Tag: model

Harvard’s resistance to Trump is a model for US universities

This article was originally published on April 15, 2025, at UnHerd and is republished here with permission.

They say that where Harvard goes, others follow. For the first time in a while, supporters of free expression on American campuses should hope that’s true.

Late last week, the Ivy League university received a letter from the federal government demanding changes to its governance, leadership structure, hiring practices, and admissions processes, as well as a “discontinuation of DEI” and reform of “programs with egregious records of antisemitism or other bias.” If it failed to carry out these changes, Harvard would risk losing its government investment. In other words, “Nice school you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Thankfully, Harvard pushed back. Yesterday the university’s president Alan Garber published a response, firmly committing to the preservation of academic freedom and institutional independence on campus. The government’s mandates, Garber wrote, “[threaten] our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

In retaliation, the Trump administration moved to freeze $2.2 billion in funds to the university. That’s a high price to pay, but the costs of giving in would be far greater. For one thing, that sum is a drop in the bucket of Harvard’s $50 billion endowment. More importantly, if a school with such resources and influence doesn’t fight back against government strong-arming, it will send a chill down the spine of every other university in the Trump administration’s crosshairs.

Columbia, for example, recently caved to similar pressures. But in the wake of Harvard’s pushback, the New York university published a statement rejecting “heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution” and “any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire.”

This is a welcome development. How many other institutions, facing millions in contract cancellations, will stand up for themselves now that Harvard has set an example? There is good reason to push back against the excesses of DEI on campus, much of which amounts to bureaucratic ideological gatekeeping and a chilling of dissent. Combatting discrimination is also a worthy goal — but not by way of overly broad definitions of antisemitism which prohibit criticizing the state of Israel and wind up restricting campus speech.

Among other issues, the government’s provisions ignore the existing process for adjudicating alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — the federal law banning discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs or activities. Under these demands, Harvard’s hiring and admissions processes would be forced to employ government-approved “ideological diversity” litmus tests that would rival, if not supersede, the DEI mandates many in this administration pledged to oppose.

What’s more, the provisions are fundamentally at odds with the university’s First Amendment rights. If Harvard were to acquiesce, any free speech or academic freedom on campus would exist only according to the administration’s preferences. That is no way to facilitate the free exchange of ideas, which is at the core of any university’s mission.

The principle is clear: the government cannot condition a school’s federal funding on giving up First Amendment rights. When the Obama and Biden administrations demanded universities restrict student free speech and due process rights under Title IX — the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs or activities — this was clearly unlawful. The same argument applies now.

There is no doubt that higher education needs serious reform. But the solution to censorious and discriminatory policies isn’t more censorious and discriminatory policies. It certainly shouldn’t involve allowing the federal government to hold US universities hostage to its own preferences. For better or worse, other universities have long followed in Harvard’s steps. Anyone invested in the future of American higher education should hope that this fightback inspires a further wave of copycats.

Source link

April 16, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations. Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Payette, Patricia R., and Marie Kendall Brown. “Gathering Mid-Semester Feedback: Three Variations to Improve Instruction.” IDEA Paper No. 67, IDEA Center, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588349

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations.” Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Louisiana Sees Improved Pass Rates With Corequisite Model

During the 2020–21 academic year, only 12 percent of students attending a public institution in Louisiana who attempted to complete a credit-bearing English class passed. This past fall, success rates among learners jumped to 60 percent.

The change reflects an overhaul of remedial education courses at the state level, led by the Louisiana Board of Regents, to improve completion rates across the system’s 28 colleges and universities.

The initial numbers, coupled with high passing rates among mathematics courses, are a step in the right direction to support credential attainment for adults in Louisiana, said Tristan Denley, deputy commissioner of academic affairs and innovation for the Board of Regents.

What’s the need: The overhaul of remedial education is tied to the state’s strategic initiative, Louisiana Prospers, which sets a goal for 60 percent of the state’s adult population to have at least a credential of value. At present, the state is at 51 percent attainment, up six percentage points from 2021.

“One of the fundamental changes that had to be made to be able to increase that attainment in that way is really the barrier of early math and English success,” Denley explained.

Compared to remediation, corequisite courses reflect an asset-based approach to student success that indicates institutional readiness for student achievement. Resea r ch shows students who are placed in corequisite courses are more likely to retain, save money and graduate earlier, compared to their peers.

“A traditional approach to remediation sort of says, ‘Well, I know you think you’re in college, but maybe not quite yet,’” Denley said.

Other states, including California, Georgia, Illinois and Tennessee have also prioritized corequisite courses over remedial education offerings to boost student success.

Building better: The process of rolling out corequisite education began in spring 2022, providing each of the state’s 28 institutions 18 months to launch the math program and then another 18 months for English courses.

Louisiana launched its corequisite course structure for math courses in starting in fall 2023, and during that academic year, 52 percent of students in a corequisite class completed a college-level math course, up 41 percentage points from 2020–21, when only 11 percent of remedial math students completed a credit-bearing course.

