Tag: Matters

  • What external examiners do and why it matters

    What external examiners do and why it matters

    Within the big visions presented in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, a specific element of the academic standards landscape has found itself in the spotlight: external examining.

    Within a system predicated on the importance of academic freedom and academic judgement, where autonomous institutions develop their own curricula, external examining provides a crucial UK-wide, peer-led quality assurance mechanism supporting academic standards.

    It assures students their work has been marked fairly and reassures international stakeholders degrees from each UK nation have consistent academic standards.

    So when a Minister describes the system as “inward-focused” and questions its objectivity and consistency, as Jacqui Smith did at Wonkhe’s Festival of Higher Education, the sector needs to respond.

    What external examiners actually do

    External examiners typically review a sample of student work to check that marking criteria and internal moderation processes have been correctly applied and therefore that it has been graded appropriately. They comment on the design, rigour and academic level of assessments, provide external challenge to course teams, and identify good practice and innovation. External examiner reports are escalated through the relevant academic governance processes within a provider, forming a foundation for critical self-reflection on the institution’s maintenance of academic standards.

    Education policy may be devolved, but the systems and infrastructure that maintain academic standards of UK degrees are UK-wide: external examiners frequently examine institutions across UK nation borders. Indeed, the system is also embedded in the Republic of Ireland, with Irish providers drawing some of their external examiners from the UK pool, of which England is the largest source. The system is also intertwined with the work of PSRBs. External examiner reports are often used by PSRBs in their own assurance and accreditation processes, with some PSRBs appointing and managing external examiners directly.

    Tale as old as time

    Scepticism of the system is not new. Over the last quarter of a century, there have been periodic reviews in response to critiques. The most recent of these system reviews was undertaken by QAA in 2022 in partnership with UUK, Guild HE and what is now the Quality Council for UK Higher Education.

    The review compiled insight from a survey across 44 institutions and over 100 external examiners and senior quality professionals, roundtables with 170 individuals from across the sector, in addition to workshops with PSRBs and students.

    It surfaced the importance of the system in maintaining the reputation of UK degrees through impartial scrutiny and triangulation of practice, especially when we know that international audiences view it as an important extra layer of assurance.

    And institutions value the critical friendship provided, and the challenge to course teams which is not always achieved through other routes. External examiner feedback is consistently seen as important in enhancing teaching delivery and assessment practices, as well as upholding due process and internal consistency.

    But our review also revealed thorny problems. The roles can be ambiguously defined, leading to confusion about whether examiners are expected to audit processes, assess standards, or act as enhancement partners. Standards can be interpreted and applied inconsistently – and institutional approaches to examiner engagement, training, and reporting can differ widely. Examiners often reported inadequate support from their home institutions, poor remuneration, and limited recognition for their work.

    To respond to these problems, QAA developed external examining principles, and guidance on how they should be implemented. These principles represented a UK-wide sector agreement on the role and responsibilities of external examiners, bringing a consistent and refreshed understanding across the nations.

    Where do we go from here

    Given its embedded, UK-wide nature, the Westminster government will need to tread carefully and collaboratively in any “review” of the system. A unilateral choice to ditch the system in England would have significant implications. It would impact upon the experience and currency of the pool of external examiner expertise available across the rest of the British Isles, and would undermine the network of general reciprocity on which the system (like that for the peer review of research) is based.

    It would also impact those PSRBs whose accreditation requirements rely on external examiner reports, and in some cases the ability to appoint their own external examiners to courses. To mitigate these risks, work should focus on further strengthening the system to address the English minister’s concerns. This should be sector-led.

    St Mary’s University Twickenham’s recent degree algorithm report demonstrated that sector-led initiatives into these topics do lead to changes within institutional practice; their decision to review their algorithm practice in 2021 was in response to QAA’s work on the appropriate design of degree algorithms, done in conjunction with UUK and GuildHE through the UK Quality Council.

    Using the same model, the Westminster government could work through the UK Quality Council to instigate a sector-led UK-wide review by QAA of how well the 2022 External Examining principles have been implemented across the sector since their creation. This would identify barriers in implementing the principles and surface where further work is needed. The barriers may be as simple as a lack of awareness, or might reveal more systemic challenges around an institution’s ability to encourage independent externals to follow a standardised approach.

    This review could result in updating the principles or proposing more radical solutions to address the system’s weaknesses. Crucially, this mechanism would incorporate the devolved governments and funder regulators, ensuring any changes are done with them, not despite them.

    An external red herring?

