Tag: Major

  • Liverpool University’s India campus to open in major Bangalore township

    Liverpool University’s India campus to open in major Bangalore township

    While more details are expected at the University of Liverpool India’s launch event in Bangalore on December 15, the campus in the integrated township — which includes residential, commercial, and institutional facilities — will feature “flexible spaces”, according to the university.

    The campus will have smart classrooms, research and collaborative spaces, specialised labs, and comprehensive co-working hubs for faculty, students, and entrepreneurs, offering a “state-of-the-art, 360-degree learning environment” for its inaugural cohort, set to begin in August 2026.

    “We are looking forward to welcoming our inaugural cohort of talented students in 2026 and providing them with an exceptional learning experience that strengthens their skills and employability,” said Lucy Everest, chief operating officer, University of Liverpool.

    She visited Bangalore and Mumbai this week to meet educators, potential applicants, and alumni as the university plans to grow the campus to 5,000 students in five years and 10,000 in 10.

    “Alembic City is the perfect place to realise this vision and our new campus will provide our students with the very best facilities to support their learning journey with us.”

    By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students
    Tim Jones, University of Liverpool

    The university has also opened admissions for 2026, offering postgraduate programs in accounting and finance and computer science, alongside undergraduate courses in business management, biomedical sciences, computer science, accounting and finance, and a game design program — “which combines the university’s music and computer science departments, something not many other UK campuses are offering in India”, according to vice-chancellor, Tim Jones.

    “What we will ensure is that there’s a ‘Liverpool feel’ to the campus. Students who come to the University of Liverpool, Bangalore, should experience the distinctive elements of Liverpool,” Jones told The PIE News.

    “There will be unique features in the design that I hope students will really appreciate.”

    For Jones — who was part of the 126-member UK delegation to India led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which included entrepreneurs, cultural figures and university leaders following the landmark trade deal between the two countries — Bangalore was a natural choice for the new campus for a range of reasons.

    The city, a major IT hub with leading Indian and multinational tech and biotech firms, is familiar ground for the red-brick Russell Group university, which has a long-standing, research partnership with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) and ongoing collaborations with the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore. Both institutions also happen to have two of the world’s oldest and most prominent biochemistry departments.

    Moreover, one of the University of Liverpool’s biggest corporate partners is Unilever, which has an R&D centre in Bangalore, with pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca and IT firms like Wipro also expected to play a role in research, innovation and industry collaboration through the India campus.

    “We did explore other cities, but it was quite easy for us to pick Bangalore because we had already begun building strong relationships in the city and the wider Karnataka region,” stated Jones, who praised the city’s tech-entrepreneurial culture and the opportunities it offers for a university to “engage, collaborate and grow”.

    “By the time we open next summer, we’ll have developed relationships with a wide range of businesses and social enterprises in Bangalore, which will be really important for students. This is a big focus for us this year — we have already started, and we’ll be doing much more.”

    In the lead-up to the campus opening next year, the University of Liverpool will focus on faculty exchanges between the Liverpool and Bangalore campuses, attracting international students, and expanding scholarship opportunities for its India-based cohort, according to Jones.

    But the university — which views global engagement and partnerships as central to its Liverpool 2031 strategy — is not the only UK institution advancing its India campus plans.

    Nine UK universities now have approval to establish campuses in the South Asian country, with the University of Southampton leading the pack, already welcoming around 150 students in the first cohort at its Gurugram campus in August this year.

    In this landscape, the University of Liverpool aims to distinguish itself from other UK institutions by offering distinctive programs and embedding research from “day one”, drawing on lessons from its only other international branch campus — the Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou, China — as it shapes its approach in India.

    “We have experience from our successful campus in China, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary and has nearly 30,000 students. That experience gives us confidence that we can succeed in India as well,” stated Jones.

    “The funding model was also different 20 years ago. But the exchange of staff and students is embedded in what we do in China. I see the same happening with India as the campus develops.”

    However, despite the China campus’s success, recent reports suggest it may require stronger oversight amid concerns about teaching methods, class sizes, and students’ English proficiency.

    While the rapid push to establish branch campuses in India has also sparked debate about the trend among major UK universities, Jones says he is focused on making Liverpool’s India launch a “big success”.

    “It took us 20 years to go from China to India. There will likely be other ventures in the future, but right now, I’m very focused on making this a big success — for the students, for the university, and for India,” stated Jones.