Implementing corequisite education at scale is a large undertaking, requiring work from math and English faculty as well as the registrar’s office and others, and each rollout looked a little different depending on the college and its needs.

The system office hosted technical assistance and professional development events to support campuses, including semesterly corequisite academies, which brought together 150 faculty who teach corequisite math and English to share best practices, identify common challenges and establish a community of practice.

“Interestingly, there are lessons to be learned from the math folk for the English folk, and vice versa, as well as among themselves in those different disciplines,” Denley said.

One important facet of the corequisite model is addressing students’ self-perceptions of themselves as learners—particularly in math courses where students experience math anxiety—so the board established “Mindset Meauxtivators,” a faculty development course that emphasizes a growth mindset. Two hundred–plus corequisite faculty have completed the course, and a dozen or so serve as faculty champions for this work within their own campuses or regions.

What’s next: The state will continue to collect data and parse through to identify trends in completion of credit-bearing English and math courses across student groups and institutions.

Identifying opportunities to support faculty with modern pedagogy that assist with corequisite education is another focus for the board, because the teaching style is much different from remedial.

Attainment is the goal of this current strategic plan, but future student success work in Louisiana will address socioeconomic mobility and ensuring students “make good on the credential they earn,” Denley said. “After they’ve earned that, what are ways in which we can make sure that that credential is life-changing, both to themselves and to their families and their communities?”

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Higher Education Inquirer : Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Source link

January 27, 2025
WEEKEND READING: Why Scotland’s student funding system is “unfair, unsustainable, unaffordable” and needs to be replaced with a graduate contribution model
- These are the remarks by Alison Payne, Research Director at Reform Scotland, at the HEPI / CDBU event on funding higher education, held at Birkbeck, University of London, on Thursday of this week.
- We are also making available Johnny Rich’s slides on ‘Making graduate employer contributions work’ from the same event, which are available to download here.
Thanks to the CDBU and to HEPI for the invitation to attend and take part in today’s discussion.

My speech today has been titled ‘A graduate contribution model’. Of course, for UK graduates not from Scotland, I’m sure they would make the point that they very much do contribute through their fees, but the situation is very different in Scotland and I’m really grateful that I have the opportunity to feed the Scottish situation into today’s discussion.

I thought it may be helpful if I gave a quick overview of the Scottish situation, as it differs somewhat to the overview Nick gave this morning covering the rest of the UK.

Although tuition fees were introduced throughout the UK in 1998, the advent of devolution in 1999 and the passing of responsibility for higher education to Holyrood began the period of diverging funding policies.

The then Labour / Lib Dem Scottish Executive, as it was then known, scrapped tuition fees and replaced them with a graduate endowment from 2001-02, with the first students becoming liable to pay the fee from April 2005. The scheme called for students to pay back £2,000 once they started earning over £10,000.

The graduate endowment was then scrapped by the SNP in February 2008. A quirk of EU law meant that students from EU countries could not be charged tuition fees if Scottish students were not paying them but students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland could be charged. This meant that from 2008 to 2021/22 EU students did not need to pay fees to attend Scottish universities, though students from the rest of the UK did.

We’re used to politics in Scotland being highly polarised and often toxic with few areas of commonality, but for the most part the policy of ‘free’ higher education has been supported by all of the political parties. Indeed at the last Scottish election in 2021 all parties committed to maintaining the policy in their manifestos. It is only recently that the Scottish Tories have suggested a move away from this following the election of their new leader, Russell Finlay.

But behind this unusual political consensus, the ‘free’ policy is becoming increasingly unsustainable and unaffordable. Politicians will privately admit this, but politics, and a rock with an ill-advised slogan, have made it harder to have the much needed debate.

The Cap

While we don’t have tuition fees, we do have a cap on student numbers. And while more Scots are going to university, places are unable to keep up with demand. Since 2006 there has been a 56% increase in applicants, but an 84% increase in the number refused entry.

It is increasingly the case that students from the rest of the UK or overseas are accepted on to courses in Scotland while their Scottish counterparts are denied. For example, when clearing options are posted, often those places at Scotland’s top universities are only available to students from the rest of the UK and not to Scottish students, even if the latter have better grades. As a result, Scots can feel that they are denied access to education on their doorstep that those from elsewhere can obtain. Indeed, there are growing anecdotes about those who can afford it buying or renting property elsewhere in the UK so that they can attend a Scottish university, pay the higher fee and get around the cap.

Basically, more people want to go to university, but the fiscal arrangements are holding ambition them back. This problem was highlighted by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee’s report on Universities from 2021.

Some commentators in Scotland have blamed the lack of places on widening access programmes, but I would challenge this. It is undoubtedly a good thing that more people from non-traditional backgrounds are getting into university, it is the cap that is limiting Scottish places, not access programmes. This is a point that has been backed by individuals such as the Principal of St Andrews, Professor Dame Sally Mapstone [who also serves as HEPI’s Chair].

