Tag: Matters

  • The R&D buckets are here to stay – what matters now is how they’re used

    The R&D buckets are here to stay – what matters now is how they’re used

    The Budget and the introduction of DSIT’s new bucket framework mark a shift in how government wants to think and talk about research and innovation. With growth now central to the government’s agenda, it is a clear attempt to answer Treasury’s perennial question: what does the public get for its money?

    At the centre of this shift sits the idea of R&D “buckets”: a four-part categorisation of public R&D funding into curiosity-driven research, government priorities, innovation support and cross-cutting infrastructure.

    The logic behind the buckets is easy to understand. The UK system is complex, with budget lines stretching across a maze of research councils, departments, institutes, academies and government labs. Even seasoned insiders need a cup of coffee before attempting to decipher the charts on one of UKRI’s much-valued budget explainers.

    From the Treasury’s perspective, the lack of clarity is a barrier to the value of government investment. DSIT’s response is the bucket model: a clearer way of presenting public investment that moves the conversation away from budget lines and towards outcomes that matter to citizens. If this helps build broader support for R&D across departments and with the public, as CaSE’s latest research suggests is needed, it could be hugely valuable.

    The outcomes challenge

    One consequence of an outcomes-driven model, however, is that different types of research will find it easier or harder to demonstrate their value. Basic and curiosity-driven research can be difficult to evidence through simple KPIs or narrow ROI measures.

    In contrast, some forms of applied R&D lend themselves more easily to straightforward metrics. The Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is a good example. It can demonstrate a return on investment of £14.80 to £1 in ways that are simple to communicate and easy for officials to interpret. In a system that places a premium on measurable outcomes, this kind of clarity is powerful.

    If outcomes become the dominant organising logic, there is a risk that bucket one, which covers curiosity-driven research, could appear on paper to be the least “investable” – especially under a future minister who is less supportive of blue-skies research. The danger is not deliberate neglect, but an unintended shift in perception, whereby discovery research is viewed as separate from, rather than essential to, mission-led or innovation-focused work.

    The challenge becomes even clearer when we look at quality-related research funding (QR). Few funding mechanisms are as versatile or as important to the health of the research ecosystem. QR supports discovery research, helps universities leverage private investment, underpins mission- and place-based activity, and fills the gaps left by research council and charity grants. It is the flexible connective tissue that keeps the system functioning.

    Trying to code QR neatly into a single bucket, as bucket one, doesn’t reflect reality. It may make the diagrams tidier, but it also risks narrowing Whitehall’s understanding of how QR actually works. Worse, it could make QR more vulnerable at fiscal events if bucket one is cast as the “future problem” bucket, the category that can be trimmed without immediately visible consequences.

    The trap of over-simplification

    That brings us to a wider point about the buckets themselves. The intention with buckets is to draw a much more explicit line between priorities, investment and impact. This is a reasonable goal. But the risk is that it invites interpretations that are too neat. Most research does not sit cleanly in any one category. The system is interdependent, porous and overlapping. Innovation depends on discovery research. Regional growth depends on long-term capability. And capability only exists if the UK continues to invest in talent, infrastructure and basic research.

    Rather than accepting a model that implies hard boundaries, it may be more helpful to embrace, and actively communicate, this interdependence. A Venn diagram might be a more honest reflection than three or four boxes with solid walls.

    The aim is not to relabel the buckets, but to strengthen the narrative around how the types of research we fund reinforce each other, rather than competing for space in a zero-sum system. This kind of framing could also help government understand why certain funding streams look costly on paper, but yield value across a wide range of outcomes over time.

    One argument is that by identifying curiosity-driven research as a distinct bucket, it will be harder for future governments to cut it without doing so publicly. There is some truth in this. Transparency can raise the political cost of reducing support for basic research. But the counterargument is also important. Once bucket one becomes a visible and discrete line of spend, it could also become more vulnerable during fiscal consolidations. Ministers looking to free up resources for missions or innovation-focused interventions may see it as an easier place to make adjustments, especially if the definition of “impact” narrows over time.

    Shovel ready

    This is why the narrative around the buckets matters as much as the buckets themselves. If they are understood as three separate spaces competing for limited resources, the system loses coherence. Discovery becomes something distant from growth, rather than the engine that drives it. Missions appear disconnected from the long-term capability required to achieve them. Innovation emerges as a standalone activity rather than as part of a pipeline that begins with public investment in fundamental science.