    The apparent link between external examining and concerns over grade inflation must also be interrogated. QAA’s 2022 research found that only a third of external examiners were asked by institutions to comment on degree algorithms, and indeed further conversations with quality professionals suggested that it was not perceived as appropriate for external examiners to pass comments on those algorithms. Either that needs to change, or the sector needs to demonstrate that scrutinising external examining in response to grade inflation concerns is like changing the curtains because the roof is leaking.

    If the core Government concern really is grade inflation, then perhaps another sector-led progress review against the UK sector’s 2019 Statement of Intent’could be in order. This could look at the sector’s continued engagement with the guidance around producing degree outcome statements, the principles for effective degree algorithm design, and the outcome classification descriptors in the frameworks for higher education qualifications to address broader concerns around grade inflation in a way that is truly UK wide.

    One nation’s government extricating itself from these interwoven, mutually reinforcing systems risks undermining the whole thing. It would be another enormous and eminently avoidable risk to the UK-ness of a sector that continues to be seen as one entity to anyone outside of the hallowed halls of domestic higher education policy.

    The best way therefore to preserve the continuation of a system that is deeply valued by institutions across the UK is for the sector to lead the critical self-reflection itself, identify its value and merits, and address its weaknesses, preventing a painful fracturing of the ways that academic standards are maintained across the UK.

    This will ensure that degrees awarded by institutions in each UK nation remain trusted and comparable. As a result, governments, students, and international stakeholders can continue to have confidence in the standards of UK degrees.

    Source link

  • 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

  • If free speech only matters when convenient, it isn’t free at all

    If free speech only matters when convenient, it isn’t free at all

    The recent controversies surrounding Charlie Kirk — and the extraordinary reaction that followed his campus appearances and commentary — offer a revealing window into the fragile state of free expression in contemporary America. 

    Two recent New York Times opinion pieces examining the backlash were right to highlight how quickly public discourse has hardened into a zero-sum contest in which speech itself becomes grounds for professional punishment, social ostracism, and institutional retaliation. But the deeper lesson is even more unsettling: Free speech is increasingly treated not as a constitutional principle, but as a conditional privilege — one that applies only when speech is politically comfortable.

    This concern is not confined to the Kirk episode alone.

    A mature liberal democracy does not protect speech because it is agreeable. It protects speech precisely because it is controversial.

    In recent essays and commentary in the Times, Steven Pinker and Greg Lukianoff have voiced parallel anxieties about the narrowing of permissible speech in American life. Pinker, writing in response to the wave of cancellations following Kirk’s assassination, argued that the public reaction revealed something larger than partisan outrage: It exposed a culture increasingly governed by moral intimidation rather than democratic confidence. He warned that Americans have begun to treat disagreement itself as a form of complicity, a dynamic that pressures institutions to distance themselves from speakers not because of what they say, but because of how others might react. 

    In Pinker’s telling, this logic shrinks what he calls the “theater of ideas,” replacing open argument with reputational panic, association anxiety, and pre-emptive suppression. When leaders apologize not for their own actions but for the mere fact of conversation, he argued, they signal their inability to withstand the volatility of public outrage — a sign that our intellectual ecosystem is growing narrower, thinner, and more brittle.

    Lukianoff’s column makes a complementary point from a different angle. Drawing on years of work at FIRE, he noted how quickly both institutions and individuals abandon their stated commitments to free expression the moment those commitments become uncomfortable. The Kirk episode, he wrote, was simply the latest example of a pattern he has watched unfold across campuses for more than a decade: a willingness to tolerate speech only when it fits within prevailing ideological or cultural fashions. 

    Lukianoff emphasized that the most troubling aspect is not the criticism of Kirk — criticism is central to free speech — but the eagerness to impose professional penalties, public shaming, or formal censure on anyone associated with him. The principle collapses the instant it is tested. Taken together, Pinker and Lukianoff reveal with unusual clarity that America is drifting toward a model of free expression that survives only when it flatters majority sentiment — a vision entirely at odds with the core purpose of the First Amendment.

    In defense of fiery words

    In the wake of political violence, calls to criminalize rhetoric are growing louder. But Brandenburg v. Ohio set the bar — and it’s a high one.


    Read More

    This is not an argument about whether one agrees with Kirk’s public statements. Many do not. Nor is it a defense of every remark, posture, or provocation associated with his political brand. That is beside the point. A mature liberal democracy does not protect speech because it is agreeable. It protects speech precisely because it is controversial — because democracy requires open contestation, not the selective silencing of whatever unsettles the cultural majority.

    And yet, across universities, professional settings and online spaces, we have witnessed a familiar pattern repeat itself: organized efforts to deplatform, disrupt, shame, or punish those associated with political positions deemed unacceptable. Speakers are shouted down. Venues are pressured. Faculty and students who express dissenting views risk reputational harm or institutional discipline. Even civil engagement becomes suspect if it involves “the wrong people.”

