Tag: professional

  • Breaking barriers: advancing ethnic diversity in higher education professional services

    Breaking barriers: advancing ethnic diversity in higher education professional services

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Louise Oldridge, Senior Lecturer at Nottingham Trent University (with research team Dr Maranda Ridgway, Dr David Dahill, Dr Ricky Gee, Dr Stefanos Nachmias, Dr Loyin Olotu-Umoren, Dr Jessie Pswarayi, Dr Sarah Smith, Natalie Selby-Shaw and Dr Rhianna Garrett).

    Despite decades of progress in widening participation and diversifying student bodies, UK higher education still faces a stark reality: senior professional services roles remain overwhelmingly white.

    Indeed, when the professional body for senior professional services staff (Association of Heads of University Administration – AHUA) embarked on work to ‘shift the dial’ on race, membership had less than 5% global majority colleagues.

    While universities champion equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), and the sector has developed levers such as the Race Equality Charter (REC), the lived experiences of ethnically minoritised staff highlight systemic barriers that hinder career progression and perpetuate inequality.

    A recent research project funded by AHUA and conducted by the Centre for People, Work & Organizational Practice at Nottingham Business School explored these challenges. Drawing on interviews, focus groups, and institutional data, the project studied the career barriers and enablers for ethnically minoritised professionals in senior roles.

    The diversity gap in professional services leadership

    University leadership teams have diversified in some areas, for instance among governors, students, and even vice-chancellors, but senior professional services remain largely homogenous.

    Recruitment practices, opaque progression pathways, and institutional norms continue to privilege whiteness and middle-class values, leaving talented individuals from minoritised backgrounds sidelined.

    With limited institutional data available for the study, it revealed that while representation among lower-grade professional services roles has improved, senior positions tell a different story.

    Unlike academic colleagues, there is a stark shift in career management for professional services staff, with our research finding that many institutions are unequipped to track the career trajectories of professional service staff.

    Lived experiences: authenticity, masking, and emotional labour

    The qualitative insights from interviews and focus groups paint a vivid picture of what it means to navigate professional services as a person of colour. Participants spoke candidly about the emotional labour involved in “code-switching” (altering language, appearance, or behaviour to fit dominant norms) and “masking” aspects of identity to avoid judgment or exclusion.

    One participant reflected: “I felt I had to disappear… to succeed, I needed to be someone else.” Others described being labelled as “diversity hires” or facing regular microaggressions that impacted confidence and wellbeing.

    Intersectionality compounds these challenges. Participant responses indicated that race intersected with gender, class, disability, and caring responsibilities, creating layered barriers that are often invisible to policy-makers. Women of colour, for instance, reported being undermined due to both race and gender, while those with disabilities faced inflexibility and a lack of empathy.

    Performative EDI and the need for structural change

    In a blog on the REC for Advance HE, Patrick Johnson calls for institutions to make an authentic commitment to dismantling racial barriers for staff. Institutions can use data to expose disparities and perceptions of the operating culture and environment.

    As Patrick notes, it is important that challenges are acknowledged openly and specific actions put in place in response.

    That said, participants in this research questioned the depth of their organisation’s commitments. EDI initiatives were described as performative and focused on optics rather than outcomes. As one interviewee put it:

    We talk about EDI when we’re going for awards, but it’s not part of our everyday practice.

    This disconnect between rhetoric and reality highlights a critical gap: policies alone cannot dismantle systemic inequities.

    Ultimately, what is needed is leadership from those in roles which can challenge the structural issue, redefine what it means to be ‘professional’, develop clear career pathways, transparent promotion processes, and accountability mechanisms that move beyond tick-box exercises. REC is a starting point for supporting this process, but cannot be seen either as a panacea or an end in itself.

    Five pathways to change

    The report offers a roadmap for transformation, organised into five thematic areas:

    1. Structural reform and policy change
      Clarify career pathways for professional services staff, audit recruitment practices, embed accountability into EDI policies and ensure progression routes are transparent – such as providing an understanding of ‘typical’ career histories for leadership roles.
    2. Representation and inclusion
      Increase diversity at senior levels through targeted development and sponsorship. Avoid tokenism by ensuring ethnically minoritised staff have meaningful influence, not just visibility. This could include clearer succession planning.
    3. Development, support, and research
      Invest in mentoring, coaching, and executive development programmes tailored to professional services. This reflects both formal support staff networks and more informal collectives, alongside committing to longitudinal research to track progress. For example, creating an informal network of colleagues across the sector.
    4. Cultural change and co-creation
      Move beyond compliance-driven EDI to authentic engagement. Challenge assumptions about professionalism and leadership, and co-create inclusive cultures with staff. This could mean redefining what institutions view as ‘professional(ism)’.
    5. Sector-level collaboration and accountability
      Coordinate efforts across professional bodies, share best practice, and ensure transparent reporting. Diversity must be a collective responsibility, and could include sector-wide knowledge exchange, clear metrics and outcomes.

    From awareness to action

    The report calls for dismantling what research team member Rhianna Garrett describes as ‘the architecture of whiteness’, which underpins institutional norms. This means rethinking recruitment, valuing professional services as integral to university success, and creating spaces where ethnically minoritised staff can thrive without compromising their identity.

    As one focus group participant put it:

    We recognise there is an issue, but I don’t think we really understand what to do about it – and a big part of that is because things are so white.

    For AHUA, and other sector professional service organisations, this report is a call for the sector to deliver systemic, sustained change. The question is not whether higher education can afford to prioritise diversity in professional services leadership; it is whether it can afford not to. It informs our next steps in a Theory of Change workshop to identify meaningful actions moving forward.

    As Dr Andrew Young, Chief Operating Office, The London School of Economics and Political Science, and AHUA project sponsor states:

    The evidence in this report should make all of us in higher education uncomfortable.  Change will only happen when we stop celebrating statements of intent and start measuring outcomes.

    Source link

  • ED’s Problematic “Professional Degree” Definition (opinion)

    ED’s Problematic “Professional Degree” Definition (opinion)

    In early November, following extensive debate by the RISE negotiated rule-making committee, the U.S. Department of Education proposed a definition of “professional degree” for federal student aid that could deter talented students from pursuing health-care careers. The proposed rule, stemming from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would leave students in many fields critical for our future health-care workforce subject to a $20,500-per-year federal student loan cap.

    Physician assistant/associate programs stand to be strongly affected. These programs are intensive, highly structured and clinically immersive. Students complete rigorous professional-level coursework while rotating through multiple clinical sites to gain hands-on experience. Unlike in many graduate programs, PA students cannot work during their studies, as clinical rotations are full-time and often require travel across multiple locations. Within this context, federal student aid is not optional; it is the lifeline that allows students to stay in their programs and complete the training they have worked for years to achieve. Without it, some students will have no choice but to abandon the profession entirely.