    The bucket framework is not going away. It will shape how government talks about R&D for years to come. This makes the next phase critical: there is an opportunity now to influence how the buckets are interpreted, how they are used in practice and how the narrative around them is constructed.

    If treated as rigid boundaries, the buckets risk weakening the case for long-term investment in capability. But if used as a way of telling a more coherent story about the interdependence of discovery, missions and innovation, they could help build stronger cross-government support for R&D. The challenge is to make sure the latter happens.

    Source link

  • Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Source link

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

    In “Rocky” Labor Market, Your College Major Matters

    A new report analyzes earnings for college graduates from different majors.

    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

  • Why Area Studies Matters (opinion)

    Why Area Studies Matters (opinion)

    Area studies, the interdisciplinary study of region-specific knowledge, is under threat in the United States. Some area studies programs are facing immediate dismantling by red-state legislatures. Others, at private universities or in blue states, are more likely to experience a slow decline through dozens of small cuts that may leave them untenable. While most area studies programs are small, their loss would ripple through a wide range of disciplines, impoverishing teaching, research and scholarship across the humanities and social sciences.

    Most contemporary area studies departments were developed and funded in part to meet perceived U.S. national security needs during the Cold War. Nonetheless, area studies programs have, from the outset, reached far beyond policy concerns. They should be saved, not (just) out of concern for the national interest, but because they are fundamental to our modern universities. Area studies have helped to pluralize our understanding of the drivers of history, the sources of literary greatness and the origins and uses of the sciences, enabling scholars to challenge narratives of “Western” normativity.

    As the second Trump administration has thrown federal support for area studies into question, some scholars have come to the field’s defense from the perspective of U.S. security and national interests. They have noted that cutting government funding for programs such as the Foreign Language Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships will linguistically and intellectually impoverish future cadres of policymakers. But in the present political landscape, in which the Trump administration has demonstrated little if any interest in maintaining the trappings of U.S. soft power, it seems unlikely that the federal government will restore funding for language education and the development of regionally specific knowledge. Their ability to contribute to U.S. soft power will not save area studies.

    The future of area studies lies beyond state security and policy interests and instead with the core mission of our universities. If we are to save area studies, we must admit—and celebrate—the fact that the benefits of area studies have never been just about U.S. national interests. Indeed, area studies have decisively shaped how scholarship and education are practiced on U.S. university campuses.

    Since the 1950s, area studies programs have quietly informed disciplinary practices across the humanities and social sciences, changing education even for students who never take courses offered by formal area studies departments. In part, this is because scholars educated through area studies programs teach in history, anthropology, political science, religious studies and a bevy of other programs that require a depth of linguistic and regional knowledge. These scholars introduce global, regional and non-Western knowledge to students at colleges and universities that may not host their own area studies programs, but that rely on the cultivation of regionally specific knowledge at institutions that have invested in and embraced the area studies model. Some of these scholars undertook area studies as their primary field of research. In other cases, including my own, they hold Ph.Ds. in other disciplines but would not have been able to conduct their research without access to the language and regionally specific courses offered by area studies programs at their universities.

    The influence of area studies stretches beyond this immediate impact on scholars and their students. Area studies scholars have insisted that there is just as much to be learned within Middle Eastern, Latin American or sub-Saharan African literature, histories and cultures as there is in Western European or the modern North American Anglophone traditions. At their best, area studies have reminded us that none of these formations or knowledge traditions exist in isolation, that there are no “pure” or untouched civilizations and that ideas and practices have always circulated and shaped each other, whether violently or peacefully. Certainly, many scholars knew and studied these realities well before the advent of the contemporary area studies model. Nonetheless, the presence of area studies in many prominent U.S. universities from the 1950s onward enabled a quiet but certain reckoning with historical scholarly exclusions and helped to internationalize U.S. campus communities.

    Federal and state cuts and institutional austerity are now reshaping university departments and programs across many disciplines. But area studies programs are especially at risk in part because they are excluded from some calls for the defense of the humanities or liberal arts that take an older, pre–area studies view of our shared cultural and historical knowledge. Even more troublingly, the far right is eager to claim and weaponize the humanities for itself. Its vision of the humanities, and of the liberal arts more generally, is one that not only rejects area studies, but also seeks to undo critical approaches to European and Anglophone literature and history. The far right portrays the humanities in triumphalist civilizational terms, imagining a fallacious pure Western (white) tradition that justifies contemporary forms of dominance and exclusion.