    Source link

  • How college leaders can own the narrative about a major restructuring

    How college leaders can own the narrative about a major restructuring

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Ricardo Azziz has held numerous executive positions in higher education and led the merger that resulted in Georgia Regents University, now Augusta University. He is principal at Strategic Partnerships in Higher Education, or SPH, Consulting Group.

    He writes the regular Merger Watch opinion series on corporate restructuring in higher education.

    In today’s higher education environment, colleges often must be part of a bigger enterprise to either survive or grow.  This calls for greater and more radical major institutional restructuring, such as mergers, acquisitions or even closures. 

    Much rests on the college leaders who — willingly or not — undertake these initiatives. 

    In a recent book I coauthored with other higher education experts, we interviewed some 50 or so leaders who had undertaken, successfully or not, major institutional restructuring. Most of those leaders, as well as others with whom my colleagues and I work, voice concerns about being able to lead in higher education again. 

    Would anybody hire them after the initiative had succeeded or, worse, had failed? The answer to that question depends on the narrative that builds around the leader and the restructuring they undertook. 

    A headshot image of Ricardo Azziz

    Ricardo Azziz

    Permission granted by Ricardo Azziz

     

    Major changes at a college or university are always met with resistance. Whether the merger was successful or not —and that will take years to determine — many campus stakeholders will be angry and happy to turn to the media, often accusing leaders of selling out the college, not caring about its history or being poor negotiators.  Those comments will in turn color the perspective of any subsequent hiring committee, particularly scaring off its faculty members.

    In speaking with college leaders and observing recent news, I have been struck by the ability of some of them to present a positive narrative of their experiences in leading major restructuring. For example, Joseph Chillo, who led the 2019 closure of Newbury College, and Marcheta Evans, who helped lead the merger of Bloomfield College with Montclair State University, have both been able to highlight the necessity of these difficult decisions in a thoughtful, humble and compassionate manner. 

    However, it was also obvious that many leaders are less able to craft a positive narrative of the restructuring and their involvement. These examples summarize the various perspectives I’ve observed as leaders share their experiences: 

    The victim: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career.”

    The knowing but ignored leader: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career and the fact that I told them it was a bad idea.”

    The resistance fighter: “I was pushed to do this, and I told them it was a bad idea, so I resisted in as many ways as I could, despite the great risk to my career.”

    The good soldier: “Regardless of my views on the initiative, I diligently followed orders and undertook the initiative.”

    The unwilling hero: “I was tasked with the initiative and undertook it diligently, despite the great risk to my career.”

    The distant leader: “I was part of the initiative but was somewhat removed from or had a limited role in what was happening.” 

    The (overly) enthusiastic leader: “I took on the initiative, as I saw only positives to its undertaking.”  

    The servant leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks and undertook it, as was my responsibility.”

    The growing leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks, and undertook it, as was my responsibility, and have learned much about what we did right and, more importantly, what we did wrong.”

    In fact, leaders involved in restructuring should only embrace the last two narratives — and perhaps only the last one. Those perspectives present their role with a degree of humility, recognizing that they must assume the responsibility for making difficult decisions for their students and community but also acknowledging that they have continued to learn from the experience. 

    Leaders are indelibly tied to any major restructuring they’ve overseen — these initiatives become part of their professional and life stories. A narrative will be crafted around an initiative that impacts heritage, history, community and the future as much as a major college restructuring does. Leaders can choose to actively and diligently manage that narrative — or others will craft it for them. 

    How can college leaders build a positive narrative when undertaking major restructuring? Here is a six-step plan:

    Be prepared: Have a clear narrative about the initiative and your role in it. Make it short, to the point and practiced. 

    Be consistent: Ensure you present your narrative consistently, regardless of the audience.

    Be positive: While some initiatives will succeed and others will fail, it is important to remain positive about why you needed to explore the initiative, as well as the continuing need for proactive and future-oriented action in today’s higher ed environment — for the sake of our students and our internal and external communities. 

    Be humble: Be clear that you have learned much when undertaking the initiative and that you believe successful leadership is about continued growth and addressing any mistakes responsibly.

    Source link

  • UOW offers new ‘critical thinking’ major – Campus Review

    UOW offers new ‘critical thinking’ major – Campus Review

    The University of Wollongong will offer a new Liberal Arts Major to all students from 2026 to foster critical thinking in an age of Humanities course cuts and evolving AI.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • In “Rocky” Labor Market, Your College Major Matters

    In “Rocky” Labor Market, Your College Major Matters

    Nuthawut Somsuk/Getty Images

    Despite mounting public skepticism about the value of a college degree, the data is still clear: Over all, college graduates have much higher earning potential than their peers without a bachelor’s degree. But the limits of those boosted earnings are often decided by a student’s major.