    The financial gap under the department’s proposal is striking. Tuition alone —not including expenses like housing, food and other needs—for PA programs often exceeds $90,000 for the duration of the program due to the unique costs associated with health professional education, such as simulation technology and clinical placement expenses. Under the department’s proposal, federal student aid would only cover a fraction of this amount. For students without access to private resources, the gap will likely be insurmountable.

    These challenges are not hypothetical. A student accepted into a PA program may face a choice to take on crippling private debt or leave the career track entirely. Students in nurse practitioner, physical therapy and occupational therapy programs face the same reality. Each of these programs combines intense academic and clinical requirements, preparing graduates for immediate entry into practice. Federal policy must recognize this reality if it hopes to support the next generation of health-care professionals.

    The consequences extend far beyond individual students. PA students, along with other health professions students, are essential to addressing workforce shortages, especially in rural and underserved areas. Every student forced to forgo pursuing a PA program due to financial barriers represents a future provider absent from the health-care system. At a time when demand for care is rising, federal policy that fails to recognize these students risks worsening shortages and limiting access to care for patients who need it most.

    The Department of Education has the opportunity to correct this in the final rule. Explicitly including PA students, along with nurse practitioners, physical therapists, occupational therapists and other professions that meet the statutory criteria for professional degrees would ensure that aid reaches students fully committed to intensive, licensure-preparing programs. Recognition will reduce financial stress, allow students to focus on becoming high-quality health-care providers and maintain the pipeline of skilled professionals critical to patient care.

    Including PA and other health professions students in the department’s final rule is both necessary and prudent. It allows students to complete programs they cannot otherwise afford, protects the future health-care workforce and ensures that communities continue to have access to vital services. The Department of Education can achieve clarity, fairness and meaningful impact by explicitly recognizing these professional students.

    Sara Fletcher is chief executive officer of the PA Education Association.

    Source link

  • Rethinking icebreakers in professional learning

    Rethinking icebreakers in professional learning

    Key points:

    I was once asked during an icebreaker in a professional learning session to share a story about my last name. What I thought would be a light moment quickly became emotional. My grandfather borrowed another name to come to America, but his attempt was not successful, and yet our family remained with it. Being asked to share that story on the spot caught me off guard. It was personal, it was heavy, and it was rushed into the open by an activity intended to be lighthearted.

    That highlights the problem with many icebreakers. Facilitators often ask for vulnerability without context, pushing people into performances disconnected from the session’s purpose. For some educators, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds, being asked to disclose personal details without trust can feel unsafe. I have both delivered and received professional learning where icebreakers were the first order of business, and they often felt irrelevant. I have had to supply “fun facts” I had not thought about in years or invent something just to move the activity along.

    And inevitably, somewhere later in the day, the facilitator says, “We are running out of time” or “We do not have time to discuss this in depth.” The irony is sharp: Meaningful discussion gets cut short while minutes were spent on activities that added little value.

    Why icebreakers persist

    Why do icebreakers persist despite their limitations? Part of it is tradition. They are familiar, and many facilitators replicate what they have experienced in their own professional learning. Another reason is belief in their power to foster collaboration or energize a room. Research suggests there is some basis for this. Chlup and Collins (2010) found that icebreakers and “re-energizers” can, when used thoughtfully, improve motivation, encourage interaction, and create a sense of safety for adult learners. These potential benefits help explain why facilitators continue to use them.

    But the promise is rarely matched by practice. Too often, icebreakers are poorly designed fillers, disconnected from learning goals, or stretched too long, leaving participants disengaged rather than energized.

    The costs of misuse

    Even outside education, icebreakers have a negative reputation. As Kirsch (2025) noted in The New York Times, many professionals “hate them,” questioning their relevance and treating them with suspicion. Leaders in other fields rarely tolerate activities that feel disconnected from their core work, and teachers should not be expected to, either.

    Research on professional development supports this skepticism. Guskey (2003) found that professional learning only matters when it is carefully structured and purposefully directed. Simply gathering people together does not guarantee effectiveness. The most valued feature of professional development is deepening educators’ content and pedagogical knowledge in ways that improve student learning–something icebreakers rarely achieve.

    School leaders are also raising the same concerns. Jared Lamb, head of BASIS Baton Rouge Mattera Charter School in Louisiana and known for his viral leadership videos on social media, argues that principals and teachers have better uses of their time. “We do not ask surgeons to play two truths and a lie before surgery,” he remarked, “so why subject our educators to the same?” His critique may sound extreme, but it reflects a broader frustration with how professional learning time is spent.

    I would not go that far. While I agree with Lamb that educators’ time must be honored, the solution is not to eliminate icebreakers entirely, but to plan them with intention. When designed thoughtfully, they can help establish norms, foster trust, and build connection. The key is ensuring they are tied to the goals of the session and respect the professionalism of participants.

    Toward more authentic connection

    The most effective way to build community in professional learning is through purposeful engagement. Facilitators can co-create norms, clarify shared goals, or invite participants to reflect on meaningful moments from their teaching or leadership journeys. Aguilar (2022), in Arise, reminds us that authentic connections and peer groups sustain teachers far more effectively than manufactured activities. Professional trust grows not from gimmicks but from structures that honor educators’ humanity and expertise.

    Practical alternatives to icebreakers include:

    • Norm setting with purpose: Co-create group norms or commitments that establish shared expectations and respect.
    • Instructional entry points: Use a short analysis of student work, a case study, or a data snapshot to ground the session in instructional practice immediately.
    • Structured reflection: Invite participants to share a meaningful moment from their teaching or leadership journey using protocols like the Four A’s. These provide choice and safety while deepening professional dialogue.
    • Collaborative problem-solving: Begin with a design challenge or pressing instructional issue that requires participants to work together immediately.

    These approaches avoid the pitfalls of forced vulnerability. They also account for equity by ensuring participation is based on professional engagement, not personal disclosures.

    Closing reflections

    Professional learning should honor educators’ time and expertise. Under the right conditions, icebreakers can enhance learning, but more often, they create discomfort, waste minutes, and fail to build trust.

    I still remember being asked to tell my last name story. What emerged was a family history rooted in migration, struggle, and survival, not a “fun fact.” That moment reminds me: when we ask educators to share, we must do so with care, with planning, and with purpose.

    If we model superficial activities for teachers, we risk signaling that superficial activities are acceptable for students. School leaders and facilitators must design professional learning that is purposeful, respectful, and relevant. When every activity ties to practice and trust, participants leave not only connected but also better equipped to serve their students. That is the kind of professional learning worth everyone’s time.

    References

    Aguilar, E. (2022). Arise: The art of transformative leadership in schools. Jossey-Bass.

    Chlup, D. T., & Collins, T. E. (2010). Breaking the ice: Using ice-breakers and re-energizers with adult learners. Adult Learning, 21(3–4), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515951002100305

    Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 48(10), 748–750.