    Scholars within the fields that have seen increased interest from the far right are fighting their own battles against these imagined, reactionary pasts. But those of us within area studies—and fields that have been enriched by area studies—also have our part to play. We must refuse to concede to narratives of human history, literature, culture and politics that write out the experiences and contributions of non-European, non-Anglophone or nonwhite individuals and communities.

    The most extreme current threat to area studies, like many threats to the humanities and social sciences more generally, comes from hostile red-state legislatures. I completed an area studies M.A. in central Eurasian studies at Indiana University, a program that hosts languages such as Mongolian, Kurdish and Uyghur, which are rarely if ever taught at other institutions in North America. That program, like many of Indiana’s other vaunted area studies degrees (and many other programs) is currently slated for suspension with “teach-out toward elimination.”

    Yet even institutions seemingly removed from such direct political pressure seem poised to reduce their engagement with area studies. I am now an assistant professor in South Asian languages and civilizations at the University of Chicago, a program that has produced renowned scholars of South Asia globally and offers languages ranging from Tibetan to Tamil. The university has proposed decreasing the number of departments within its Division of the Arts and Humanities and limiting offerings in language classes that do not regularly attract large numbers of students. These policies could result in significant cuts to relatively small area studies programs like my own. And none of these proposals are unique. Whether rapidly or slowly, universities across the country are walking back their commitments to area studies, especially the study of non-Western languages.

    There are actions that we, as area studies scholars, can take to ensure the longevity of our work. As we revel in the complexities of the regions we have chosen to study, we sometimes forget how unfamiliar they remain to many American undergraduate students. Unfamiliarity, however, should not mean inaccessibility. The Shahnameh or the Mahabharata may be less familiar to many of our students than The Iliad and The Odyssey, but there is no reason they should be less accessible. The study of modern sub-Saharan African histories or Southeast Asian languages is not intrinsically more esoteric than the study of modern North American histories or Western European languages. Our goal must be to welcome students into topics that seem unfamiliar and to share in their joy as what was once unfamiliar slowly becomes part of their system of knowledge.

    Likewise, one of the most significant challenges stemming from the Cold War foundations of area studies is that the discipline is often organized along a mid-20th century, U.S.-centric understanding of global political fault lines and cultural boundaries associated with nation-states. These boundaries, as many scholars have shown, do not always reflect how people experience and understand their own cultures and histories. Yet scholars in area studies have become increasingly adept at working beyond these boundaries. Many of us use the framework of area studies to challenge understandings of regional borders as natural, identifying forms of mobility and connectivity that upend assumptions built on the locations of modern lines on modern maps.

    Even as we make area studies more accessible and more reflective of transregional cultural worlds, area studies programs will never be moneymakers for U.S. universities. As the novelist Lydia Kiesling, a beneficiary of area studies and specifically of FLAS funding, noted in Time, “The market will never decide that Uzbek class is a worthwhile proposition, or that it is important for a K–12 teacher in a cash-strapped district to attend a free symposium on world history.” And so, in the absence of federal funding for these programs, any defense of area studies must ultimately come down to asking—begging!—our universities to look beyond the financial motives that seem to have overtaken their educational missions.

    Ultimately, area studies allows us to embrace, even revel in, cultural, social and linguistic particularity and specificity and, through understanding these differences, recognize our shared humanity. At their best, area studies programs help students and the public dismantle cultural hierarchies through knowledge of non-Western traditions that have depth and heterogeneity equal to that of their European and Anglophone counterparts. In our present moment, as a dizzying range of university programs are destroyed by right-wing legislatures or threatened by aggressive institutional austerity, it may seem futile to call for the preservation of this seemingly small corner of the U.S. intellectual universe. Yet in an era when governments, both in the U.S. and abroad, seem beholden to narrow and exclusionary nationalist interests, fields of study that center the pluralism within our shared global histories and cultures are needed in our universities more than ever.

    Amanda Lanzillo is an assistant professor in South Asian languages and civilizations at the University of Chicago.

    Source link

  • Cracking the South Asia recruitment challenge – why the right partner matters

    Cracking the South Asia recruitment challenge – why the right partner matters

    For international universities and colleges, South Asia – and particularly India – represents one of the largest and fastest-growing student recruitment markets in the world. The potential is undeniable, but the reality is complex.

    Navigating multiple languages, diverse cultures, varied academic systems, and rapidly shifting student trends requires more than just an occasional visit or a handful of agent agreements.