    This reflex is often defended as moral clarity. In reality, it is institutional cowardice.

    There is a great irony here. The very individuals and institutions that loudly proclaim their commitment to diversity, inclusion, and pluralism often prove least capable of tolerating genuine intellectual diversity. They champion the language of openness even as they tighten the boundaries of permissible speech. What results is a shallow performance of tolerance that collapses the moment speech becomes genuinely uncomfortable.

    Free speech is not a decorative ideal meant for ceremonial brochures or abstract jurisprudence seminars. It is a living civic discipline, and it demands that we cultivate tolerance even — especially — when it offends our sensibilities. That discipline has historically been one of the United States’ most distinguishing features: the belief that robust public debate, rather than enforced consensus, is the engine of democratic resilience.

    But today’s culture increasingly treats emotional discomfort as a kind of injury, speech as a form of violence, and dissent as a moral failing. Within that framework, the logic of suppression becomes not only tempting but virtuous: If speech causes harm, then silencing it becomes an act of justice. Once adopted, that logic expands rapidly. Today it is Charlie Kirk. Tomorrow it will be someone else. The principle does not survive the politics.

    The Times essays were right to note how the fear of association now extends far beyond extremist rhetoric to include basic engagement. Students who meet with controversial speakers, professors who host debates, and institutions that tolerate ideological diversity all find themselves scrutinized. The mere act of conversation becomes dangerous territory. That should alarm anyone who values the university as a space for intellectual exploration rather than ideological enforcement.

    This is not merely a cultural concern. It is institutional. When administrators respond to pressure campaigns by canceling speakers, disciplining faculty, or issuing vague statements about “community harm,” they send a powerful message: Conformity is safer than inquiry. Over time, this breeds self-censorship. Students learn that advancement depends not on argumentation but on alignment. Faculty learn that silence is prudent. The public sphere narrows, not because debate has been resolved, but because people have learned to be afraid.

    In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, colleges must not burden speaking events

    After an assassin cut short a campus speech, colleges must keep in mind that passing security costs to speakers or canceling events under the guise of “safety” hands victory to the heckler’s veto — and invites more violence.


    Read More

    History tells us where this road leads. Societies that abandon free expression do not become kinder or more just. They become brittle. They lose the capacity for correction. Without dissent, errors calcify into doctrine. Without debate, divisions deepen underground until they erupt elsewhere; often violently.

    A healthy society requires a different posture: one that refuses to reward political violence or celebrate rhetorical cruelty, but also refuses to treat speech as a crime. It is possible and necessary to maintain both moral standards and civic tolerance. We can condemn genuinely hateful language without constructing an environment where only preapproved opinions are allowed to exist.

    This distinction matters. There is a difference between criticism and coercion, between moral disagreement and institutional suppression. The first is essential to democratic life. The second corrodes it.

    The American tradition of free speech was never intended to be easy. It was built to withstand tension, disagreement, even anger. It requires a certain moral maturity — the ability to hear something one detests without immediately seeking to destroy the speaker. That maturity is thinning. And institutional leadership has not helped. Rather than modeling resilience and restraint, too many leaders respond to every controversy with ritualized apologies and performative distancing.

    This, in turn, reinforces a culture in which power flows not through argument but through outrage. The loudest voices do not persuade; they intimidate. The most extreme reactions set the rules. The center retreats.

    Defending free speech in this environment is not a partisan exercise; it is a civic one. Conservatives should care when progressive speech is suppressed. Progressives should care when conservative speech is silenced. And all citizens should recognize that the erosion of expressive freedom is rarely symmetrical or stable. It expands. It metastasizes. It eventually reaches those who once applauded it.

    If free speech only survives during moments of convenience, it’s not really free.

    Supporting the right to speak does not mean endorsing what is said. It means believing that a free society is strong enough to withstand unpopular ideas without resorting to coercion. It means valuing persuasion over prohibition. It means recognizing that democracy requires friction.

    Charlie Kirk may be a lightning rod, but the underlying issue is larger than any one figure. The question is whether we still believe in a public square robust enough to sustain disagreement. Whether our institutions still trust citizens to confront ideas rather than suppress them. Whether discomfort is something to be navigated or eliminated.

    If free speech only survives during moments of convenience, it’s not really free. It is permission masquerading as principle. And permission always has an expiration date.

    What this moment demands is not perfect harmony but civic courage: the willingness to say that speech should be protected even when we dislike the speaker, that debate should remain open even when it unsettles us, and that the strength of a liberal society lies not in silencing dissent but in enduring it.

    That endurance is not weakness. It is democracy.

    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