    Kirsch, M. (2025, March 29). Breaking through. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/briefing/breaking-through.html

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • What to Know About the Definition of Professional Degree

    What to Know About the Definition of Professional Degree

    The Trump administration is soon expected to propose a plan that would cap loans for a number of advanced degrees—including master’s and doctoral degrees in nursing—and it’s gone viral on social media.

    From TikTok to Instagram, to local news headlines, the plan set off a storm of online criticism as influencers and advocacy groups take issue with the supposed declassification of certain degrees. But defining programs as professional or graduate isn’t a debate about social prestige or cultural characterization; it’s a debate about access to student loans, and now the Education Department is saying it’s time to “set the record straight.”

    “Certain progressive voices have been fear mongering about the Department of Education supposedly excluding nursing degrees from being eligible for graduate student loans,” the department said in a news release Monday. “This is misinformation.”

    The commentators are concerned about an upcoming federal rule, prompted by Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that could limit student loan access depending on what post-baccalaureate program a student enrolls in. Certain advanced degrees like dentistry, law or a masters in divinity will be eligible for higher student loans. (An advisory committee approved a draft of the rule in early November, which is slated to be formally proposed on the Federal Register in early 2026.)

    Inside Higher Ed has been reporting on the new loan limits for months and closely followed the negotiations over which programs should be considered as professional. So, here’s what you need to know about how the loan limits really work.

    Graduate v. Professional Is a Technical Term

    Many public critics of the proposal argue that not considering careers like nursing, speech pathology, teaching and social work as professionals would be a disrespectful blow to the dignity of students, many of whom are women, and the perceived value of the pathways they are pursuing. Some have even made uninformed suggestions that this could interfere with a students’ ability to gain licensure or a job after graduation. But those arguments imply that the terms have to do with a student’s level of competency or the capacity of a degree program, which they don’t.

    @vickichanmd

    Starting July 2026, “professional” students will be eligible for 50K a year in federal loans, while “nonprofessional” students $20,500. Coincidence that the fields chosen to get less than half the support are predominantly female? 🤔 ETA: I know I forgot some degrees, especially public health. So sorry for the oversight, 😥 should have been at the top of the list after the pandem¡c.

    ♬ original sound – dj auxlord

    Instead, the department would use the labels of professional and graduate, as defined in the department’s draft rule, to determine how much students can borrow.

    Here’s how that will work. If a degree falls in one of the 11 main categories deemed professional, a student pursuing it can take out up to $50,000 a year for four years or $200,000 total. Meanwhile, a student in any other graduate degree program can only borrow $20,500 per year or $100,000.

    The lifelong limit for all borrowers is $257,500 and that includes any loans from a bachelor’s degree. So, if a student were to pursue both a Master’s in public health and a medical degree, or any other combination of degrees from the two categories, they would not be able to combine the loan limits to access $300,000 total.

    Before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, students in any post-baccalaureate program could borrow up to the cost of attendance through a program known as Grad PLUS. Students in a master’s or doctoral program who already took out a Grad PLUS loan prior to July 1, 2026 will maintain access to loans for up to the full cost of attendance as long as they stay within the same program, under the draft plan.

    And prior to the legislation, the term professional had little substantial meaning. The federal definition in the Higher Education Act served more as a guideline for colleges as they decided whether to self-identify their doctoral programs as professional and to distinguish between degrees that led to a career in the field or in academia. Master’s degrees, like a master’s of science in nursing, had no reason to call themselves professional.

    It’s not clear how the loan caps will affect students. Critics of the plan argue they’ll make financing education more difficult and lead to a shortage of employees, and some research has suggested that students will have to turn to private loans to pay for the program. However, suggesting that certain job titles are being “declassified” or will “no longer” be deemed credible is misleading.

    @reygantawney Replying to @Kayla Perkins NP programs are NOT included in the DOEs proposed “professional degree” definition, meaning NP students fall under lower loan caps. This proposal isn’t final, but the implications could be massive for students and the healthcare workforce. #departmentofeducation #nursepractitionerstudent #nursepractitioner #healthcare #healthcareworker ♬ original sound – REYGAN TAWNEY

    What Programs Count as Professional?

    So, the real question then becomes which programs count as professional and how did the Trump administration decide that definition?

    Currently, 11 main degrees would be considered professional under the draft rule. Those degrees, almost all of which are doctoral, include: medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, optometry, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, law, theology, and clinical psychology. All but one—clinical psychology—were noted in the HEA definition.

    Clinical psychology was added during the negotiating process, which wrapped up in early November. One member of the negotiating committee argued that there was a high demand for medical providers to treat patients with mental health challenges, particularly veterans diagnosed with PTSD.

    @urnurseguru NPs weren’t ‘removed’ from anything except a loan bucket they never belonged in 😂💅 Stop confusing LOAN categories with your PROFESSIONAL status. #nursingtiktok #nursepractitioner #studentloans #npschool #urnurseguru ♬ original sound – URNurseGuru

    Similar arguments were made for other health care roles like nurses, audiologists and occupational therapists and some committee members warned that adding one category and not others could make the proposal vulnerable to legal challenges. But the Trump administration wanted to keep the new legal definition almost as narrow as possible.

    Multiple sources familiar with the negotiation process told Inside Higher Ed that committee members warned the department that certain industry groups would push back.

    “I was absolutely expecting something like this,” one source said. “The only question was which profession would break through. But among the politically savvy people I talked to we were betting nurses.”

    Why Did ED Define Professional This Way?

    Education Department officials repeatedly said during the negotiations that the narrow definition reflected Congress’s intent—to limit federal spending on graduate student loans.

    Between 2000 and 2020, the number of Americans who had taken out federal student loans doubled from about 21 million to about 45 million and the amount they owed skyrocketed from $387 billion to $1.8 trillion, according to a 2024 report from the Brookings Institute, a nonpartisan D.C. think tank.

    And research from multiple sources shows that much of that increase in debt can be traced back to graduate students. A 2023 report from the Department of Education showed that while the amount of undergraduate loans decreased between 2010 and 2021, the amount of graduate student loans steadily grew. And though individual graduate students only make up about 21 percent of all borrowers, they could soon be responsible for the majority of all outstanding debt.

    Another study from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce shows that between 2000 and 2024, the median net tuition and fees among graduate degree programs have more than tripled and the median debt principal among graduate borrowers has grown from $34,000 to $50,000.

    The Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say that results from a lack of limits on federal loans. They argue that with essentially unlimited graduate loans, colleges and universities have no incentive to keep costs low and students are convinced to take out more debt than they can handle. By ending Grad PLUS and limiting larger loans to a narrow group of degrees, they say, the goal is to drive down college costs and lower government spending.

    “Placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt,” the department’s fact sheet noted.

    What Consequences Could It Cause?

    But the online critics and other advocates question whether the loan caps will actually reduce student debt and drive down college costs.

