenclature) posts something new, it automatically shows up as an unread item on Inoreader.

Thats where some people stop.

They download Inoreader’s app(s) and read their feeds on their computers or smart phones and they’re off to the races. Inoreader is both an RSS aggregator (keeping track of what feeds the user subscribes to, as well as which stories they have read/not read).

However, I’m picky about my reading experience and have gotten particular about being able to read via my iPad and navigate everything with just one thumb.

This is where you insert a joke about “who has two thumbs and can set up RSS aggregators and tools? ME.” Except that in my case, it actually only takes one thumb, using my preferred RSS reader.

Unread = The Best RSS Reader I’ve Ever Experienced

Those who read on iPads would be hard pressed to find a better RSS reader than Unread, especially if you want to be able to skim and scroll through headlines (you can set up Unread to automatically mark the items as read, as you scroll through them, making the navigation even easier).

Inoreader does the work behind the scenes of keeping track of all my subscriptions and what is read/unread. The Unread app then presents me with a “window” into all that “stuff” Inoreader is keeping track of in the background. Unread “syncs” with Inoreader. I don’t have much use of an RSS reader on my Mac, preferring to do most of my RSS consumption via my iPad, but I wanted to mention that even if you had a different app/service you preferred to use on your computer, Inoreader (and other RSS aggregators) are able to keep track across different RSS readers what you’ve read/unread.

Something Very Cool

Harold Jarche suggested that those of us who already have an aggregator / RSS workflow to share tips. I’ve kind of done that, already, above. But I will say that through his materials, I was delighted to discover that I can set up feeds for Mastodon #hashtags.

From Harold:

You can also subscribe to any Mastodon feed by adding .rss to the address, e.g. mastodon.social/@harold.rss

You can subscribe to #hashtags by appending .rss — e.g. https://mastodon.social/tags/pkmastery.rss

The PKMastery workshop is the gift that just keeps on giving. I’m looking forward to giving that a try this weekend. So cool.

Source link

October 18, 2025
Higher education data explains why digital ID is a good idea

Just before the excitement of conference season, your local Facebook group lost its collective mind. And it shows no sign of calming down.

Given everything else that is going on, you’d think that reinforcing the joins between key government data sources and giving more visibility to the subjects of public data would be the kind of nerdy thing that the likes of me write about.

But no. Somebody used the secret code word. ID Cards.

Who is she and what is she to you?

I’ve written before about the problems our government faces in reliably identifying people. Any entitlement– or permission– based system needs a clear and unambiguous way of assuring the state that a person is indeed who they claim they are, and have the attributes or documentation they claim to.

As a nation, we are astonishingly bad at this. Any moderately serious interaction with the state requires a parade of paperwork – your passport, driving license, birth certificate, bank statement, bank card, degree certificate, and two recent utility bills showing your name and address. Just witness the furore over voter ID – to be clear a pointless idea aimed at solving a problem that the UK has never faced – and the wild collection of things that you might be allowed to pull out of your voting day pocket that do not include a student ID.

We are not immune from this problem in higher education. I’ve been asking for years why you need to apply to a university via UCAS, and apply for funding via the Student Loans Company, via two different systems. It’s then never been clear to me why you then need to submit largely similar information to your university when you enroll.

Sun sign

Given that organs of the state have this amount of your personal information, it is then alarming that the only way it can work out what you earn after graduating is by either asking you directly (Graduate Outcomes) or by seeing if anyone with your name, domicile, and date of birth turns up in the Inland Revenue database.

That latter one – administrative matching – is illustrative of the government’s current approach to identity. If it can find enough likely matches of personal information in multiple government databases it can decide (with a high degree of confidence) that records refer to the same person.

That’s how they make LEO data. They look for National Insurance Number (NINO), forename, surname, date of birth, postcode, and sex in both HESA student records and the Department for Work and Pension’s Customer Information System (which itself links to the tax database). Keen Wonkhe readers will have spotted that NINO isn’t returned to HESA – to get this they use “fuzzy matching” with personal data from the Student Loans Company, which does. The surname thing is even wilder – they use a sound-based algorithm (SOUNDEX) to allow for flexibility on spellings.

This kind of nonsense actually has a match rate of more than 90 per cent (though this is lower for ethnically Chinese graduates because sometimes forenames and surnames can switch depending on the cultural knowledge of whoever prepared the data).

It’s impressive as a piece of data engineering. But given that all of this information was collected and stored by arms of the same government it is really quite poor.