    Finding the right partner in this environment is not just important – it’s essential.

    The challenge: a crowded and complex market

    South Asia’s education recruitment ecosystem is vast. Students are spread across metropolitan hubs and smaller regional cities, each with different aspirations, financial capabilities, and destination preferences. The agent network is equally varied – from well-established consultancies to smaller, informal setups.

    For many institutions, this creates two critical challenges:

    1. Transparency – Ensuring that the institution’s brand is represented accurately and ethically across the market.
    2. Visibility – Reaching the right students, in the right regions, with the right message.

    Without an in-market presence and strong, vetted networks, institutions often struggle to build trust and sustain engagement at scale.

    Why a local strategic partner is essential

    Working with a dedicated South Asia marketing partner bridges this gap. The right partner acts as the institution’s eyes, ears, and voice on the ground – maintaining brand integrity while expanding outreach.

    A strong local partner can:

    • Streamline agent management – Recruiting, training, and monitoring a reliable network of student recruitment agents.
    • Strengthen market visibility – Ensuring the institution’s programs are consistently promoted to the right audience across multiple regions.
    • Provide real-time market intelligence – Sharing insights on policy changes, student preferences, and competitor activity.
    • Enhance conversion rates – By ensuring that marketing efforts and agent networks are well-aligned with institutional goals.

    Navigating multiple languages, diverse cultures, varied academic systems, and rapidly shifting student trends requires more than just an occasional visit or a handful of agent agreements

    Landmark Global Learning — one roof, complete solutions

    With over 18 years of experience, Landmark Global Learning offers international universities and colleges a single-window solution for the South Asia market. Our approach is built on:

    • Established networks – A trusted, long-standing network of trained recruitment agents across India and other South Asian countries.
    • Transparent operations – Clear reporting, ethical representation, and measurable results to ensure partner confidence.
    • Regional expertise – Deep understanding of both Tier-1 and Tier-2 cities, allowing institutions to tap into emerging student segments.
    • Targeted outreach – Combining on-ground events, digital campaigns, and institutional tie-ups to maximise visibility.

    Whether a university is entering the South Asia market for the first time or looking to strengthen its footprint, Landmark provides the infrastructure, relationships, and market knowledge to make it happen efficiently.

    Maximising visibility in the right way

    One of the biggest pain points for international institutions is getting noticed by the right students. Many spend time and resources on generic campaigns that fail to reach high-intent applicants.

    At Landmark, we focus on:

    • Localised marketing strategies tailored to different student demographics.
    • Partnerships with schools, colleges, and education fairs that bring direct engagement opportunities.
    • Digital targeting that aligns with student search behaviour in the region.

    The result? Increased brand presence, better-qualified leads, and stronger enrolments.

    A partnership for long-term growth

    In an increasingly competitive global education market, institutions cannot afford to be invisible in a region as critical as South Asia. The right partner ensures not only market entry but also sustained growth, brand protection, and student success.

    With its proven track record, extensive network, and commitment to transparency, Landmark Global Learning stands ready to be that partner – delivering all the solutions international universities need, under one roof.

    A journey of impact and vision

    From a small consultancy in Punjab to being the first student recruitment company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, Landmark Global Learning’s journey is a testament to resilience, vision, and a relentless focus on student success.

    With over 35,000 successful admissions and partnerships across 200+ global institutions, our mission remains clear: to bridge the gap between talent and opportunity. What started 18 years ago with a single office is today a network of 15+ branches across India, making international education accessible even in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities.

    For me personally, education has never been just a business – it’s a passion to transform lives. I began this journey as a young professional balancing multiple jobs, driven by a belief that ‘education is not just about admissions – it’s about creating futures.’ That belief continues to guide us as we embrace innovation, whether through AI-driven counseling tools, school partnerships from Grade 9 onwards, or full-spectrum student support covering admissions, accommodation, education loans, and career guidance.

    At Landmark, we don’t just send students abroad; we shape futures — with integrity, innovation, and care.

    About the author: Jasmeet Singh Bhatia is the founder and director of Landmark Immigration, with over 18 years of experience in international education and immigration consulting. A study visa expert and PR strategist, he has mentored thousands of students in achieving academic and career goals abroad. Known for his principle-based approach and strong industry partnerships, he continues to shape global futures through personalised guidance and strategic insight.

