Tag: Point
-
A turning point for UK international higher education
In 2019, the UK launched its first international education strategy – a landmark effort that set ambitious, cross-government targets for growing our international education footprint. The years since have exposed the fragility of a strategy without a built-in mechanism for review or refresh when buffeted by events. Changing geopolitics, tightening migration strategies and Covid might not individually have been expected, but exposure to global markets will always bring challenges.
The 2019 roadmap lacked clarity on whether those targets were a floor or a ceiling and what we were to do when they were reached. In their absence, policy drifted. Reactive decisions replaced proactive planning. Universities, caught in the crosswinds of shifting geopolitics and domestic migration debates, have too often been left guessing what the government’s long-term vision really is.
That’s why the International Higher Education Commission (IHEC) was formed; to fill this strategic vacuum with a coherent, forward-looking, and inclusive vision. Working across sectors – engaging university leaders, student bodies, recruiters, and policymakers – it’s been working on framework for a new UK international higher education strategy rooted in data, tempered by experience, and open to evolution.
Our personal view is that we need nothing less than a reinvention of how we plan, manage, and grow international higher education; that we must hack a way through the many things we could do, or would like to do, to get to the essential priorities – what we must do – and be brave enough to make difficult decisions.
It is clear that the government wishes the sector well, but is not going to put its hand in its pocket any time soon. Our only way forward in the short term, then, is to ask for modest help, which will provide a short-term, concrete return on investment to trade our way out of the immediate difficulties.
Our personal view is that we need nothing less than a reinvention of how we plan, manage, and grow international higher education
If we steady the ship, we can in parallel put in place a framework, acknowledging the likely ongoing volatility in geopolitics and global markets, that moves us to a more strategic and sustainable approach in the medium and longer term. This may not be elegant policy making, but it is rooted in the pragmatic reality of the changes necessary to stabilise a system so economically, socially and culturally significant.
We have shared our personal views in a number of fora over the past two years as IHEC has unfolded and reiterate them here as we anticipate the imminent publication of our final report. It is very timely now, having been delayed initially by the UK general election, in which higher education as a topic failed to appear. Then the focus of almost everyone was on the US election, and that was followed by the significant challenges in the sector that meant that policy suggestions would not have been appropriate.
Now, there is a more proactive, forward-looking context to which we hope we can contribute.
- A living strategy with built-in review and flexibility
- Policy certainty and sustainable structures
- A competitive, student-centred offer
- Whole-government coherence and accountability
- Strategic marketing and market diversification
- Public-private partnership and institutional innovation
- Reframing migration and public narrative
The UK needs a dynamic framework, not a static document.
Strategies must adapt to shifting global conditions, student preferences, and national needs. A ‘living’ strategy, reviewed regularly, updated transparently, and framed around multiple scenarios, not a single trajectory. Growth must be deliberate, not accidental.
Confidence in the UK’s offer depends in part on consistency. The Graduate Route – allowing students to work post-study – has been a cornerstone of our recent successes, but its future must be secured through clearer legal and policy underpinning in the face of continuing threats from a still-changing migration policy context.
We also need a more sustainable system that doesn’t rely solely on growth from a few key markets, but diversifies and balances recruitment in line with national capacity and ambition.
International students are not just numbers; they’re individuals with aspirations and needs. Better engagement with the ‘student voice’ is critical, as is a re-examination of how we ensure student success as they enter the workforce.
Too often, policy is siloed across Whitehall. Education may do better than other areas, but there are key departments missing from discourse – the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, among others – and they are necessary to provide coordinated oversight.
It’s also vital to reflect regional priorities and the role of devolved nations, Metro Mayors, and local authorities in shaping recruitment and integration strategies.
The UK concentrates too heavily on a small number of international markets. We must be smarter.
Study UK does the best it can with the woefully poor levels of investment, but we must invest in data-driven, market-specific campaigns and learn from countries like Australia that tie marketing to outcomes.
Strategic delivery needs strategic partners. We must deepen collaboration with sector bodies like UKCISA, NISAU and BUILA to create a more integrated system that shares responsibility across institutions, government, and industry.
We also need to support the new found enthusiasm for TNE at scale to ensure that the new initiatives are robustly founded, and better data to inform national and institutional decision making.
International students bring huge value to local economies, research, and the cultural fabric of our campuses. Yet in public discourse they too often become collateral in broader immigration debates.
We must be able to show, and more effectively communicate, that almost all students return home. A confident, positive narrative is essential, based on evidence – not emotion.