The tale of the student ID

Another higher education example. If you were ever a student you had a student ID. It was printed on your student card, and may have turned up on various official documents too. Perhaps you imagined that every student in the UK had a student number, and that there was some kind of logic to the way that they were created, and that there was a canonical national list. You would be wrong.

Back in the day, this would have been a HESA ID, itself created from your UCAS number and your year of entry (or your year of entry, HESA provider ID, and an internal reference number if you applied directly). Until just a few years ago, the non-UCAS alternative was in use for all students – even including the use of the old HESA provider ID rather than the more commonly used UKPRN. Why the move away from UCAS – well, UCAS had changed how they did identifiers and HESA’s systems couldn’t cope.

You’re expecting me to say that things are far more sensible now, but no. They are not. HESA has finally fixed the UKPRN issue within a new student ID field (SID). This otherwise replicates the old system but with one important difference: it is not persistent.

Under the old approach, the idea was you had one student number for life – if you did an undergraduate degree at Liverpool, a masters at Manchester Met, and a PhD at Royal Holloway these were all mapped to the same ID. There was even a lookup service for new providers if the student didn’t have their old number. I probably don’t even need to tell you why this is a good idea if you are interested – in policy terms – in the paths that students within their career in higher education. These days we just administratively match if we need to. Or – as in LEO – assume that the last thing a student studied was the key to or cause of their glittering or otherwise career.

The case of the LLE

Now I hear what you might be thinking. These are pretty terrible examples, but they are just bodges – workarounds for bad decisions made in the distant past. But we have the chance to get it right in the next couple of years.

The design of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement means that the government needs tight and reliable information about who does what bit of learning in order that funds can be appropriately allocated. So you’d think that there would be a rock-solid, portable, unique learner number underpinning everything.

There is not. Instead, we appear to be standardising on the Student Loans Company customer reference number. This is supposed to be portable for life, but it doesn’t appear in any other sector datasets (the “student support number” is in HESA, but that is somehow different – you get two identifiers from SLC, lucky you). SLC also holds your NINO (you need one to get funding!), and has capacity to hold another additional number of an institution’s choice, but not (routinely) your HESA student ID or your UCAS identifier.

There’s also space to add a Unique Learner Number (ULN) but at this stage I’m too depressed to go into what a missed opportunity that is.

Why is standardising on a customer reference number not a good idea? Well, think of all the data SLC doesn’t hold but HESA does. Think about being able to refer easily back to a school career and forward into working life on various government data. Think about how it is HESA data and not SLC data that underpins LEO. Think about the palaver I have described above and ask yourself why you wouldn’t fix it when you had the opportunity.

Learning to love Big Brother

I’ll be frank, I’m not crazy about how much the government knows about me – but honestly compared to people like Google, Meta, or – yikes – X (formerly twitter) it doesn’t hugely worry me.

I’ve been a No2ID zealot in my past (any employee of those three companies could tell you that) but these days I am resigned to the fact that people need to know who I am, and I’d rather be more than 95 per cent confident that they could get it right.

I’m no fan of filling in forms, but I am a fan of streamlined and intelligent administration.

So why do we need ID cards? Simply because in proper countries we don’t need to go through stuff like this every time we want to know if a person that pays tax and a person that went to university are the same person. Because the current state of the art is a mess.

Source link

October 17, 2025
UVA the Fifth University to Reject Trump Higher Ed Compact

UVA officials told the Trump administration that they seek no special treatment.

Daxia Rojas/AFP via Getty Images

On a day of campus demonstrations urging officials to reject the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” the University of Virginia announced Friday that it opposes the president’s offer of yet-unrevealed special funding benefits in exchange for signing.

“The integrity of science and other academic work requires merit-based assessment of research and scholarship,” interim president Paul Mahoney wrote in a message Friday to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, which he shared with the university community. “A contractual arrangement predicating assessment on anything other than merit will undermine the integrity of vital, sometimes lifesaving, research and further erode confidence in American higher education.”

The compact asks colleges to agree to overhaul or abolish departments “that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” without further defining what those terms mean. It also asks universities, among other things, to commit to not considering transgender women to be women; reject foreign applicants “who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values”; and freeze “effective tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years.”

In exchange for these agreements, the White House has said signatories would “be given [funding] priority when possible as well as invitations to collaborate with the White House.” But the administration hasn’t revealed how much extra funding universities would be eligible for, and the nine-page compact doesn’t detail the potential benefits. The compact, as well as a Thursday statement from the White House, can also be read as threatening colleges’ current federal funding if they don’t sign.