    They are worried that instead of lowering college costs, it will force more students—particularly low-income, first generation students and students of color—to depend on the private loan market.

    For many of those borrowers, depending on private lenders could mean higher interest rates and more debt to be paid off. But some, especially those with low credit scores or no credit history, might not be able to access any loan and then wouldn’t be able to pursue certain degrees.

    Critics also argue that the loan cap will not only limit opportunities for socioeconomic mobility, but also cause workforce shortages in high-demand, high-cost careers such as nursing, physical therapy and audiology as well as high-demand, low-return careers such as social work and education.

    @addieruckman The US Department of Education is considering new rules that would significantly change the definition of what is deemed a “professional degree,” affecting graduate programs and potentially capping federal loan amounts for those not meeting the new definition. This debate over which programs qualify for “professional” status could likely impact students’ access and ability to afford their education. What we do is so important, even if the government doesn’t recognize it!! #departmentofeducation #slp #slpsoftiktok #CapCut ♬ original sound – ｃａｓｅｙ

    “At a time when healthcare in our country faces a historic nurse shortage and rising demands, limiting nurses’ access to funding for graduate education threatens the very foundation of patient care,” said Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, president of the American Nurses Association, which is a vocal critic of the draft rule. “In many communities across the country, particularly in rural and underserved areas, advanced practice registered nurses ensure access to essential, high-quality care that would otherwise be unavailable.”

    The Education Department countered that internal data indicates 95 percent of nursing students borrow below the $20,500 annual loan limit and wouldn’t be affected by the new cap. They also added that this loan cap only applies to post-baccalaureate degrees; about 80 percent of the nursing workforce just has an associate’s degree in nursing or a bachelor’s of science in nursing—both of which can lead to certification as a registered nurse.

    The department’s proposal could still be amended before it takes effect. The public will have at least 30 days to comment on the plan once it’s posted to the Federal Register. After the public comment period ends, ED officials will have to review and respond to the comments before issuing a final rule. But most higher ed experts don’t expect anything in the proposal to change no matter how many critiques ED receives.

    After that, Congress could still make changes to the law or a new administration could opt to rewrite the definition. But that would take time and likely more Democrats in office, so significant change isn’t anticipated any time soon.



    Source link

  • Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Examining the Debt and Earnings of “Professional” Programs (Robert Kelchen)

    Negotiated rulemaking, in which the federal government convenes representatives of affected parties before implementing major policy changes, is one of the wonkier topics in higher education. (I cannot recommend enough Rebecca Natow’s book on the topic.) Negotiated rulemaking has been in the news quite a bit lately as the Department of Education works to implement changes to federal student loan borrowing limits passed in this summer’s budget reconciliation law.

    Since 2006, students attending graduate and professional programs have been able to borrow up to the cost of attendance. But the reconciliation law limited graduate programs to $100,000 and professional programs to $200,000, setting off negotiations on which programs counted as “professional” (and thus received higher loan limits). The Department of Education started with ten programs and the list eventually went to eleven with the addition of clinical psychology.

    In this short post, I take a look at the debt and earnings of these programs that meet ED’s definition of “professional,” along with a few other programs that could be considered professional but were not.

    Data and Methods

    I used program-level College Scorecard data, focusing on debt data from 2019 and five-year earnings data from 2020. (These are the most recent data points available, as the Scorecard has not been meaningfully updated during the second Trump administration. Five-year earnings get students in health fields beyond medical residencies. I pulled all doctoral/first professional fields from the data by four-digit Classification of Instructional Programs codes, as well as master’s degrees in theology to meet the listed criteria.

    Nine of the eleven programs had enough graduates with debt and earnings to report data; osteopathic medicine and podiatry did not. There were five other fields of study with at least 14 programs reporting data: education, educational administration, rehabilitation, nursing, and business administration. All of these clearly prepare people for employment in a profession, but are not currently recognized as “professional.”

    Key takeaways

    Below is a summary table of debt and earnings for professional programs, including the number of programs above the $100,000 (graduate) and $200,000 (professional) thresholds. Dentistry, pharmacy, and medicine have a sizable share of programs above the $100,000 threshold, while law (the largest field) has only four of 195 programs over $200,000. Theology is the only one of the nine “professional” programs with sufficient data that has higher five-year earnings than debt, suggesting that students in other programs may have a hard time accessing the private market to fill the gap between $200,000 and the full cost of attendance.

    On the other hand, four of the five programs not included as “professional” have higher earnings than debt, with nursing and educational administration being the only programs with sufficient data that had debt levels below 60% of earnings. More than one-third of rehabilitation programs had debt over the new $100,000 cap, while few programs in other fields had that high of a debt level. (Education looks pretty good now, doesn’t it?)

    I expect the debate over what counts as “professional” to end up in courts and to possibly make its way into a future budget reconciliation bill (about the only way Congress passes legislation at this point). Until then, I will be hoping for newer and more granular data about affected programs.

    Source link

  • How generative AI could re-shape professional services and graduate careers

    How generative AI could re-shape professional services and graduate careers

    Join HEPI and the University of Southampton for a webinar on Monday 10 November 2025 from 11am to 12pm to mark the launch of a new collection of essays, AI and the Future of Universities. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the collection’s key themes and the urgent questions surrounding AI’s impact on higher education.

    This blog was kindly authored by Richard Brown, Associate Fellow at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.

    Universities are on the front line of a new technological revolution. Generative AI (genAI) use (mainly large language mode-based chatbots like ChaptGPT and Claude) is almost universal among students. Plagiarism and accuracy are continuing challenges, and universities are considering how learning and assessment can respond positively to the daunting but uneven capabilities of these new technologies.

    How genAI is transforming professional services

    The world of work that students face after graduation is also being transformed. While it is unclear how much of the current slowdown in graduate recruitment can be attributed to current AI use, or uncertainty about its long-term impacts, it is likely that graduate careers will see great change as the technology develops. Surveys by McKinsey indicate that adoption of AI spread fastest between 2023/24 in media, communications, business, legal and professional services – the sectors with the highest proportions of graduates in their workforce (around 80 per cent in London and 60 per cent in the rest of the UK).

    ‘Human-centric’, a new report from the University of London looks at how AI is being adopted by professional service firms, and at what this might mean for the future shape and delivery of higher education.

    The report identifies how AI is being adopted both through grassroots initiatives and corporate action. In some firms, genAI is still the preserve of ‘secret cyborgs’ –  individual workers using chatbots under the radar. In others, task forces of younger workers have been deployed to find new uses for the tech to tackle chronic workflow problems or develop new services. Lawyers and accountants are codifying expertise into proprietary knowledge bases. These are private chatbots that minimise the risks of falsehood that still plague open systems, and offer potential to extend cheap professional-grade advice to many more people.