The road ahead
This is a moment for boldness and clarity. The sector stands at a crossroads. It is under unprecedented threat, but it is also brimming with opportunity. If we get it right, the UK will not only remain a top destination for international students: we will lead globally on how it integrates education with diplomacy, soft power, and innovation.
-
Presidents point to drivers of declining public trust
According to 2024 general election exit polling, 42 percent of voters with college degrees voted for now-President Donald Trump, compared to 56 percent of those without college degrees. Asked how they feel about this growing education gap in the electorate—what researchers call the diploma divide—25 percent of college and university presidents say they’re very or extremely concerned about its implications for their institution.
More say they’re highly concerned about the growing divide’s impact on higher education in general (58 percent) and on American democracy (64 percent). That’s according to a new analysis of findings from Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents, completed with Hanover Research.
Presidents also offer a scathing review of how higher education has responded to this divide thus far: Just 3 percent think the sector has been very or extremely effective, versus not at all, somewhat or moderately effective. The leaders have a similarly dismal view of how higher education is responding to declining public confidence: A mere 1 percent, rounded up, think it has been highly effective. Much larger shares of presidents think higher education has not been at all effective in responding to the public confidence crisis, with presidents of private nonprofit institutions especially likely to say so, or to the growing education divide in the electorate.
The Diploma Divide
Experts say that the diploma divide can’t be decoupled from the public confidence crisis, and that both have implications for the intensifying debate over, and presidential communication about, higher education’s value—especially in this political moment.
More on the Survey
Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents was conducted with Hanover Research starting in December and running through Jan. 3. The survey included 298 presidents of two- and four-year institutions, public and private, for a margin of error of 5 percent. Download a copy of the free report here, and check out reporting on the survey’s other findings, including what presidents really think about faculty tenure and student mental health, and their expectations for the second Trump administration.
On Wednesday, March 26, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will present a webcast with campus leaders who will share their takes on the findings. Register for that discussion here.
“Presidents should be making very clear and very concrete what the practical benefits of their university are, not just for the students that attend that university but for the community, the state at large,” said Joshua Zingher, an associate professor of political science and geography at Old Dominion University who studies elections and political behavior, including the diploma divide. “Thinking about the long-term development of the U.S. as a science power or a technology power is very much a story of the university.” He noted that football games at the University of Iowa, in his home state, pause after the first quarter so that fans can wave to patients in the campus children’s hospital—an example of how society depends on thriving colleges and universities, and how cuts to university research and other funding have ripple effects.
Matt Grossman, professor of American politics and public policy and director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, who co-authored the 2024 book Polarized by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics, agreed there is reason for presidents to be concerned about the diploma divide, in that the “analogies are not great.” Just think of the politically polarized trust in so-called mainstream media, an institution in which both Democrats and Republicans were once largely confident.
But whereas Zingher said that presidents might have to “take a position” at some point, even if many loathe being seen as political figures, Grossman pointed to existing public polling linking declining confidence to concerns about ideological bias within institutions, at least among Republicans. So Grossman said he was surprised by how few presidents in IHE’s annual survey most attribute declining trust to concerns about ideological bias (11 percent). About double that share say concerns about ideological bias are very or extremely valid (22 percent).
Grossman explained that higher education has always been culturally liberal, but as social and cultural issues become more central to how people vote, it’s harder for institutions to “be above the fray.” Indeed, higher education is now a wedge issue. As for how campus leaders should respond to the diploma divide, Grossman said, “The first step would be a realization that they know that they are facing these complaints.”
Presidents of private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than their public counterparts to express the highest level of concern about the divide’s impact, including on higher education in general. Region also appears to matter, with presidents in the South least likely to worry about the divide. Regarding its impact on American democracy, for example, some 45 percent of presidents in the South are very or extremely worried, versus 62 percent of those in the Midwest, 73 percent of those in the West and 75 percent in the Northeast.
The widening diploma divide means that voters without a college degree are increasingly likely to vote Republican and those with a degree are increasingly like to vote Democratic. With the Republican Party growing more critical of higher education, this has real consequences for college and university missions and budgets.
But Keith Curry, president of Compton College and chief executive of the Compton Community College District, emphasized that educating students, including about voting, transcends politics: “It’s important that as leaders we’re bipartisan, and to focus on helping students register to vote and participate in the [democratic] process. They have to understand the issues and how to gather the information. They make their own decisions.”
For what it’s worth, faculty members in a fall poll by IHE and Hanover overwhelmingly said that they planned to encourage students to vote in the 2024 election. But just 2 percent planned to tell students to vote for a particular candidate or party.