Mahoney told McMahon that his university agrees “with many of the principles outlined in the Compact, including a fair and unbiased admissions process, an affordable and academically rigorous education, a thriving marketplace of ideas, institutional neutrality, and equal treatment of students, faculty, and staff in all aspects of university operations.”

“Indeed,” Mahoney wrote, “the University of Virginia leads in several of these areas and is committed to continuous improvement in all of them. We seek no special treatment in exchange for our pursuit of those foundational goals.”

The decision makes UVA the fifth of the nine initial institutions presented with the deal to publicly turn it down. It’s also the first public university and first Southern institution to reject it. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was the first of the nine to turn it down, on Oct. 10, followed by Brown University and the Universities of Pennsylvania and Southern California.

UVA’s rejection of the compact comes after the Trump administration successfully pressured then–UVA president James Ryan to step down in June. The Justice Department had demanded he step down. The UVA Board of Visitors voted to dissolve the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion office in March, but multiple conservative alumni groups and legal entities complained that Ryan failed to eliminate DEI from all corners of campus.

A coalition of groups opposed to the compact, including the UVA chapter of the American Association of University Professors, praised the rejection in a Friday news release.

“Today’s events demonstrate the power of collective organizing and action to defeat tyranny,” the statement said. “We hope that we serve as an example to the other public universities that received the ‘Compact’—the University of Texas, Austin, and the University of Arizona—giving them the courage and clarity not to buckle.”

UVA faculty groups had overwhelmingly urged university leaders to reject the compact. And hundreds of demonstrators showed up to the anti-compact rally Friday on the UVA campus in Charlottesville, Cville Right Now reported.

Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University also haven’t revealed their decisions. But after MIT announced its refusal of the compact, Trump offered it to all U.S. colleges and universities to sign.

White House officials met Friday with some universities about the proposal. The Wall Street Journal reported that UVA, Arizona, Dartmouth, UT Austin and Vanderbilt were invited, along with universities that weren’t part of the original nine: Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston compared the compact in a statement to calls from former Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, who she said “called on our universities to be of greater service to the nation.”

“President Trump has called on universities to do their part in returning America to its economic and diplomatic successes of the past: a nation of full employment, pioneering innovations that change the world, and committed to merit and hard work as the ingredients to success,” she said, adding the administration hosted “a productive call” with several universities.

A White House official said UVA and the other seven invited universities participated in the call.

“They now have the baton to consider, discuss, and propose meaningful reforms, including their form and implementation, to ensure college campuses serve as laboratories of American greatness,” Huston said.

Source link

October 17, 2025
UVA, Dartmouth Reject Trump Compact

The University of Virginia and Dartmouth College have become the latest higher ed institutions to publicly reject the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” Now just three of the nine institutions that the federal government originally presented with the document have yet to announce whether they will sign.

UVA announced Friday that it opposes the offer of yet-unrevealed special funding benefits in exchange for signing the compact. The statement came the day of an on-campus demonstration urging university leaders not to sign. Dartmouth unveiled its response Saturday morning. Both rejections came despite the universities attending a meeting Friday with White House officials about the deal.

“As I shared on the call, I do not believe that the involvement of the government through a compact—whether it is a Republican- or Democratic-led White House—is the right way to focus America’s leading colleges and universities on their teaching and research mission,” Dartmouth president Sian Leah Beilock wrote in a message to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, which the president also shared with her community.

“Our universities have a responsibility to set our own academic and institutional policies, guided by our mission and values, our commitment to free expression, and our obligations under the law,” Beilock wrote. “Staying true to this responsibility is what will help American higher education build bipartisan public trust and continue to uphold its place as the envy of the world.”

Beilock hasn’t been a publicly outspoken opponent of Trump; at a Heterodox Academy conference in June, she said, “It’s really a problem to say just because the administration, with many things that we all object to, is suggesting something inherently means it’s wrong.” But she also said back then that “we shouldn’t have the government telling us what to do.”

In a message Friday to McMahon, also shared with the community, UVA interim president Paul Mahoney wrote that “the integrity of science and other academic work requires merit-based assessment of research and scholarship. A contractual arrangement predicating assessment on anything other than merit will undermine the integrity of vital, sometimes lifesaving, research and further erode confidence in American higher education.”

The compact asks colleges to agree to overhaul or abolish departments “that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” without further defining what those terms mean. It also asks universities, among other things, to commit to not considering transgender women to be women; reject foreign applicants “who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values”; and freeze “effective tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years.”