    Graduate careers re-thought

    What does this mean for graduate employment and skills? Many of the routine tasks frequently allocated to graduates can be automated through AI. This could be a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand, genAI may open up more varied and engaging ways for graduates to develop their skills, including the applied client-facing and problem-solving capabilities that  underpin professional practice.

    On the other hand, employers may question whether they need to employ as many graduates. Some of our interviewees talked of the potential for the ‘triangle’ structure of mass graduate recruitment being replaced by a ‘diamond-shaped’ refocus on mid-career hires. The obvious problem with this approach – of where mid-career hires will come from if there is no graduate recruitment – means that graduate recruitment is unlikely to dry up in the short term, but graduate careers may look very different as the knowledge economy is transformed.

    The agile university in an age of career turbulence

    This will have an impact on universities as well as employers. AI literacy, and the ability to use AI responsibly and authentically, are likely to become baseline expectations – suggesting that this should be core to university teaching and learning. Intriguingly, this is less about traditional computing skills and more about setting AI in context: research shows that software engineers were less in demand in early 2025 than AI ethicists and compliance specialists.

    Broader ‘soft’ skills (what a previous University of London / Demos report called GRASP skills – general, relational, analytic, social and personal) will remain in demand, particularly as critical judgement, empathy and the ability to work as a team remain human-centric specialities. Employers also said that, while deep domain knowledge was still needed to assess and interrogate AI outputs, they were also looking for employees with a broader understanding of issues such as cybersecurity, climate regulation and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), who could work across diverse disciplines and perspectives to create new knowledge and applications.

    The shape of higher education may also need to change. Given the speed of advances in AI, it is likely that most propositions about which skills will be needed in the future may quickly become outdated (including this one). This will call for a more responsive and agile system, which can experiment with new course content and innovative teaching methods, while sustaining the rigour that underpins the value of their degrees and other qualifications.

    As the Lifelong Learning Entitlement is implemented, the relationship between students and universities may also need to become more long-term, rather than an intense three-year affair. Exposure to the world of work will be important too, but this needs to be open to all, not just to those with contacts and social capital.

    Longer term – beyond workplace skills?

    In the longer term, all bets are off, or at least pretty risky. Public concerns (over everything from privacy, to corporate control, to disinformation, to environmental impact) and regulatory pressures may slow the adoption of AI. Or AI may so radically transform our world that workplace skills are no longer such a central concern. Previous predictions of technology unlocking a more leisured world have not been realised, but maybe this time it will be different. If so, universities will not just be preparing students for the workplace, but also helping students to prepare for, shape and flourish in a radically transformed world.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: University Collaboration – the case for admissions and professional registration  

    WEEKEND READING: University Collaboration – the case for admissions and professional registration  

    This HEPI guest blog was kindly written by James Seymour, who runs an education consultancy focusing on marketing, student recruitment, admissions and reputation and Julie Kelly who runs a higher education consultancy specialising in registry and governance challenges. Julie and James have worked for a range of universities at Director level in recent years.  

    The Challenge  

    All through August and September, many admissions and faculty/course teams have been working hard to get thousands of new students over the line and onto the next stage of their lives. It is more than just their UCAS application, interview, selection and firm acceptance or journey through Clearing – they have to actually enrol and succeed too.  

    Many of these students are training to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, social workers and doctors amongst many other allied health professional and education courses. They all need to go through essential and important Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements and additional compliance checks, from passports, to Disclosure and Barring Service questionnaires, to health questionnaires and more. Many are mature students who must demonstrate GCSE or equivalent competency at Grade C/4 or above. They are less likely to have support navigating this process as they are less likely to be in full-time education.  

    Most of these applicants have already been interviewed, attended selection days or Multiple Mini Interviews – MMIs (like selection speed dating) involving lots of competency stations.  

    These health students also must apply for their Student Finance loans in good time to trigger the all-important £5K+ NHS learning support fund – essential to enable them to succeed and even get to their clinical placements via bus, train or car.  

    It’s a very onerous process for applicants, their supporters, and the academic, admissions, and compliance teams, who must arrange and record all of this.  

    Clearly, getting all this information recorded and verified is important, but does it have to be so admin-heavy and time-consuming? Are we putting up barriers and disincentives deterring students from starting their studies?  

    At present, we have an inconsistent mess, often involving email and incessant chasing.  

    There has to be a better way  

    Over the last 10 years we have been involved in a number of process improvement/student journey projects at a number of UK universities.  In our experience it takes at least five times longer to admit a Nurse compared to a Business, Law or English student, and at least twice as long compared to a creative arts student who submits their portfolio for interview and review. Data from The Student Loans Company indicates that at least 25% of all new students only apply for their loans on or after results day in August – presenting real risk of delays in getting their money in time for enrolment.  

    Typically, only 85-90% of Nurses and other key NHS-backed students who have a confirmed UCAS place in August actually enrol in September. Another 3-5% have left before January.  

    This is not all about motivation or resilience – part of the issue is linked to getting these students over the line with all the additional hoops they have to jump through.  

    Another issue is around wasted resource across the sector and a poor student experience.  A student typically applies to their five UCAS choices, and many universities undertake the additional PSRB checks during the admission process.  A student is therefore having to supply their information to multiple institutions, which then need to be processed for students who may never actually enrol.  Surely it is better for students to supply this information once during the initial application stage? 

    Postgraduate Teachers including PGCE and Teach First students have to navigate a gov.uk application process (rather than UCAS) which feels like completing your tax return. A daunting and clunky first step to train in one of the most important careers any of us will ever do. They also only get three choices for courses that start in early September – only 2-3 weeks after many final year degree results are confirmed, putting undue pressure both on students, schools and institutions alike. 

    It’s clear that in the context of improving efficiency, eventual enrolment and reducing stress for all, a more collaborative approach across UK HE and professional training would be a real win. The same issues apply for onboarding, applications and selection for degree and higher apprenticeships.  

    The NHS workforce plan signals a clear need to train more Nurses and other key NHS staff and we know that teacher recruitment targets have been missed again this year.  

    Solutions and Future Projects 

    In the context of collaboration between universities, NHS, UKVI, UCAS and DfE we propose some key, essential ways to improve the process and increase the pipeline of future health and education professionals.  