Jay Akridge, trustee chair in teaching and learning excellence, professor of agricultural economics and former provost at Purdue University, offered a slightly different take. Calling the diploma divide “concerning,” he said it might “make higher ed think more about students with parents who did not go to college and how to better serve this group of first-generation students.”
The Value Debate
If not concerns about ideological bias, to what do presidents most attribute declining public confidence in higher education?
From a list of survey options, the plurality (49 percent) cite concerns about the value of a college education and/or whether college is worth it. A less common choice: concerns about lack of affordability, including high tuition (18 percent). And very few presidents point to concerns about whether colleges are adequately preparing students for the workforce (7 percent).
Some differences emerge by institution type, with public presidents more likely to cite concerns about whether college is worth it than their private nonprofit peers (54 percent versus 43 percent, respectively). But presidents of private nonprofits are somewhat more likely to blame concerns about affordability (22 percent versus 15 percent of public institution presidents).
As for whether presidents think that such concerns are actually founded, half say that concerns about affordability are very to extremely valid, with presidents at public institutions (57 percent) significantly more likely to say so than those at private nonprofits (39 percent).
And while very few presidents over all (1 percent) most attribute declining public confidence in higher education to concerns about equity, including access and outcomes for historically underrepresented groups, a quarter (26 percent) think that such concerns are highly valid. The same goes for higher education being disconnected from society (24 percent say this is highly valid)—something that’s arguably linked to the diploma divide, as well.
Just 15 percent of presidents say the value question is highly valid. Some 40 percent say it’s not at all valid, while an additional 46 percent rate it as somewhat or moderately valid.
In IHE’s 2024 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers with Hanover, 94 percent of CBOs somewhat or strongly agreed that their institution offers good value for what it charges for an undergraduate degree. Just 9 percent of CBOs said their institution charges too much for an undergraduate degree.
As for the student perspective, in IHE’s 2024 Student Voice survey series, most current two- and four-year students agreed that they’re getting a valuable education. But they were much less likely to agree that their college was affordable.
Martha Snyder, partner at HCM Strategists, says the education firm’s own U.S. polling and other research has found a general, even bipartisan belief “that education beyond high school in some form or fashion is necessary and important for longer-term economic viability, prosperity and longer-term job security.” But—similar to the Student Voice findings—the “disconnect tends to be in accessibility and affordability.” That is, even as Americans may understand the long-term value of higher education, it is undercut by the immediate challenges of paying for it—especially when weighed against the opportunity cost of not working, or perhaps not working as much, while pursuing a degree.
Snyder says this also points to a need for institutional transparency on cost of attendance and for better presidential communication as to why higher education works the way it does.
“Think about the notion of a credit hour, right? The complex way that pricing happens is not easily understood by students and families. And even though net price has fallen, well, what is net pricing?” she said. “So there’s another disconnect in how we are communicating the information we’re providing to individuals about the opportunities, about the pathways and about what the end result is, in terms of career opportunities and career advancement.”
Akridge, of Purdue, also noted the gap between the relatively large share of presidents who think concerns about the value of a degree are driving declining public confidence and the relatively small share who point to concerns about whether or not colleges are adequately preparing students for the workforce, as these two points are connected. Moreover, he said, there “are plenty of valid questions raised by employers about whether or not college graduates are ready for the work world.”
In just one example, a recent survey of U.S. employees and human resources leaders by Hult International Business School found that 85 percent of recent graduates wish their college had better prepared them for the workplace, and 75 percent of HR leaders say most college educations aren’t preparing people at all for their jobs. There’s a lot to mine here‚ some of it probably generational (Gen Z employees aren’t necessarily mangers’ favorites, and they have their own expectations about work).
Employer-led skills training has long been on the decline, as well. In any case, Akridge said that given employer perceptions about lack of preparation, “presidents are missing an opportunity—the so-called skills gap is an issue they can take action to close. And this is an issue where such actions will be well received by the public and will make a great story to tell.”
Akridge and David Hummels, professor of economics and dean emeritus at Purdue, last fall launched “Finding Equilibrium: Two Economists on Higher Ed’s Future,” a Substack newsletter seeking to inform the value conversation. It has offered a number of ideas for improving the career readiness of college graduates, including elevating teaching and learning as a priority through curricular and co-curricular design, innovation and delivery; rethinking organizational structures and student support with a focus on career readiness; and strengthening connections and feedback loops with employers. Akridge and Hummels have also written about how the economic case for college remains strong and how the price students actually pay to attend college has fallen.