    Source link

  • Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    In Jarek Janio’s Inside Higher Ed opinion column, “Beyond ‘Grit’ and ‘Growth Mindsets,’” Janio argues that, to promote better student learning, college instructors should ignore questions about student motivation and focus solely on changing student behavior. He focuses on two ideas from the motivation field—grit and growth mindset—as examples of “traits” that have weak associations with student learning. Instead of focusing on what goes on “inside the student’s head,” he argues we should instead focus on “what’s happening in the environment and change that instead.”

    As educational psychology researchers, we are also interested in how to get students to engage in effective learning behaviors. We fully agree with—and our research supports—the idea that it is important for instructors to structure learning environments to support student learning, such as by offering opportunities for students to revise their work and providing clear, well-defined feedback. However, it is a mistake to ignore what is going on inside students’ heads. In doing so, we miss a very crucial piece of the puzzle.

    Students Are Unique Individuals

    As anyone who has taught a college class knows, students are not robots. There are vast differences between them. Take the example of offering your students an opportunity to revise and resubmit their work, after receiving feedback, for a higher grade. Just because you provide this opportunity does not mean that all your students will take it. Some students will enthusiastically revisit their work, dig into the feedback provided, seek additional feedback and deepen their learning. Others will half-heartedly look over the feedback and make shallow attempts to revise. Still others will not glance at the feedback at all and will not turn in a revision.

    These differences are, in part, due to more stable traits that students may have, such as their conscientiousness, their perfectionism and—yes—their grit. However, these differences may also be a function of other individual differences that are less stable. Take growth mindset, for example. Those of us who study growth mindset tend to think about it as a belief rather than a trait. It is something that can change based on the context.

    Imagine a student who has been told by their statistics instructor that statistics is something that anyone can learn—you just need the right strategies. Their art professor, on the other hand, has told them that you need a special, innate talent to be good at art—you either have it or you don’t. These factors can shape students’ beliefs, and in turn, their behaviors. For example, this student may be much more likely to engage in revising and resubmitting their work in their statistics class (where they have stronger growth-mindset beliefs) than their art class (where they have stronger fixed-mindset beliefs). This pattern is also true for when students feel confident about their abilities or have a desire for learning. Such students seek out help more proactively, and they engage with feedback more constructively.

    Beyond Grit and Growth Mindset

    Although grit and growth mindset are perhaps the most well-known (and have some legitimate weaknesses), researchers in the educational psychology and motivation fields study many other factors that impact student engagement and learning. These include students’ interests, values, goals, needs, emotions, beliefs and perceptions of the instructor and their classroom—all things that are going on inside the student’s head but that are critically important to understanding their behavior.

    Theories of motivation articulate the processes through which students’ beliefs, values, needs and goals shape their engagement, behaviors and choices. Researchers have created and tested effective tools to observe, measure and assess these different factors. Decades of research have given us robust understandings of how these factors are both shaped by and interact with the environment to predict students’ behavior and learning. These aspects of the individual student matter.

    The Student and the Environment Are Both Important

    It is important to focus both on what is going on in students’ heads and what is going on in the environment. Instructors have the power to shape their classroom environment in different ways that can influence student behavior.

    We do not disagree with the strategies Janio proposed instructors should focus on. Instead, we want to emphasize that these strategies are effective because of how they are motivationally supportive. For instance, incorporating a revision process into course assignments is based on mastery goal structures, or the environments instructors can nurture so that students focus on their improvement and growth. Normalizing failure is a growth mindset–teaching practice that helps students see the effort they put into the learning process as being something of value. Providing feedback is an important way to inform a student’s self-confidence and show them how they can be more competent in the future.

    Motivation is the central mechanism through which these strategies can help students persist through learning challenges. By understanding student motivation, these teaching strategies and approaches can be fine-tuned and adapted to differently motivated students to maximize student learning. That is exactly what motivation scientists in education have been investigating for decades. Simply discarding learner motivation is dismantling the science that undergirds motivationally supportive teaching.

    Concluding Thoughts

    A return to behaviorism essentially disregards the last 50 years of psychological research emphasizing the important role students’ cognition, emotion and motivation plays in the classroom. It is critical to understand these psychological processes that have been rigorously tested across many studies. Students are also agentic and complex in their thinking and motivations, so a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. By harnessing students’ motivation, instructors can better adapt their teaching approaches to match students’ interests and goals in addition to creating motivationally supportive environments that promote persistence and deeper learning. When instructors understand their students’ motivation, it can unlock the type of engagement and behaviors meaningful for learning.