    1. Create a safe, secure one-stop shop for PSRB checks, uploads and compliance so that students do it once and can be shared with all their university choices and options. There are a number of Ed Tech companies as well as UCAS, providing portals for applicants and the Gov.uk system is already improving each year.  
    1. As well as the process, revisit the timeline for applications and compliance for NHS and other PSRB courses – if this is all checked and ready by April-May and directly linked up to Student Finance Applications and/or NHS bursary support – far more students would be able to enrol, train and be ready to learn.  This would require proper process mapping and joined up thinking across different government departments, UCAS and universities themselves.  
    1. The HE sector and NHS should collectively review the factors, groups and critical incidents affecting non-enrolment and first year drop out – nationally and across all PSRB courses – and work at pace to ‘fix the leaks’ accordingly. At present these data sets are not shared or acted upon across the UK but only via individual universities, trusts and occasionally at conferences and sector meetings.  
    1. UCAS and exam boards need to urgently bring forward automatic sharing of GCSE results via the ABL system so that universities and applicants can be assured of level 2 qualifications.  
    1. Look at alternatives to the ‘doom loop’ of GCSE Maths and English retakes and essential requirement for entry to NHS and other professional courses. There are already alternative qualifications including Functional Skills and these need to be amplified, so more students are able to get over the line and start training.  
    1. Universities should work together not against each other. Each university or training provider spends many tens of thousands each year on recruitment campaigns.  For Nursing degrees alone, we estimate this to be at least £1M per year; pooling just 10% of this figure to ensure a consistent brand and overarching campaign would widen the pool of applicants rather than pit universities against each other.  
    1. Review the application process for Postgraduate Teacher Training – consider whether it should be given back to UCAS or another tech platform to improve visibility, choice, applicant journey and eventual enrolment figures.  Clearly only three choices is not enough with some providers being more efficient than others in responding to applicants and dealing with application volumes. The resulting bottlenecks impact on applicant confidence in the system. The early September start date for PG teaching courses also needs a review.  Apart from the application time pressure, these students are also starting before the campus (and school?) is truly ready for the start of term.  Why not start with the rest of their peers at the end of September and also introduce a January start point as an option? 
    1. Make funding more consistent and long term – at present universities are only paid to train students based on first year intake each year, leading to short term decisions, volatility and competition. The LLE due in 2027 is unlikely to lead to flexibility in PSRB course transfer. Giving universities and health trusts a 3-4 year funding model would iron out that volatility, encourage new entrants and provide certainty to invest in facilities, staff and support to train those students.  

    Conclusion and next steps  

    As the HE sector looks back on admission and enrolment for the 2025/26 academic year and prepares for 2026/27 entry we feel that something must change to enhance the admission process for PSRB courses, all of which are critical to the future of the UK.  

    The practical steps and ideas included within the article are all deliverable but need joined-up thinking across different parts of the process. We propose establishing a working group or task force to address quick wins and consider a roadmap for addressing longer-term solutions. 

    Source link

  • Grad v. Professional Programs a Key Issue for ED Panel

    Grad v. Professional Programs a Key Issue for ED Panel

    Despite the possibility of a government shutdown next week, the Education Department is slated to begin the complicated endeavor of determining how to carry out the sweeping higher ed changes in Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    The agenda for the weeklong meeting, which kicks off Monday, includes hammering out details about loan repayment plans and how to help struggling borrowers return to good standing. The key issue on the table, though, will likely be determining how best to differentiate between graduate and professional degree programs for future borrowers.

    The terms “graduate” and “professional” were once nothing more than a trivial self-prescribed classification. But under the Republicans’ new law, they have become critical labels that could alter which college programs get more federal aid. For example, under the new plan, student borrowers in a graduate program will be limited to $20,500 per year or $100,000 total, whereas those enrolled in a professional program will be able to borrow more than double that.

    And while lawmakers on Capitol Hill gave the department a foundational definition of what qualifies as professional in the bill, it’s up to Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and the negotiated rule-making advisory committee to write rules that detail how that definition will work in practice. (The committee is scheduled to meet for another weeklong session in November, and only after that can the department finalize its proposal and open the floor for public comment.)

    Some university lobbyists and career associations want the department to include more programs in the professional bucket and make a comprehensive list of those that qualify. Others recommend using a broad definition and then letting institutions sort the programs. Consumer protection advocates, however, are urging the department to stick to the original, more narrow definition in an effort to prevent greater levels of student debt.

    The department’s initial proposal, released this week, stuck largely to the 10 programs cited in the existing definition but added a catch-all clause to add “any other degrees designated by the Secretary through rulemaking.”

    To Clare McCann, a former Education Department official and now managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University, the initial proposal shows that the department doesn’t quite know how it wants to define a professional program.

    “This is a really complicated issue,” she said. “So it seems clear to me that the department is planning to use this first session to gather ideas and feedback but is not planning to come to the table with a real proposal of its own.”

    Further complicating the issue, McCann and others say, it’s going to be difficult for the department to finalize its rule fast enough to give students and institutions enough time to prepare. (Currently, the new loan caps are slated to kick in as of July 1, 2026.)

    As McCann explained, the earliest colleges and universities could expect to see a proposed rule—let alone a finalized one—would be later this fall. And at that point, many prospective students have already started receiving acceptance letters.

    “There will be many people making decisions about whether and where they’re going to graduate school, and they’ll be doing that in a vacuum, without final rules about what they’ll be able to borrow and how they’re going to be able to repay it,” she said. “So this whole regulatory process is going to be an incredible time crunch.”

    Current Definitions

    The current definition of “professional,” which is laid out in the Higher Education Act of 1965, states that in order to qualify as professional a degree must signify that a student has the skills necessary beyond a bachelor’s degree in order to practice a specific profession.

    Later it adds that “professional licensure is also generally required,” and provides a short but nonexhaustive list of programs that could fit the bill, including: pharmacy, dentistry, medicine, osteopathy, law, optometry, podiatry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic medicine and theology. (That list served as the foundation for the department’s proposal.)

    Some groups, like the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, made clear in their public comments that they interpret this definition to be an intentionally “flexible” and “inclusive approach.” And based on that, they encouraged the department to maintain a broad definition and allow institutions to self-certify their programs with periodic review from the department.

    Jordan Wicker, the senior vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs at Career Education Colleges and Universities, a lobbying group for for-profit institutions, added that the economy and higher education landscape are constantly evolving—pointing to the need for a broader definition.

    “I don’t know that you want to re-regulate a comprehensive list any time curriculums or programs change,” he told Inside Higher Ed.

    Others, including the American Council on Education, agree that the interpretation should be broad but say the best way to ensure that is the case is by creating a more complete list of eligible programs. “At the very least,” ACE said in its comment letter, the list should include dozens of clinical and health science programs highlighted under an existing regulation known as financial value transparency. On top of that, it also urges the department to include about 15 additional programs, including architecture, accounting, social work, education and word languages.

    Halaevalu Vakalahi, president of the Council on Social Work Education, agreed, arguing that many programs like hers meet the current definition.

    “We’ve always identified ourselves as a profession,” she said. “There’s licensure, there’s accreditation—all of the things that we have as part of the social [work] profession are also in the list that currently exists on what is a profession.”

    But Third Way, a left-of-center think tank, drew the exact opposite conclusion, arguing that Congress intended for the definition to be stringent and address “unnecessary student debt.” (Graduate student debt accounts for nearly half of the student loan portfolio, raising concerns for lawmakers and advocates.)