    American workers with a four-year degree ages 25 to 54 earn a median annual salary of $81,000—70 percent more than their peers with a high school diploma alone, according to a new report that Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce published Thursday. However, the salary range for workers with a bachelor’s degree can span anywhere from $45,000 a year for graduates of education and public service to $141,000 for STEM majors.

    And even within those fields, salary levels have a big range. Humanities majors in the prime of their careers earn between $48,000 and $105,000 a year, with a median salary of $69,000. Meanwhile, business and communications majors earn between $58,000 and $129,000 a year, with a median salary of $86,000.

    “Choosing a major has long been one of the most consequential decisions that college students make—and this is particularly true now, when recent college graduates are facing an unusually rocky labor market,” said Catherine Morris, senior editor and writer at CEW and lead author of the report, “The Major Payoff: Evaluating Earnings and Employment Outcomes Across Bachelor’s Degrees.”

    “Students need to weigh their options carefully.”

    The report, which analyzed earnings and unemployment data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey from 2009 to 2023, also documented rising unemployment for recent college graduates. In 2008, recent graduates had lower unemployment rates relative to all workers (6.8 percent versus 9.8 percent). But that gap has narrowed over the past 15 years; since 2022, recent college graduates have faced higher levels of unemployment relative to all workers.

    Morris attributed rising unemployment for recent college graduates to a mix of factors, including increased layoffs in white-collar fields, the rise of artificial intelligence and general economic uncertainty. At the same time, climbing tuition prices and the student debt crisis have heightened consumer concern about a degree’s return on investment.

    “Over the past 15 years, there’s been more and more of a shift toward students wanting to get degrees in majors that they perceive as lucrative or high-paying,” Morris, who noted that STEM degrees, especially computer science, have become increasingly popular. Meanwhile, the popularity of humanities degrees has declined.

    But just because a degree has higher earning potential doesn’t mean it’s immune to job instability. In 2022, 6.8 percent of recent graduates with computer science degrees were unemployed, while just 2.2 percent of education majors—who typically earn some of the lowest salaries—were unemployed.

    “The more specific the major, the more sensitive it is to sectoral shocks,” said Jeff Strohl, director of the center at Georgetown. “More general majors actually have a lot more flexibility in the labor market. I would expect to see some of the softer majors that start with higher unemployment than the STEM majors be a little more stable.”

    And earning a graduate degree can also substantially boost earnings for workers with a bachelor’s degree in a more general field, such as multidisciplinary studies, social sciences or education and public service. Meanwhile, the graduate earnings premium for more career-specific fields isn’t as high.

    “About 25 percent of bachelor of arts majors don’t by themselves have a positive return on investment,” Strohl said. “But we need to look at the graduate earnings premium, because many B.A. majors don’t stand by themselves.”

    Although salaries for college graduates are one metric that can help college students decide on a major, Morris said it shouldn’t be the only consideration.

    “Don’t just chase the money,” she said. “The job market can be very unpredictable. Students need to be aware of their own intrinsic interests and find ways to differentiate themselves.”

    Source link

  • NAEP scores for class of 2024 show major declines, with fewer students college ready

    NAEP scores for class of 2024 show major declines, with fewer students college ready

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    Students from the class of 2024 had historically low scores on a major national test administered just months before they graduated.

    Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, released September 9, show scores for 12th graders declined in math and reading for all but the highest performing students, as well as widening gaps between high and low performers in math. More than half of these students reported being accepted into a four-year college, but the test results indicate that many of them are not academically prepared for college, officials said.

    “This means these students are taking their next steps in life with fewer skills and less knowledge in core academics than their predecessors a decade ago, and this is happening at a time when rapid advancements in technology and society demand more of future workers and citizens, not less,” said Lesley Muldoon, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board. “We have seen progress before on NAEP, including greater percentages of students meeting the NAEP proficient level. We cannot lose sight of what is possible when we use valuable data like NAEP to drive change and improve learning in U.S. schools.”

    These results reflect similar trends seen in fourth and eighth grade NAEP results released in January, as well as eighth grade science results also released Tuesday.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the results show that federal involvement has not improved education, and that states should take more control.

    “If America is going to remain globally competitive, students must be able to read proficiently, think critically, and graduate equipped to solve complex problems,” she said. “We owe it to them to do better.”