Hummels told Inside Higher Ed that presidents are especially well positioned to share this kind of information with the public, to address the value debate head-on: “They are not passive actors. They need to get out in their communities and around their states, talking to high schools and chambers of commerce and the like, making the case that college is affordable with grant aid. That the return on college is large and positive when you take challenging courses of study and make the most of co-curricular opportunities.”
The big asterisk here is that completion rates hover in the mid–60 percent range for four-year institutions. Students pursuing more expensive college options but moving into lower-wage jobs is another problem. So it’s also “clear higher ed does not work for everyone,” Akridge said. “We don’t create value for all students.” And how to get better remains “an essential question.”
More on Affordability—and the Diploma Divide
Curry, president of Compton College, said he has no doubts about higher education’s value, but that affordability is a highly valid concern at his institution.
“We have students who are thinking about, ‘Do I buy a book for math class, or do I get food?’ They have to make some real decisions based off of their current finances about to going to college. It is not just the tuition cost. It is the total cost of education—what does that look like?”
Similarly, students are weighing the cost of working versus going to college. This means that they have to be able to see higher education’s value in real time, Curry said. One way the college is helping students understand this is with program maps that list careers, salaries and other opportunities connected to various areas of study.
For Hummels, affordability also points right back to the diploma divide in terms of future funding for higher education. If a majority of voters without a college education vote for one party and express a growing conviction that college is not worth it, he said, “then it becomes easier to cut back on Pell Grants, on subsidized student loans, on state support for universities.”
The impacts of these cuts would be felt most strongly by lower-income and lower-education households, he continued, and “the lack of support becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. College will become out of reach for these households.”
-
New legislation in Scotland increases the SFC’s powers, but only up to a point
Post-school reform in Scotland continues to chug along, following last month’s announcement of the preferred future shape of the funding body landscape.
Today sees the legislation that will enact the changes introduced in Holyrood: the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.
We’ve been over how responsibilities for further education student support and apprenticeships and skills funding will shift around, and the bill also contains expected changes to the governance arrangements of the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), as well as some technical changes relating to fees and private provision.
But what’s emerged as perhaps the more pressing question for the higher education sector is how the legislation will change SFC responsibilities and powers, as these apply to its work with universities. The legislation sets out the route the Scottish government will take here, and it’s a fairly balanced one – we are still a long way from an England-style “boots on the ground” regulatory environment, likely to the relief of many.
Tell us about your finances
Much of what the bill will do legislatively is through modifications to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. Section 22(4) of this gives the SFC various powers to “pull” information from universities – or strictly, from their governing bodies – but only where the funder knows that the information exists, or may exist.
The new legislation aims to create a landscape in which post-16 education bodies must “proactively notify SFC of certain developments of which the SFC might otherwise be unaware” in what the bill’s policy memorandum characterises as a “push” of information – a responsibility to notify the funding council of things it would not have known otherwise. Those who are more used to other UK systems will probably be thinking of “reportable events”.
It’s suggested that notifications would likely be sought in the following kinds of situation:
- Where a university is planning voluntary or compulsory severance (so no daily refreshing of the QMUL UCU cuts tracker for the SFC)
- Where a university has reached a certain threshold in a rapidly worsening financial viability situation
- A major data breach, such as resulting from a cyberattack.
But exactly how this will work is not specified on the face of the legislation – it would be determined by ministers via the laying of regulations, with consultation and an affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament, “given that they could potentially place significant obligations on post-16 education bodies.” But this does mean that there is a lack of clarity on exactly what the bill is going to mandate.
Part of the rationale for beefing up the legislation from what was previously anticipated (and let’s be honest, what was in the consultation) seems to be that ministers have not received enough clarity about the financial challenges being faced by certain universities and colleges. When the policy memorandum notes that “there can be challenges for SFC in getting information from post-16 education bodies about their financial sustainability,” you feel that really the issue is about ministerial oversight and the sense of having active levers to pull. This is given an explicit tweak elsewhere in the bill (again, quoting the policy memorandum):
New section 15A(2) allows the Scottish Ministers to seek information and advice from the SFC relating to post-16 education bodies, this could be an individual body or the bodies as a whole. Section 15A(3) requires the SFC to respond to any such request from the Scottish Ministers and the SFC may also offer information proactively when it considers it appropriate to do so. This is necessary because unforeseen circumstances may arise of which the Scottish Ministers might otherwise be unaware (and so would not know to enquire).
So what are you going to do about it?
Also in the 2005 Act is provision for the SFC to “secure the promotion or carrying out of studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of any fundable body” – but no such power exists where the matters are not related to financial support.
