Tag: professional

  • 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

  • “It stays with us”: Leading change in diversity and inclusion for professional services staff

    “It stays with us”: Leading change in diversity and inclusion for professional services staff

    • Nearly five years after the 2020 Universities UK report on racial harassment, the experiences of careers services staff, who shoulder the heavy lifting of employability and inclusion from Graduate Outcomes to Access and Participation and other core metrics, remain unaddressed. Leena Dattani-Demirci, Head of Student Success & Professional Development at De Montfort University, and Claire Toogood, Research and Strategic Projects Manager at AGCAS, share reflections on recent and ongoing research and resources that can help to inform change, leading to action and impact.

    It is clear that existing inequity can inhibit engagement with higher education careers support, creating a vicious cycle where the students with the greatest need for these services may not take up  valuable opportunities. Given the wider lack of diversity in professional services leadership and staffing, there is also a risk that higher education policy and practice will continue failing to incorporate the lived experience and diverse voices that can help to drive change.

    Leena Dattani-Demirci’s current doctoral studies explore the experiences of ethnically minoritised staff within university career services, an area comparatively underexplored despite extensive research on inequalities experienced by academic staff. Her research aims to address that gap, giving voice to the lived realities of those working to support students’ career aspirations. Claire is the author of What Happens Next?, the latest report in a long-running series from AGCAS that identifies and explores disabled graduates’ employment outcomes.

    Barriers and burnout

    Early findings from Leena’s research highlight persistent challenges faced by ethnically minoritised staff.  Drawing on 37 hours of interviews over eight months, this study explored the experiences of 21 ethnically minoritised career professionals in UK higher education. Participants worked in a wide variety of institutions, and most came from working-class backgrounds, with diverse ethnicities, faiths, and, in some cases, experiences of disability. These research participants reported exhaustion, career bottlenecks, and felt forced to leave their institutions to progress. The emotional labour of supporting minoritised students disproportionately fell on minoritised staff. Many staff felt immense pressure, particularly where the diversity of careers teams did not reflect the diversity of the student body. Career professionals described feelings of guilt for not being able to meet the demand for support from minoritised students.

    Microaggressions remain commonplace: Participants described mocking of accents dismissed as “jokes” and being labelled “too sensitive” when raising concerns. “People say things and don’t think about the impact on those of us from BAME families; it stays with us,” one participant noted. Others described ill-equipped managers, promoted through time served, resulting in poor trust and under-reporting of inappropriate comments.

    Performative inclusion is common: initial support for Black Lives Matter faded, and universities responded swiftly to Ukraine but remained silent on Gaza, revealing that, for many, inclusion feels conditional. One research participant highlighted how inclusion and diversity are part of the conversation around students, but not staff, “We’ve had team days where diversity and recruitment have come up for students, but if the topic moves onto our teams, it’s always shut down. People get defensive.”

    Signs of hope and the need for structural change

    Yet compassionate leaders and allies do exist. “When my manager asked me ‘Are you okay?’ during the summer riots, it meant the world to me,” shared one participant in Leena’s research. There is also excellent work happening across higher education, such as staff/student partnerships at the Open University that integrate the lived experiences of marginalised groups in curriculum design, and collaboration to ensure inclusive language across graduate attributes at Bath Spa University. However, default systems and cultures continue to shape staff progression and team structures. As one of Leena’s research participants explained, ‘I felt excluded because a lot of the candidates who did get the roles fit the mould of what managers had in their heads. I’ll never be that”.

    Addressing oversights and inequity within careers services requires accurate data on staff demographics. Gathering the data on who works inside HE careers services is a crucial first step towards meaningful change. AGCAS recently came together with other higher education sector membership bodies to highlight why professional services staff should be included in the HESA staff record; this would support better understanding at a sector level, and lead the way for institutions.

    Intersectional identity

    The AGCAS “What Happens Next?” report underscores the complexity of student identities and outcomes, revealing how intersectional disadvantage can further compound employment challenges for many individuals. This year, the report included outcome evaluations incorporating ethnic background and gender alongside disability status and type. The report showed that while disabled graduates have lower rates of full-time employment than graduates with no known disability across all ethnic backgrounds, White disabled graduates are more likely to be in full-time employment than disabled graduates from any other ethnic background.