    Katie Muenks is an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Carlton J. Fong is an associate professor of postsecondary student success at Texas State University.

    Source link

  • English language test integrity matters – Campus Review

    English language test integrity matters – Campus Review

    Commentary

    The experience should reflect the best of what Australia has to offer: fairness, opportunity and integrity

    Matthew LampkinAugust 11, 2025Last Updated: August 11, 2025

    0

    As Australia recalibrates its approach to skilled migration and international education, one thing remains constant: the importance of trust. 

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    If you’re a university leader today, you’re juggling a lot: enrollment challenges, tightening budgets, shifting student expectations, and the rise of non-traditional competitors. Amid all this, one asset might not be getting the attention it deserves — your university’s brand.

    No, not just your logo or tagline. We’re talking about brand equity — the value your institution holds in the minds of students, parents, alumni, faculty, employers, and the public. It’s about reputation, trust, recognition, and connection. And in a competitive market, it matters now more than ever.

    What is brand equity in higher education?

    Think of it this way: Brand equity is what people think and feel when they hear your university’s name. It’s the difference between being someone’s first-choice school versus just another option.

    It shows up in the pride alumni feel when they wear your sweatshirt, the confidence prospective students have when they see your graduates succeed, and the trust employers place in your credentials. It’s shaped by every experience — from the way your website tells your story, to how your faculty engage in the classroom, to the tone of your communications during a crisis.

    It’s what drives alumni to give, students to enroll, and faculty to choose you over other institutions. When a university has strong brand equity, people trust it, recognize it, and feel loyal to it. That kind of reputation can spark a ripple effect of positive influence across an entire institution.

    Understanding the impact of brand equity across an institution

    Brand equity touches every dimension of institutional life, influencing how people experience, perceive, and engage with your university across the student and stakeholder journey. Let’s take a look at its impact in six key areas.

    1. Enrolling new students

    Choosing a college is a huge decision for students and their families. Today’s students are more informed than ever and expect an institution that’s respected, innovative, and committed to their success.

    That’s where your brand can make an impact. If your university has a strong, positive reputation, you’re more likely to make their shortlist. Schools with solid brand equity are seen as high-quality, forward-thinking, and worth the investment, which makes all the difference in a world where competition is fierce and the landscape is changing fast.

    2. Attracting top faculty

    It’s not just students who care about a school’s reputation — faculty and academic leaders do too. A strong, well-respected brand sends a clear message: This place is serious about excellence, values academic freedom, and encourages innovation.

    It’s not just about prestige — top talent also wants to be somewhere that fosters genuine, supportive relationships with students. A respected brand signals a vibrant academic culture where everyone’s invested in each other’s success.

    3. Fostering alumni pride

    When a university has strong brand equity, it’s not just about reputation — it’s about the sense of pride and connection it creates. Alumni who feel proud of their alma mater are more likely to stay involved, whether that means attending events, volunteering, or giving back financially.

    A strong brand also helps foster a lasting sense of community and belonging well beyond graduation. In short, when your brand is trusted and respected, alumni remain engaged — and they’re more likely to support the institution not only with their resources but by recommending it to future students within their networks.

    4. Securing strategic partnerships

    Whether you’re aiming to partner with major companies, secure government grants, or build global collaborations, having a strong brand can be a significant factor. Organizations want to work with universities they respect, trust, and recognize as leaders in their field.

    When your university’s brand is strong and clear, opportunities that are imperative to your institution open up more quickly. Meanwhile, lesser-known schools often struggle to get noticed. Building a strategic and strong brand is your best way to stand out and secure meaningful partnerships that benefit your students and your bottom line.

    5. Staying resilient amid market disruption

    Higher education is under pressure from various directions shifting demographics, financial constraints, and evolving expectations. A strong brand is essential to stay resilient and relevant.

    When controversy, crises, or big changes hit, your brand becomes your safety net. People are far more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt if they already respect and trust you. That reputation can be the difference between weathering the storm and facing long-term damage.

    6. Boosting visibility through rankings

    While rankings aren’t everything, they do influence perception. Many ranking systems factor in peer reputation, which is directly tied to your brand. The same goes for media coverage. The stronger your brand, the more likely you are to be recognized as a thought leader and trusted voice in the field.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Practical tips for building brand equity that lasts

    University leaders can’t afford to view brand as merely a marketing function— it’s so much more than that. Brand must be seen as a strategic asset embedded in everything from big-picture planning to day-to-day decisions. It’s part of how you attract students, build partnerships, and earn trust.