In exchange for these agreements, the White House has said signatories would “be given [funding] priority when possible as well as invitations to collaborate with the White House.” But the administration hasn’t revealed how much extra funding universities would be eligible for, and the nine-page compact doesn’t detail the potential benefits. The compact, as well as a Thursday statement from the White House, can also be read as threatening colleges’ current federal funding if they don’t sign.

Mahoney told McMahon that his university agrees “with many of the principles outlined in the Compact, including a fair and unbiased admissions process, an affordable and academically rigorous education, a thriving marketplace of ideas, institutional neutrality, and equal treatment of students, faculty, and staff in all aspects of university operations.”

“Indeed,” Mahoney wrote, “the University of Virginia leads in several of these areas and is committed to continuous improvement in all of them. We seek no special treatment in exchange for our pursuit of those foundational goals.”

The decisions make UVA the fifth and Dartmouth the sixth of the nine initial institutions presented with the deal to publicly turn it down. UVA is also the first public university and first Southern institution to reject it. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was the first of the nine to turn it down, on Oct. 10, followed by Brown University and the Universities of Pennsylvania and Southern California.

UVA’s rejection of the compact comes after the Trump administration successfully pressured then–UVA president James Ryan to step down in June. The Justice Department had demanded he step down. The UVA Board of Visitors voted to dissolve the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion office in March, but multiple conservative alumni groups and legal entities complained that Ryan failed to eliminate DEI from all corners of campus.

A coalition of groups opposed to the compact, including the UVA chapter of the American Association of University Professors, praised the rejection in a Friday news release.

“Today’s events demonstrate the power of collective organizing and action to defeat tyranny,” the statement said. “We hope that we serve as an example to the other public universities that received the ‘Compact’—the University of Texas, Austin, and the University of Arizona—giving them the courage and clarity not to buckle.”

UVA faculty groups had overwhelmingly urged university leaders to reject the compact. And hundreds of demonstrators showed up to the anticompact rally Friday on the UVA campus in Charlottesville, Cville Right Now reported.

Alongside Arizona and UT Austin, Vanderbilt University also hasn’t revealed its decision. But after MIT announced its refusal of the compact, Trump offered it to all U.S. colleges and universities to sign.

White House officials met Friday with some universities about the proposal. The Wall Street Journal reported that UVA, Dartmouth, Arizona, UT Austin and Vanderbilt were invited, along with universities that weren’t part of the original nine: Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston compared the compact in a statement to efforts from former presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, who she said “called on our universities to be of greater service to the nation.”

“President Trump has called on universities to do their part in returning America to its economic and diplomatic successes of the past: a nation of full employment, pioneering innovations that change the world, and committed to merit and hard work as the ingredients to success,” she said, adding the administration hosted “a productive call” with several universities.

A White House official said UVA and the other seven invited universities participated in the call.

“They now have the baton to consider, discuss, and propose meaningful reforms, including their form and implementation, to ensure college campuses serve as laboratories of American greatness,” Huston said.

Source link

October 17, 2025
White House to Meet With Universities Regarding Compact

The Trump administration wants colleges to make a number of changes to their policies in order to get an edge in grant funding.

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

After four universities rejected the Trump administration’s compact for higher education, the White House is planning to meet Friday afternoon with the remaining five that have yet to respond.

A White House official confirmed plans of the meeting to Inside Higher Ed but didn’t say what the purpose of the gathering was or which universities would attend. Nine universities were asked to give feedback on the wide-ranging proposal by Oct. 20.

The virtual meeting will likely include May Mailman, a White House adviser, and Vincent Haley, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, according to a source with knowledge of the White House’s plans. Mailman, Haley and Education Secretary Linda McMahon signed the letter sent to the initial nine about the compact.

So far, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California have publicly rejected the deal. Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University haven’t said whether they’ll agree to the compact. Trump officials have said that the signatories could get access to more grant funding and threatened the funding of those that don’t agree.

After USC released its letter rejecting the proposal, Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, told the Los Angeles Times that “as long as they are not begging for federal funding, universities are free to implement any lawful policies they would like.”

Following the first rejection from MIT last Friday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that all colleges could now sign on. The White House has said that some institutions have already reached out to do so.

The source with knowledge of the White House’s plans said that the meeting “appears to be an effort to regain momentum by threatening institutions to sign even though it’s obviously not in the schools’ interest to do so.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis were also invited. According to the Journal, the goal of the meeting was to answer questions about the proposal and to find common ground with the institutions.

Former senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and trustee at Vanderbilt, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the compact was an example of federal overreach akin to previous efforts to impose uniform national standards on K–12 schools.

“Mr. Trump’s proposed higher education compact may provoke some useful dialogue around reform,” he wrote. “But the federal government shouldn’t try to manage the nation’s 6,000 colleges and universities.”