    The need for joined-up approaches to careers and employability delivered by a diverse staff team is clear. We need to recognise that each individual’s identity is complex and multi-faceted, and to model equity and inclusion for students.

    Looking forward

    AGCAS has been working with careers professionals in their Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Working Party, Disability Task Group, and Social Mobility, Widening Participation and Regional Inequality Working Party to develop provision that supports genuine sector-wide action in this space. A recent positive action toolkit for members offers clear insights into relevant legislation across the UK and Ireland, including practical examples of how universities and careers services can apply positive action principles. Upcoming drop-in networking sessions support AGCAS members who identify as having Black, Asian and Ethnic heritage to build contacts and develop their network. AGCAS are keen to encourage members and wider higher education stakeholders to be part of our work towards much-needed change, whilst also championing and supporting individual projects like Leena’s that move the conversation forward.

    Source link

  • The Benefits of Professional Society Involvement (opinion)

    The Benefits of Professional Society Involvement (opinion)

    Back in 2001, when I first attended university, I didn’t join any student organizations, clubs or professional societies. I was busy with classes, after all, and didn’t know what benefit they could provide me anyway. What possible value would becoming a SACNAS member offer? Some clubs even required a membership fee!

    Now I know better. Professional societies are a critical, often overlooked way of building your network, strengthening your résumé and finding professional development opportunities outside classes. As discussed in a 2020 Developmental Biology article titled “Professional societies can play a vital role in career development,” professional societies offer conferences, workshops, virtual seminars and free resources to members and, in many cases, nonmembers.

    These resources provide learning opportunities across multiple categories, including professional development, career deep dives and leadership training. My own organization, the Genetics Society of America, offers the Leadership Dialogue Series organized by our early-career scientists, seminars in languages other than English and workshops on different types of careers and topics related to accessibility in STEM. Each of these events represents an opportunity not just for our community to learn about a new career, skill or research topic, but also provides CV and résumé boosts to our event organizers, whose volunteerism powers GSA’s ability to offer these resources.

    Speaking for myself, when I returned to school in 2010, I joined groups that aligned with my career and professional goals: building a support community via a Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science membership, building a professional community via a Graduate Student Association and Association for Women in Science membership, learning more about science writing opportunities via a National Association of Science Writers membership, and connecting with fellow mycologists via a Mycological Society of America membership.

    As a transfer student with a previous degree, I was also inducted into the Tau Sigma National Honor Society. Now, as a career development professional, I am an active member and volunteer for the Graduate Career Consortium. All these memberships helped guide me to the career I have today and have opened numerous opportunities for collaborations, event organizing, volunteer work and personal career development. I can say without any hesitation that my membership with GSA, MSA and NASW led me directly to the position I have now, and collectively my society memberships keep me informed of current developments in higher education, professional development opportunities, and my own field of genetics.

    As you scan each professional society’s page, note the many conferences, professional development programs and job postings each of these memberships gives you access to. You may not be in a position to invest in more than one professional society, and that’s perfectly fine! Choosing one specific society as your “home” and focusing your volunteer efforts and involvement in this specific society is a wonderful way to build your network; connect with other like-minded professionals; collaborate in organizing high-value, marketed events; and learn the inner workings of a professional society.

    Choosing your society of interest might seem daunting. Here are some tips to help you navigate this choice and select the best society to fit your needs:

    • Cost: Determine how much you can budget each year for a membership. You may need to save up to afford this cost at a future date, so keep track of membership renewal times. Check with your adviser, lab or department to see if they would be able and willing to pay for one professional society membership as part of your graduate studies. Many societies offer lower rates for students. Also check for low-income waivers—many societies offer discounts or waivers due to economic hardship.
    • Field-specific societies: If you’re a physicist, the American Physical Society makes more sense to join than GSA. A social worker should join a society such as the National Association of Social Workers. Whatever your field, there’s a professional society that serves your community! If you’re not sure what your field’s societies are, ask your adviser and other faculty. You can also ask an AI tool to compile a list, with links to check sources, using this prompt: “Create a table for scientific societies based in the United States which serve [YOUR FIELD] academics. The columns should be society name, website, upcoming conferences and membership cost for a graduate student member.” For example, using this prompt with “history” as the field, I received the following results from OpenAI’s ChatGPT:

    Here is a table of prominent U.S.-based scientific societies that serve history academics, including their websites, upcoming conferences and graduate student membership costs:

    Society Website Upcoming Conference(s) Graduate Student Membership Cost
    American Historical Association (AHA) historians.org AHA 2026 Annual Meeting, Jan. 8–11, 2026, Chicago Not specified
    Organization of American Historians (OAH) oah.org 2025 OAH Conference on American History, April 3–6, 2025, Chicago $51/year
    American Catholic Historical Association (ACHA) achahistory.org 105th Annual Meeting, Jan. 3–5, 2025, New York, N.Y. $20/year
    Social Science History Association (SSHA) ssha.org 2025 Annual Conference, Nov. 20–23, 2025, Chicago $30/year
    Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) historyoftechnology.org 2025 Annual Meeting, Oct. 9–11, 2025, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Not specified
    World History Association (WHA) thewha.org 34th Annual Meeting, June 26–28, 2025, Louisville, Ky. Not specified

    Please note that membership costs and conference details are subject to change. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, it’s best to visit the respective society’s official website.

    You can see that not every result includes a cost, but because I have the website, I can quickly check and find that the American Historical Association offers a one-year student membership for $42 and update my table accordingly. Since two of the conference dates listed on the table have already passed, I can also easily update the information for the Organization for American History and the American Catholic Historical Association to reflect the planned 2026 conference dates and locations.

    • Attend a conference: Talk to your adviser about attending a conference offered by the professional society you’re interested in. Many societies offer travel fund awards that you can apply for if your adviser is not able to support your attendance.
    • Check out the organization’s professional development opportunities: If the society has an early-career program or committee, apply to become a member! These programs are an excellent way to get your name out to a large number of colleagues and build your network, as the early-career students you work with will become your professional colleagues who step into academia, industry and beyond with you.
    • Be strategic in your involvement: Decide how much time you’re willing to invest each month in a volunteer opportunity and guard your time diligently. Burnout is a fast way to turn a positive experience into a negative drag on your time, so approach each opportunity as a large project and add more only if you have the time. You don’t want to become known for bailing out on multiple collaborative volunteer opportunities!

    When thinking about which professional society you should join, make sure you’re choosing the society that aligns with both your career goals and personal needs, and that offers you the best opportunities for your investment. Talk with your adviser to see if there’s a society they recommend and begin your professional society journey early to maximize this resource as you move forward in your career.

    Jessica M. Vélez is the senior manager of engagement, community building and professional development for the Genetics Society of America. She earned her Ph.D. in energy science and engineering from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in 2020, and was awarded the National GEM Fellowship during her graduate studies.

    Source link

  • After a Closure, Professional Deaths and Rebirths (opinion)

    After a Closure, Professional Deaths and Rebirths (opinion)

    Those of us who have sought a faculty position at a small, private liberal arts college do so knowing that the pay may be lower than at a research institution and that student advising and committee responsibilities are likely to be greater. However, the appeal of small colleges is the close-knit academic community: You can be a part of an academic home where colleagues find deep purpose and meaning in the institution’s teaching-centered mission and enjoy the advantage of smaller classes and more direct contact with students.

    However, little of this matters if the institution fails to stay fiscally solvent—a reality that we and many others in this sector are unfortunately facing.

    Perhaps those of you reading this are at institutions that may be showing signs of fiscal stress: The buildings are in need of repair, vacant faculty and staff positions are unfilled, and institutional contributions to retirement funds have been reduced. We’ve been there. We were colleagues at the now-closed College of Saint Rose: an early-career assistant professor, a midcareer faculty member and a senior faculty member nearing retirement age, all of us professors of education and teacher educators. We juxtapose the death of the institution with how each of us experienced professional deaths and rebirths into new positions. We hope you heed our warning and find some comfort in our personal journeys.

    At the beginning of the 2023–24 academic year, our small private institution, like many institutions, experienced consistently low enrollment. We’d survived two iterations of cuts to programs and faculty within the previous decade. Despite these negative signs, we approached the academic term with a “business as usual” mindset. We applied for grants, worked toward reaffirmation of accreditation and drafted new initiatives.