    The students who took this test were in eighth grade in March of 2020 and experienced a highly disrupted freshman year of high school because of the pandemic. Those who went to college would now be entering their sophomore year.

    Roughly 19,300 students took the math test and 24,300 students took the reading test between January and March of 2024.

    The math test measures students’ knowledge in four areas: number properties and operations; measurement and geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra. The average score was the lowest it has been since 2005, and 45% of students scored below the NAEP Basic level, even as fewer students scored at NAEP Proficient or above.

    NAEP Proficient typically represents a higher bar than grade-level proficiency as measured on state- and district-level standardized tests. A student scoring in the proficient range might be able to pick the correct algebraic formula for a particular scenario or solve a two-dimensional geometric problem. A student scoring at the basic level likely would be able to determine probability from a simple table or find the population of an area when given the population density.

    Only students in the 90th percentile — the highest achieving students — didn’t see a decline, and the gap between high- and low-performing students in math was higher than on all previous assessments.

    This gap between high and low performers appeared before the pandemic, but has widened in most grade levels and subject areas since. The causes are not entirely clear but might reflect changes in how schools approach teaching as well as challenges outside the classroom.

    Testing officials estimate that 33% of students from the class of 2024 were ready for college-level math, down from 37% in 2019, even as more students said they intended to go to college.

    In reading, students similarly posted lower average scores than on any previous assessment, with only the highest performing students not seeing a decline.

    The reading test measures students’ comprehension of both literary and informational texts and requires students to interpret texts and demonstrate critical thinking skills, as well as understand the plain meaning of the words.

    A student scoring at the basic level likely would understand the purpose of a persuasive essay, for example, or the reaction of a potential audience, while a students scoring at the proficient level would be able to describe why the author made certain rhetorical choices.

    Roughly 32% of students scored below NAEP Basic, 12 percentage points higher than students in 1992, while fewer students scored above NAEP Proficient. An estimated 35% of students were ready for college-level work, down from 37% in 2019.

    In a survey attached to the test, students in 2024 were more likely to report having missed three or more days of school in the previous month than their counterparts in 2019. Students who miss more school typically score lower on NAEP and other tests. Higher performing students were more likely to say they missed no days of school in the previous month.

    Students in 2024 were less likely to report taking pre-calculus, though the rates of students taking both calculus and algebra II were similar in 2019 and 2024. Students reported less confidence in their math abilities than their 2019 counterparts, though students in 2024 were actually less likely to say they didn’t enjoy math.

    Students also reported lower confidence in their reading abilities. At the same time, higher percentages of students than in 2024 reported that their teachers asked them to do more sophisticated tasks, such as identifying evidence in a piece of persuasive writing, and fewer students reported a low interest in reading.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on national assessments, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Northwestern University Announces Major Staff Cuts Amid Federal Funding Crisis

    Northwestern University Announces Major Staff Cuts Amid Federal Funding Crisis

    Northwestern University is moving forward with plans to eliminate more than 400 staff positions as it confronts significant financial challenges stemming from a $790 million federal funding freeze implemented by the Trump administration, according to multiple sources familiar with internal discussions.

    The cuts will affect staff across multiple schools within the university system, including the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and the McCormick School of Engineering. Administrators have begun notifying affected departments of the impending workforce reductions.

    In a university-wide communication released earlier this week, Northwestern leadership confirmed the elimination of approximately 425 positions throughout the institution. Half of these positions are currently vacant, while the remainder will result in actual job losses. The reductions are expected to decrease the university’s staff-related budget by roughly 5 percent.

    The administration characterized the decision as necessary to address what they termed a “significant budget gap” that cannot be resolved without reducing personnel expenses, which represent 56 percent of Northwestern’s total annual operating costs.

    Prior to implementing the staff reductions, university leadership directed schools and administrative units to approach the cuts strategically, with instructions to “think strategically about how to minimize the impacts to their units, our workforce, students, and the University.”

     

    Source link

  • 1 in 2 graduates say their college major didn’t prepare them for today’s market

    1 in 2 graduates say their college major didn’t prepare them for today’s market

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    As today’s college graduates struggle to start a steady career, 1 in 2 Americans say their college major didn’t prepare them for the job market, according to a June 18 report from Preply.

    Beyond that, 1 in 6 Americans who went to college said they regret it. When thinking about their college experience, college graduates said their top regrets included taking out student loans, not networking more and not doing internships.