Inside Higher Ed reached out to the remaining five institutions as well as the new invitees, but they haven’t responded to a request for comment or to confirm whether they’ll attend the meeting.

Source link

October 17, 2025
White House Meets With Universities Regarding Compact

After four universities rejected the Trump administration’s compact for higher education, the White House met Friday with some universities about the proposal.

A White House official confirmed plans of the meeting to Inside Higher Ed but didn’t say what the purpose of the gathering was or which universities would attend. Nine universities were asked to give feedback on the wide-ranging proposal by Oct. 20.

The virtual meeting planned to include May Mailman, a White House adviser, and Vincent Haley, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, according to a source with knowledge of the White House’s plans. Mailman, Haley and Education Secretary Linda McMahon signed the letter sent to the initial nine about the compact.

So far, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California have publicly rejected the deal. Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Texas at Austin, and Vanderbilt University haven’t said whether they’ll agree to the compact. UVA said late Friday afternoon that it wouldn’t agree to the proposal.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis were also invited. According to the Journal, the goal of the meeting was to answer questions about the proposal and to find common ground with the institutions.

Inside Higher Ed reached out to the universities, but none confirmed whether they attended the meeting.

The nine-page document would require universities to make a number of far-reaching changes from abolishing academic departments or programs that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas” to capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15 percent. Institutions also would have to agree to freeze their tuition and require standardized tests for admissions, among other provisions.

Trump officials have said that the signatories could get access to more grant funding and threatened the funding of those that don’t agree. The Justice Department would enforce the terms of the agreement, which are vague and not all defined.

After USC released its letter rejecting the proposal, Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, told the Los Angeles Times that “as long as they are not begging for federal funding, universities are free to implement any lawful policies they would like.”

Following the first rejection from MIT last Friday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that all colleges could now sign on. The White House has said that some institutions have already reached out to do so.

The source with knowledge of the White House’s plans said that the meeting “appears to be an effort to regain momentum by threatening institutions to sign even though it’s obviously not in the schools’ interest to do so.”

Former senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and trustee at Vanderbilt, wrote in a Journal op-ed that the compact was an example of federal overreach akin to previous efforts to impose uniform national standards on K–12 schools.

“Mr. Trump’s proposed higher education compact may provoke some useful dialogue around reform,” he wrote. “But the federal government shouldn’t try to manage the nation’s 6,000 colleges and universities.”

A Joint Warning

The American Council on Education and 35 other organizations warned in a joint statement released Friday that “the compact’s prescriptions threaten to undermine the very qualities that make our system exceptional.”

The organizations that signed requested the administration withdraw the compact and noted that “higher education has room for improvement.”

But “the compact is a step in the wrong direction,” the letter states. “The dictates set by it are harmful for higher education and our entire nation, no matter your politics.”

The letter is just the latest sign of a growing resistance in higher ed to the compact. Faculty and students at the initial group of universities rallied Friday to urge their administrators to reject the compact. According to the American Association of University Professors, which organized the national day of action, more than 1,000 people attended the UVA event.

And earlier this month, the American Association of Colleges and Universities released a statement that sharply criticized the compact. The statement said in part that college and university presidents “cannot trade academic freedom for federal funding” and that institutions shouldn’t be subject “to the changing priorities of successive administrations.” Nearly 150 college presidents and associations have endorsed that statement.

The joint statement from ACE and others, including AAC&U, was a way to show that the associations, which the letter says “span the breadth of the American higher education community and the full spectrum of colleges and universities nationwide,” are united in their opposition.

“The compact offers nothing less than government control of a university’s basic and necessary freedoms—the freedoms to decide who we teach, what we teach, and who teaches,” the statement reads. “Now more than ever, we must unite to protect the values and principles that have made American higher education the global standard.”

But not everyone in the sector signed on.

Key groups that were absent from the list of signatories include the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of American Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, Career Education Colleges and Universities, and the American Association of Community Colleges.

Inside Higher Ed reached out to each of those groups, asking whether they were invited to sign and, if so, why they chose not to do so. Responses varied.

AAU noted that it had already issued its own statement Oct. 10. AASCU said it was also invited to sign on and had “significant concerns” about the compact but decided to choose other ways to speak out.

“We are communicating in multiple ways with our member institutions and policymakers about the administration’s request and any impact it might have on regional public universities,” Charles Welch, the association’s president, said in an email.

Other organizations had not responded by the time this story was published.

Jessica Blake contributed to this article.

Source link

October 17, 2025