    “While this list is not exclusive, Congress did not indicate that it intended to include any other fields in crafting the OBBBA loan limits,” senior policy adviser Ben Cecil wrote in a recent blog post about the distinction. “By codifying this list as written, the Department can best enforce the legislative intent of ensuring that students aren’t overborrowing for graduate school and have manageable debt compared to their program’s earnings.”

    High-Stakes Talks

    With the different proposals on the table, those interviewed agreed that it will be rather difficult for the committee to reach consensus. If the committee doesn’t reach an agreement, the department is free to interpret the definition cited in OBBBA however it wants.

    McCann from PEER, who worked at the department during the Obama and Biden administrations, said that until she starts to see the debate play out, it’s hard to know which approach will win. But no matter what, she added it will likely be an uphill climb.

    “It’s a challenging issue for negotiators, and there are a lot of competing interests with pretty high stakes attached,” she said. So “this is going to be a difficult committee on which to get that kind of agreement.”

    Todd Jones, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio and a former Republican staffer in the department, said that he expects the Trump administration will lean toward a more narrow definition if the committee doesn’t reach consensus. At that point, he added, it will be up to the individual types of programs to lobby for why they should be added to the list.

    “The question is, what has the administration already decided that they are going to give on?” Jones said. “And the things I’ve heard while I was in D.C. over the past few months indicate that there may not be support for some of these social science higher degrees being considered professions and instead simply being considered master’s.”

    Source link

  • Universities need to reckon with how AI is being used in professional practice

    Universities need to reckon with how AI is being used in professional practice

    One of the significant themes in higher education over the last couple of decades has been employability – preparing students for the world of work into which they will be released on graduation.

    And one of the key contemporary issues for the sector is the attempt to come to grips with the changes to education in an AI-(dis)empowered world.

    The next focus, I would argue, will involve a combination of the two – are universities (and regulators) ready to prepare students for the AI-equipped work where they will be working?

    The robotics of law

    Large, international law firms have been using AI alongside humans for some time, and there are examples of its use for the drafting of non-disclosure agreements and contracts, for example.

    In April 2025, the Solicitors Regulation Authority authorised Garfield Law, a small firm specialising in small-claims debt recovery. This was remarkable only in that Garfield Law is the first law firm in the world to deliver services entirely through artificial intelligence.

    Though small and specialised, the approval of Garfield Law was a significant milestone – and a moment of reckoning – for both the legal professional and legal education. If a law firm can be a law firm without humans, what is the future for legal education?

    Indeed, I would argue that the HE sector as a whole is largely unprepared for a near-future in which the efficient application of professional knowledge is no longer the sole purview of humans.

    Professional subjects such as law, medicine, engineering and accountancy have tended to think of themselves as relatively “technology-proof” – where technology was broadly regarded as useful, rather than a usurper. Master of the Rolls Richard Vos said in March that AI tools

    may be scary for lawyers, but they will not actually replace them, in my view at least… Persuading people to accept legal advice is a peculiarly human activity.

    The success or otherwise of Garfield Law will show how the public react, and whether Vos is correct. This vision of these subjects as high-skill, human-centric domains needing empathy, judgement, ethics and reasoning is not the bastion it once was.

    In the same speech, Vos also said that, in terms of using AI in dispute resolution, “I remember, even a year ago, I was frightened even to suggest such things, but now they are commonplace ideas”. Such is the pace at which AI is developing.

    Generative AI tools can, and are, being used in contract drafting, judgement summaries, case law identification, medical scanning, operations, market analysis, and a raft of other activities. Garfield Law represents a world view where routine, and once billable, tasks performed by trainees and paralegals will most likely be automated. AI is challenging the traditional boundaries of what it means to be a professional and, in concert with this, challenging conceptions of what it is to teach, assess and accredit future professionals.

    Feeling absorbed

    Across the HE sector, the first reaction to the emergence of generative AI was largely (and predictably) defensive. Dire warnings to students (and colleagues) about “cheating” and using generative AI inappropriately were followed by hastily-constructed policies and guidelines, and the unironic and ineffective deployment of AI-powered AI detectors.

    The hole in the dyke duly plugged, the sector then set about wondering what to do next about this new threat. “Assessments” came the cry, “we must make them AI-proof. Back to the exam hall!”

    Notwithstanding my personal pedagogic aversion to closed-book, memory-recall examinations, such a move was only ever going to be a stopgap. There is a deeper pedagogic issue in learning and teaching: we focus on students’ absorption, recall and application of information – which, to be frank, is instantly available via AI. Admittedly, it has been instantly available since the arrival of the Internet, but we’ve largely been pretending it hasn’t for three decades.

    A significant amount of traditional legal education focuses on black-letter law, case law, analysis and doctrinal reasoning. There are AI tools which can already do this and provide “reasonably accurate legal advice” (Vos again), so the question arises as to what is our end goal in preparing students? The answer, surely, is skills – critical judgement, contextual understanding, creative problem solving and ethical reasoning – areas where (for the moment, at least) AI still struggles.

    Fit for purpose

    And yet, and yet. In professional courses like law, we still very often design courses around subject knowledge, and often try to “embed” the skills elements afterwards. We too often resort to tried and tested assessments which reward memory (closed-book exams), formulaic answers (problem questions) and performance under time pressure (time constrained assessments). These are the very areas in which AI performs well, and increasingly is able to match, or out-perform humans.

    At the heart of educating students to enter professional jobs there is an inherent conflict. On the one hand, we are preparing students for careers which either do not yet exist, or may be fundamentally changed – or displaced – by AI. On the other, the regulatory bodies are often still locked into twentieth century assumptions about demonstrating competence.

    Take the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), for example. Relatively recently introduced, the SQE was intended to bring consistency and accessibility into the legal profession. The assessment is nonetheless still based on multiple choice questions and unseen problem questions – areas where AI can outperform many students. There are already tools out there to help SQE student practice (Chat SQE, Kinnu Law), though no AI tool has yet completed the SQE itself. But in the USA, the American Uniform Bar Exam was passed by GPT4 in 2023, outperforming some human candidates.

    If a chatbot can ace your professional qualifying exam, is that exam fit for purpose? In other disciplines, the same question arises. Should medical students be assessed on their recall of rare diseases? Should business students be tested on their SWOT analyses? Should accounting students analyse corporate accounts? Should engineers calculate stress tolerances manually? All of these things can be completed by AI.

    Moonshots

    Regulatory bodies, universities and employers need to come together more than ever to seriously engage with what AI competency might look like – both in the workplace and the lecture theatre. Taking the approach of some regulators and insisting on in-person exams to prepare students for an industry entirely lacking in exams probably is not it. What does it mean to be an ethical, educated and adaptable professional in the age of AI?

    The HE sector urgently needs to move beyond discussions about whether or not students should be allowed to use AI. It is here, it is getting more powerful, and it is never leaving. Instead, we need to focus on how we assess in a world where AI is always on tap. If we cannot tell the difference between AI-generated work and student-generated work (and increasingly we cannot) then we need to shift our focus towards the process of learning rather than the outputs. Many institutions have made strides in this direction, using reflective journals, project-based learning and assessments which reward students for their ability to question, think, explain and justify their answers.