    “One of the main concepts of seeking higher education after high school is that college will prepare you for the rest of your life. While some graduates leave their alma mater feeling prepared to enter the workforce and begin their career, others feel underprepared,” according to the report.

    In a survey of more than 1,700 Americans with an undergraduate degree, 29% said they wished they picked a different major, and 18% said they regretted the institution they attended.

    College graduates said they felt unprepared in numerous ways, especially finding a job after graduation and navigating student debt and personal finances. 

    Americans also said they don’t feel college gave them real-world work experience, practical or technical skills or a professional network. In fact, only 5% reported feeling “adequately prepared” for life and the workplace.

    On the other side of the hiring table, more than half of hiring managers say recent graduates appear to be unprepared for the workforce, and 1 in 6 say they’re reluctant to hire them, according to a report from Resume.org. Their top complaints included excessive phone use, a lack of professionalism and poor time management skills.

    Within the workplace, executives and workers alike say entry-level workers seem unprepared for their jobs, particularly compared to five years ago, according to a General Assembly report. Although leaders said workers don’t have enough training to be hired, employers also don’t offer adequate training, the report found.

    Source link

  • US study abroad takes major step to protect federal funding

    US study abroad takes major step to protect federal funding

    Following a record-breaking advocacy campaign that saw 20,636 letters sent to Congress, the House of Representatives has set out drastically modified cuts to US cultural exchanges, which had been at risk of “decimation” under Trump’s previous proposed budget.  

    The new plans will shrink the funding cuts to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) to 5.5% next year, as compared to the 93% initially announced in the proposed FY2026 budget.  

    Though the proposals still amount to a $41 million cut to current funding, “it’s nowhere close to the doomsday scenario of the [President’s budget request]” executive director of the Alliance for International Exchange Mark Overmann told The PIE News. 

    “This means that the conversation about FY26 is completely new. The President’s budget can be thrown out the window,” he said, welcoming the “significant show of support for exchanges from the House and a big win for us”. 

    The plans – laid out in the House Appropriations Bill on July 14 – propose a 22% cut to overall State Department funding and are the latest step in the FY26 budget process, expected to be finalised late this year.  

    The new legislation earmarks over $700m for ECA, a “surprising” figure and a vote of confidence in the value of educational and cultural exchanges. This includes $287 million for Fulbright.  

    “And this mark from the House means that our community’s advocacy has been heard,” said Overmann.  

    This means that the conversation about FY26 is completely new. The President’s budget can be thrown out the window.

    Mark Overmann

    Though there are still many steps to go, including a review by the Senate, the unexpected move is an encouraging development and a rare piece of good news for stakeholders who expected the worst after Trump’s “draconian” proposals this May. 

    While important, the President’s budget request has no sway over the final allocations, with stakeholders emphasising at the time of its release that it amounted to nothing more than a “wish list” and was not binding.  

    The true figures will be drawn from the House and Senate Appropriations, with the latter expected imminently.  

    Traditionally, the Senate has come in higher than the house for ECA funding, with stakeholders hopeful that the trend will continue this year.  

    The news has provided a glimmer of hope during an uncertain time for US study abroad, with 40 ECA employees caught up in the Trump administration’s mass layoffs of State Department staff last week.  

    Source link

  • Trump 2.0 brings layoffs and budget cuts at 8 major colleges

    Trump 2.0 brings layoffs and budget cuts at 8 major colleges

    The economic climate for higher education wasn’t exactly breezy when the year began.  

    Years of regional demographic shifts, heightened inflation and wavering demand for college have taken their toll on institutional operations across wide swaths of the sector. 

    President Donald Trump’s return to office introduced myriad new fiscal ordeals for colleges, along with legal and political tribulations. 

    Already the administration has terminated or slowed countless research grants both universally and in targeted attacks on disfavored institutions. With the passage and signing of Republicans’ massive budget bill, taxes will rise for some of the larger college endowments while the student aid system will undergo a revamp that includes an end to Grad PLUS loans and introduction of various borrowing limits, all of which could weigh on revenues.

    Moreover, Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration and international students could hamper college demand and revenue, as Moody’s analysts recently noted.

    As colleges try to adapt, reimagine their operations or just survive, many are shrinking their budgets, including by laying off faculty and staff. In effect, Trump has introduced a new era of austerity for higher ed, while the pain of inflation and enrollment pressure never went away. 

    Here’s a look at how some are girding for an uncertain fiscal future in Trump’s second term:  

    Source link