The new legislation would amend this, with the intention of making the SFC able to “address a broader range of matters to assist with performance improvement.” So in scope for an efficiency study would now be the needs and interests of learners:
The policy intention is that the SFC could, particularly where notified of certain adverse circumstances (such as course closures), instigate studies or reviews of the impact on students and learners so that assistance could be provided to ensure they are not negatively impacted. For example, if a college was heading towards needing to close courses before students could complete them, the SFC could help to make arrangements for the students to continue their education at different colleges.
Bringing the student interest in scope sounds sensible in theory, but there remains the question of what changes on the ground, beyond the production of a study. The 2005 Act allows the SFC to attend and speak to an institution’s governing body – the new section 15(4) of this bill will extend this to the issuing of a set of written recommendations.
So the SFC will be able to recommend setting specific improvement targets, or requiring the development of an improvement plan. And it will now even be able to publish these, “where there is wider interest amongst institutions, or the public, in the recommendations and they are not sensitive.” But it won’t be obliged to.
And what if its recommendations are ignored?
As with the SFC’s right to address meetings, already provided for in section 16 of the 2005 Act, there is no corresponding duty on the fundable body to do anything in response to the recommendations. However, as a matter of good governance and practice, the Scottish Government would expect the fundable body to consider them appropriately.
But beyond these recommendations, in the legislation as it stands there would be proper statutory powers for the SFC to influence educational institutions’ behaviour, through the issuing of guidance, which currently is “purely administrative” (though presumably always very welcome). The Tertiary Education and Training Bill will change this, so that institutions must have regard to the guidance, in the carrying out of their funded activities (note that “have regard to” is quite woolly language – something that the Office for Students has exploited frequently within the way HERA was drafted). But the SFC will have to consult both ministers and institutions in issuing guidance.
It could have been otherwise
Various alternative approaches were considered and rejected. The use of codes of conduct (“for example to address concerns around breaches of fair work conditions”) was felt to potentially lead to complex interactions with other requirements, and diminish autonomy. Plus there would have been a need for “appropriate enforcement mechanisms,” which is a whole other question.
More powers of audit and investigation were also considered and not taken forward, which would have been a move towards a “more interventionist SFC.” Likewise for stronger enforcement and intervention action, including serving enforcement notices or the removing, suspending, or appointing of officers or governing body members.
But this would have been “a fundamental change to SFC’s role which requires more careful consideration” – and would have gone way beyond what was originally consulted on.
There’s still a long way to go here – Universities Scotland is already noting the “new, very broadly defined provisions regarding the monitoring of the financial sustainability of institutions,” and raising concerns that too much change in the relationship between the SFC and universities (or universities and the Scottish government) could jeopardise the classification of universities in the Office for National Statistics classification.
The Scottish government seems to be aware of this particular risk – but there are certainly MSPs keen for the SFC to become more “interventionist”, and the legislation now faces a complicated passage through a Parliament in which the SNP does not hold a majority. The ministerial statement to Holyrood launching the bill saw Ross Greer of the Scottish Greens concerned about whether the SFC would have the ability to intervene in matters relating to fair work – higher education minister Graeme Dey said he would be happy to discuss the issue further.
For now the legislation aims at a delicate balancing act between juicing up the SFC’s role and preserving universities’ autonomy. The next question is whether this persists in the face of deeper scrutiny and parliamentary compromises.
-
West Point disbands student groups for women and minorities
The United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., has shut down a dozen student affinity clubs to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders to eliminate federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and ensure that no member of the military “be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed,” The Washington Post reported.
The Asian-Pacific Forum Club, the National Society of Black Engineers Club and the Latin Cultural Club are among the campus groups ordered to shut down, according to a memo sent Tuesday from Chad Foster, deputy commandant at West Point, to the Directorate of Cadet Activities.
The memo orders all the identified clubs to “permanently cease all activities” and “unpublish, deactivate, archive or otherwise remove all public facing content.” It also orders the dozens of other clubs at West Point to “cease all activity” until they have been reviewed to ensure compliance with Trump’s executive orders and guidance from the Army and the Department of Defense.
Below is the full list of disbanded clubs, including some with decades-long histories at West Point, according to the Post:
- The Asian-Pacific Forum Club
- The Contemporary Cultural Affairs Seminar Club
- The Corbin Forum
- The Japanese Forum Club
- The Korean-American Relations Seminar
- The Latin Cultural Club
- The Native American Heritage Forum
- The National Society of Black Engineers (West Point chapter)
- The Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers (West Point chapter)
- The Society of Women Engineers (West Point chapter)
- Spectrum
- The Vietnamese-American Cadet Association