    This is likely to mean increased emphasis on live assessments – advocacy, negotiations, client interviews or real-world clinical experience. In other disciplines too, simulations, inter- and multi-disciplinary challenges, or industry-related authentic assessments. These are nothing revolutionary, they are pedagogically sound and all have been successfully implemented. They do, however, demand more of us as academics. More time, more support, more creativity. Scaling up from smaller modules to large cohorts is not an easy feat. It is much easier to keep doubling-down on what we already do, and hiding behind regulatory frameworks. However, we need to do these things (to quote JFK)

    not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone.

    In law schools, how many of us teach students how to use legal technology, how to understand algorithmic biases, or how to critically assess AI-generated legal advice? How many business schools teach students how to work alongside AI? How many medical schools give students the opportunity to learn how to critically interpret AI-generated diagnostics? The concept of “digital professionalism” – the ability to effectively and ethically use AI in a professional setting – is becoming a core graduate-level skill.

    If universities fail to take the lead on this, then private providers will be eager, and quick, to fill the void. We already have short courses, boot camps, and employer-led schemes which offer industry-tailored AI literacy programmes – and if universities start to look outdated and slow to adapt, students will vote with their feet.

    Invention and reinvention

    However, AI is not necessarily the enemy. Like all technological advances it is essentially nothing more than a tool. As with all tools – the stone axe, the printing press, the internet – it brings with it threats to some and opportunities for others. We have identified some of the threats but also the opportunities that (with proper use), AI can bring – enhanced learning, deeper engagement, and democratisation of access to knowledge. Like the printing press, the real threat faced by HE is not the tool, but a failure to adapt to it. Nonetheless, a surprising number of academics are dusting off their metaphorical sabots to try and stop the development of AI.

    We should be working with the relevant sector and regulator and asking ourselves how we can adapt our courses and use AI to support, rather than substitute, genuine learning. We have an opportunity to teach students how to move away from being consumers of AI outputs, and how to become critical users, questioners and collaborators. We need to stop being reactive to AI – after all, it is developing faster than we can ever do.

    Instead, we need to move towards reinvention. This could mean: embedding AI literacy in all disciplines; refocusing assessments to require more creative, empathetic, adaptable and ethical skills; preparing students and staff to work alongside AI, not to fear it; and closer collaboration with professional regulators.

    AI is being used in many professions, and the use will inevitably grow significantly over the next few years. Educators, regulators and employers need to work even more closely together to prepare students for this new world. Garfield Law is (currently) a one-off, and while it might be tempting to dismiss the development as tokenistic gimmickry, it is more than that.

    Professional courses are standing on the top of a diving board. We can choose obsolescence and climb back down, clinging to outdated practices and condemn ourselves to irrelevance. Or, we can choose opportunity and dive in to a more dynamic, responsive and human vision of professional learning.

    We just have to be brave enough to take the plunge.

    Source link

  • Helping professional services get confident with data

    Helping professional services get confident with data

    “I don’t do data.”

    It’s a phrase heard all too often across professional services in UK higher education.

    Despite the sector’s growing reliance on data to inform strategic decisions, evaluate performance, and improve services, a significant skills gap remains—particularly among non-specialist staff.

    Critical skills

    Universities increasingly regard data as a critical asset. But while institutional expectations are rising, many professional services teams feel underprepared to meet what is now expected of them. The ability to interpret, contextualise, and communicate insights from data is now an essential part of most roles. And yet, for many professionals, data remains confusing, intimidating, or simply outside their perceived remit.

    This gap isn’t just about technical skills—it’s about confidence, culture, and collaboration. Professional services staff are often expected to make sense of complex datasets without the training or tools to do so effectively. Everyone is expected to engage with data daily, but few are properly equipped to do so. The result? Missed opportunities, reliance on specialist teams, and a growing divide between “data people” and everyone else.

    That divide threatens more than just productivity. In an era of AI and self-service analytics, the risk is that subject matter expertise gets lost or overridden by automated insights or misunderstood metrics. True value comes not just from accessing data, but from interpreting it through a lens of organisational understanding and professional experience. So how can we bridge the gap between those who do and those who don’t do data?

    The options

    Often the answer seems to be recruiting external data specialists – usually at considerable expense. While this brings in the needed expertise it also creates silos rather than building capability across teams. This approach not only strains budgets—with specialist salaries commanding premium rates in today’s competitive market—but also creates dependency on individuals who may lack contextual understanding of higher education. There is also a problem of longevity. When these specialists eventually leave, they take their knowledge with them, leaving institutions vulnerable.

    By contrast, institutions that invest in developing data confidence across existing staff leverage their team’s deep sector knowledge while creating more sustainable, resilient capabilities. The return on investment becomes clear: upskilling current staff who understand institutional nuances creates more value than repeatedly recruiting external experts who require months to grasp the complexities of university operations.

    Meanwhile, higher education faces an ever-expanding regulatory and statutory data burden. From HESA returns and TEF submissions to access and participation plans and REF preparations, the volume and complexity of mandatory reporting continues to grow. Each new requirement brings not just additional work but increased scrutiny and consequences for inaccuracy or misinterpretation. This regulatory landscape demands that universities distribute data capabilities widely rather than concentrating them in specialist teams who come close to breaking point during reporting seasons.

    When professional services staff across the institution can confidently engage with data, universities can respond more nimbly to regulatory changes, identify compliance risks earlier, and transform what might otherwise be box-ticking exercises into meaningful insights that drive institutional improvement.

    Data confident

    Recognising this challenge, UHR and Strive Higher have developed the Developing Confident Data Partners programme—a practical, supportive course designed specifically for HR and People professionals in higher education. Drawing on insights from UHR’s 6,000+ members, the programme addresses the real barriers to data confidence and equips participants with the skills and language to contribute meaningfully to data-informed conversations.

    By bridging the gap between subject matter expertise and data literacy, this initiative empowers professionals to engage more fully with the data-driven culture of their institutions. As one participant put it:

    The programme boosted my confidence and has taken away some of the mystery that some pure data experts can often create. I know what to do now before I ask for data, and what to say when I do want some.

    In a sector where informed decision-making is critical, the data skills gap in professional services can no longer be ignored. The Confident Data Partners programme is one step toward a more inclusive, capable, and collaborative data culture across UK higher education.

    The journey is just beginning. The opportunities in a data-driven world are endless, but success hinges on individuals understanding how to use data to inform strategy, planning and continuous improvement, and being able to communicate and collaborate with their peers.

    This initiative has been a learning experience for us both. It’s shown how, when data aligns with real-world needs, the results are transformative. Because when data meets purpose – that’s where the magic happens.

    Source link