Financial Woes

The higher education sector in Scotland, as with elsewhere in the UK, is not in great financial health. Audit Scotland warned back in 2019 that half of our institutions were facing growing deficits. Pressures including pensions contributions, Brexit and estate maintenance have all played a role and in the face of this decline, but nothing has changed and we’re now seeing crisis like those at Dundee emerge. Against this backdrop, income from those students who pay higher fees is an important revenue stream.

There is obviously a huge variation in what the fees are to attend a Scottish university, considerably more so than in the rest of the UK.

For example, to study Accounting and Business as an undergraduate at Edinburgh University, the cost for a full-time new student for 2024/25 is £1,820 per year for a Scottish-domiciled student (met by the Scottish Government), £9,250 per year for someone from the rest of the UK and £26,500 for an international student.

It is clear why international students and UK students from outside Scotland are therefore so much more attractive than Scottish students.

However, there is by no means an equal distribution of higher fee paying students among our institutions.

For example, at St Andrews about one-third of undergraduate full-time students were Scots, with one-third from the rest of the UK and one-third international. The numbers for Edinburgh are similar.

At the other end of the scale, at the University of the Highlands and Islands and Glasgow Caledonian, around 90% of students are Scottish, with only around only 1% being international.

So it is clear that institutions’ ability to raise money from fee-paying students varies very dramatically, increasing the financial pressures on those with low fee income.

However, when looking at the issue, it is important to recognise that it is not just our universities who are struggling, Scotland’s colleges are facing huge financial pressures as well.

The current proposed Scottish budget would leave colleges struggling with a persistent, real-terms funding cut of 17 per cent since 2021/22. Our college sector is hugely important in terms of the delivery of skills, working with local economies and as a route to university for so many, but for too long colleges have been treated like the Cinderella service in Scotland. The prioritising of ‘free’ university tuition over the college sector is adding to this problem.

Regardless of who wins the Holyrood election next year, money is, and will remain, tight for some time. It would be lovely to be able to have lots of taxpayer funded ‘free’ services, but that is simply unsustainable and difficult choices need to be made.

This is why we believe that the current situation is unfair, unsustainable, unaffordable and needs to change.

Reform Scotland would offer another alternative solution. We believe that there needs to be a better balance between the individual graduate and Scottish taxpayers in the contribution towards higher education.

One way this could be achieved is through a fee after graduation, to be repaid once they earn more than the Scottish average salary. This would not be a fee incurred on starting university and deferred until after graduation, rather the fee would be incurred on graduation.

In terms of what that fee could be, the Cubie report over 25 years ago suggested a graduate fee of £3,000, which would be about £5,500 today.  This could perhaps be the starting point for consideration.

Any figure should take account of different variations in terms of the true cost of the course and potential skill shortages.

However, introducing a graduate fee would not necessarily mean an end to ‘free’ tuition.

Rather it provides an opportunity to look at the skills gaps that exist in Scotland and the possibility of developing schemes which cut off or scrap repayments for graduates who work in specific geographic areas or sectors of Scotland for set periods of time.

Such schemes could also look to incorporate students from elsewhere for Scotland is facing a demographic crisis. Our population is set to become older and smaller, and we are the only part of the UK projected to have a smaller population by 2045.

We desperately need to retain and attract more working-age people. Perhaps such graduate repayment waiver schemes could also be offered to students from the rest of the UK who choose to study in Scotland – stay here and work after graduation and we will pay a proportion of your fee. A wide range of different schemes could be considered and linked into the wider policy issues facing Scotland.

According to the Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) there were 3,370 graduates from the rest of the UK who attended a Scottish institution in 2020/21. Of those, only 990 chose to remain in Scotland for work after graduation. Could we encourage more people to stay after studying?

Conclusion

A graduate fee is only one possible solution, but I would argue that it is also one with a short shelf life. As graduates would not incur the fee until they graduated, there would be a four-year delay between the change in policy and revenue beginning to be received. Our institutions are facing very real fiscal problems and there is a danger of a university going to the wall.

If we get to the 2026 election and political parties refuse to shift the dial and at least recognise that the current system is unsustainable, then there is a danger that nothing will change for another Parliamentary term. I don’t think we can afford to wait until 2031.

There is another interesting dynamic now as well. Labour in Scotland currently, publicly at least, oppose tuition fees. However, there are now 37 Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster who are backing the increase of fees on students from outside Scotland, or Scottish students studying down south. Given the unpopularity of the Labour government as well as the tight contest between the SNP and Labour for Holyrood, it seems unlikely that position can be maintained.

All across the UK there are increasing signs of the stark financial situation we are facing. Against that backdrop, along with the restrictions placed on the number being able to attend, free university tuition is unsustainable and unaffordable. People outside Scottish politics seem to be able to see this reality, privately so do many of our politicians. We need to shift this debate in to the public domain in Scotland and develop a workable solution.
Source link
January 18, 2025