    So how can you turn brand equity into a competitive advantage for your institution? Here are a few key moves to get started:

    1. Know what you stand for

    Start with a clear sense of who you are and what makes your school unique. What do you want people to feel when they think of your institution? Your brand promise should reflect your values, vision, and personality — and it should feel real, not like something cooked up in a boardroom.

    2. Take time to truly know your audience

    What matters most to your students, parents, alumni, and faculty? What are they proud of, and what do they wish were better? Take time to listen — through surveys, conversations, and social media — and use those insights to shape your strategy and message.

    3. Tell one clear, consistent story

    Your brand shows up everywhere: your website, your campus tours, your social media posts, even how your staff answers the phone. Make sure that story feels authentic, easy to understand, and consistent across every touchpoint. Developing comprehensive brand guidelines, share them widely across the institution, and conduct regular audits to ensure every touchpoint reinforces a unified, memorable experience for all audiences.

    4. Get your people involved

    Your brand isn’t just a logo — it’s how people talk about your institution and the trust they place in it. That means faculty, staff, students, and alumni all have a role to play. Keep them in the loop, give them the tools to share your story, and make them feel like part of the bigger picture. Want to get more people talking about — and proud of — your school? Make it easy for them. Share what’s happening through newsletters and social media and provide your community with tools that help them show off their connection. When faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel informed, celebrated, and included, they’re more likely to stay engaged — and more likely to brag about being part of your institution.

    5. Make sure the experience matches the message

    If you’re promising innovation, inclusivity, or career readiness, you better be delivering that on campus, in the classroom (both online and in person), and beyond. Brand equity grows when expectations match real experiences. That’s why creating a seamless website experience is so important — it directly impacts how much trust students place in your institution and it’s offerings.

    6. Get the word out (strategically)

    Raising awareness isn’t just about marketing louder — it’s about marketing smarter. Use the right mix of channels, from digital ads and social media to speaking opportunities for university leaders. And don’t forget about earned media and storytelling that highlights real student success. Do this by building a strategic content plan that aligns messaging across platforms, targets the right audiences, and consistently showcases the impact your institution makes.

    7. Keep a pulse on your reputation

    What are people actually saying about your school? Check in regularly using surveys, online reviews, social listening, and even informal feedback. This will help you spot issues early and see what’s working.

    8. Be prepared to evolve

    Higher ed is changing fast, so your brand needs to be flexible. Stay grounded in your core values, but be open to shifting your tone, visuals, or messaging as your audience and the world around you change.

    Build a brand with a lasting legacy and immediate impact

    In an age of increasing competition and shifting student expectations, brand equity is no longer a luxury — it’s a leadership priority. With students having endless options, donors getting more selective, and reputations spreading instantly, your brand equity can be a serious competitive edge.

    Investing in a strong, authentic, and trusted brand can lay the foundation for long-term success. The institutions that thrive in the years ahead will be those that treat their brand as a central part of their overall strategy instead of a marketing afterthought.

    Because in higher ed, your brand isn’t what you say it is — it’s what people believe it to be. And that belief? That’s your brand equity.

    Ready to strengthen your institution’s brand equity? Explore how a strategic marketing approach can help you stand out and thrive. Let’s talk!

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Family Structure Matters to Student Achievement. What Should We Do With That? – The 74

    Family Structure Matters to Student Achievement. What Should We Do With That? – The 74


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

    A version of this essay originally appeared on Robert Pondiscio’s SubStack. 

    A recent report from the University of Virginia—Good Fathers, Flourishing Kids — confirms what many of us know instinctively but rarely see, or avoid altogether, in education debates: The presence and engagement of a child’s father has a powerful effect on their academic and emotional well-being. It’s the kind of data that should stop us in our tracks — and redirect our attention away from educational fads and toward the foundational structures that shape student success long before a child ever sets foot in a classroom.

    The research — led by my AEI colleague Brad Wilcox and co-authored by a diverse team that includes another AEI colleague, Ian Rowe — finds that children in Virginia with actively involved fathers are more likely to earn good grades, less likely to have behavior problems in school, and dramatically less likely to suffer from depression. Specifically, children with disengaged fathers are 68% less likely to get mostly good grades and nearly four times more likely to be diagnosed with depression. These are not trivial effects. They are seismic.

    Most striking is the report’s finding that there is no meaningful difference in school grades among demographically diverse children raised in intact families. Black and white students living with their fathers get mostly As at roughly equal rates — more than 85% — and are equally unlikely to experience school behavior problems. The achievement gap, in other words, appears to be less about race and more about the structure and stability of the family.

    Figure 9 from Wilcox et al., Good Fathers, Flourishing Kids

    This may be a surprising finding to some, but not to William Jeynes, a professor of education at California State University, Long Beach, whose meta-analyses have previously demonstrated the outsized academic impact of family structure and religious faith. (The new UVA report does not study the role of church-going). 

    As I wrote in How the Other Half Learns, Jeynes’ work highlights how two-parent households and religious engagement produce measurable benefits in educational achievement. “When two parents are present, this maximizes the frequency and quality of parental involvement. There are many dedicated single parents,” Jeynes has noted. However, the reality is that when one parent must take on the roles and functions of two, it is simply more difficult than when two parents are present.” Jeynes’ most stunning finding, and his most consistent, is that if a Black or Hispanic student is raised in a religious home with two biological parents the achievement gap totally disappears—even when adjusting for socioeconomic status.

    My colleague Ian Rowe has been a tireless advocate for recognizing and responding to these patterns. He has long argued that NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card, should disaggregate student achievement data by family composition, not just by race and income. That simple step would yield a more honest accounting of the challenges schools are facing — and help avoid both unfair blame and unearned credit.

    Yet this conversation remains a third rail in education. Many teachers and administrators are understandably wary of saying too much about family structure for fear of stigmatizing children from single-parent households, particularly in settings where single-parent households are dominant. Rowe has also faced resistance to his efforts to valorize the “Success Sequence,” the empirical finding that graduating high school, getting a full-time job and marrying before having children dramatically increases one’s odds of avoiding poverty. But being cautious is not the same as being silent, and it’s not compassionate to pretend these dynamics don’t matter when the data so clearly shows that they do.

    None of this absolves educators of their duty to reach and teach every child. But it does suggest we should be clear-eyed in how we interpret data and set expectations. Teachers, particularly those in low-income communities, often shoulder the full weight of student outcomes while lacking the ability to influence some of the most powerful predictors of those outcomes. That’s frustrating — and understandably so.

    Citing compelling evidence on fatherhood and family formation is not a call for resignation or excuse-making. It’s a call for awareness and intelligent action. While schools can’t influence or re-engineer family structure, teachers can respond in ways that affirm the role of fathers and strengthen the school-home connection. They can make fathers feel welcome and expected in school life — not merely tolerated. They can design family engagement activities that include dads as co-participants, not afterthoughts. They can build classroom cultures that offer structure and mentoring, especially to students who may lack it at home. 

    And maybe — just maybe — the field can overcome its reluctance to share with students what research so clearly shows will benefit them and the children they will have in the future. Rowe takes pains to note his initiative to teach the Success Sequence is intended to help students make decisions about the families they will form, not the ones they’re from. “It’s not about telling them what to do,” he says, “it’s about giving them the data and letting them decide for themselves.”

    This leads to a final point, and for some an uncomfortable one: If we truly care about student outcomes, perhaps we should be willing to support the institutions that reliably foster them. And that includes religious schools.

    Religious schools — particularly those rooted in faith traditions that emphasize marriage, family life and moral formation — often create environments where the presence of fathers and the reinforcement of shared values are not incidental but central. A recent analysis by Patrick J. Wolf of the University of Arkansas, published in the Journal of Catholic Education, found that adults who attended religious schools are significantly more likely to marry, stay married, and avoid nonmarital births compared to public‑school peers. The effects are most pronounced among individuals from lower‑income backgrounds.

    In states with Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and other school choice mechanisms, we have an opportunity — perhaps an obligation — to expand access to these institutions. That’s not merely a question of parental rights or religious liberty. It’s a matter of public interest. If these schools produce better education and social outcomes by encouraging family formation and reinforcing the value of fatherhood, the public benefits — even if instruction is delivered in a faith-based context. Said simply: The goal of educational policy and practice is not to save the system. It’s to help students flourish.

    So yes, let’s fund fatherhood initiatives. Let’s run PSAs about the importance of dads. But let’s also get serious about expanding access to the kinds of schools — whether secular or religious in nature — that support the kind of family culture where children are most likely to thrive. Because if we follow the evidence where it leads, we must conclude that the biggest intervention in education is not another literacy coach or SEL curriculum. It’s dad.


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

    Source link