    This all came to a halt the moment the impending closure was leaked to the press.

    The announcement of closure was officially communicated at the end of the fall 2023 semester. Instead of the usual joyful conclusion to student teaching, teacher performance assessments and exams, we were drowned in a sea of sadness and stress. While sending distress signals to other institutions, asking them to accept our candidates without hesitation, some institutions were circling the carcass, making empty promises to our students. Faculty were tasked with developing teach-out plans and conducting family outreach for hundreds of students at both the graduate and undergraduate level. We felt as though we were thrust into the role of hospice workers. Our own confusion, heartache and anger had to be ignored for every trip to campus and every interaction with students.

    The end was coming. It was time to get our own affairs in order.

    In an emergency faculty meeting, the administration asked us not to jump ship despite limited hope and feeble lifelines. The message: The college was to remain open one more semester, and all current employees were needed to support students. Here is how each of us experienced the first and only full faculty meeting regarding the closure:

    “I received the news that the college was closing when I was five months pregnant with my second child. During this life experience, you hope that people say ‘congratulations’ and ask how you’re feeling in regards to growing a human; instead, they were walking on eggshells wondering if I’d have a paycheck once I’d created another mouth to feed. As they say, there’s no right time to have a baby, but I for one hoped it was at a time with a stable job and health insurance.”

    —Jennifer, early-career faculty member

    “I had just submitted my tenure dossier a month before, only to find out the institution would not exist past the next semester. While waiting for my tenure letter, I navigated applications, interviews and the recent passing of a colleague. As the board delayed tenure announcements, I was trying to quickly sort through my options—should I return to K-12, work as a consultant at a private firm or relocate for another professorship? With a son in college, I could not afford to start over.”

    —Julienne, midcareer faculty member

    “The announcement did not come as a shock to me. I recounted the significant financial cutbacks over the years. I spent 15 years in public schools and more than 20 in higher education. I was within five years of my full benefit age for Social Security, but retirement was not on my mind. I wanted to continue my dedication to scholarly work and shaping new teachers. The pressing concern in my mind was, would I experience age bias when looking for another position?”

    —Terri, senior faculty member

    At the time of the closure announcement, our questions were personal, but shared common themes. Where will I find work? Will I find work for the next academic year when searches are already underway? Who will hire me with my physical, age, family, etc., limitations? Should I re-enter the PK-12 classroom?

    And beyond our personal worries were questions such as, what do I know about teach-out agreements? How do we work with institutions that guarantee our students on-time graduation when the programs are so different? What do we tell our longtime PK-12 partners? How does this impact my work on an IRB-approved study with colleagues? These thoughts were all-consuming, personally and professionally.

    The reality for us as faculty was that there were very few open positions in higher education, and fewer yet in our field, our specialization, or our geographic area. Each of us handled this reality differently.

    “I cast a wide net applying for government work, consulting jobs, K-12 positions, as well as tenure-track professor positions. I took some temporary government contract work in the interim to boost my salary. I had seven months before I knew unemployment would kick in. I mostly interviewed for higher education positions while teaching course overloads and consulting. I could not tailor my résumé and cover letters for every posting; I simply had no time. Applying for positions was another part-time job, and I did not have the energy to reinvent myself for a post on Indeed or LinkedIn. In the end, I interviewed at several institutions, public and private. I was offered a couple of positions and decided to go with a financially stable public institution, working alongside faculty with whom I’d already bonded. There was an opportunity to grow the program. There was only one catch: I had to decide if I was willing to have a very lengthy commute or move.”

    —Julienne, midcareer faculty member

    “I had only been in my position as assistant professor for 18 months or so when I was effectively handed my pink slip. That meant I lacked deep-seated roots. It also meant this was the second college I’d be leaving due to financial instability. Yes, I’d come to this position after leaving my previous institution when its financial outlook was too uncertain for me to stay when planning for my family’s future. Upon hearing the news of the closure, I wasn’t casting a wide net in my job search. I was apprehensive about casting a net at all. Well-meaning people offered ideas and suggestions, colleagues in the department shared links to job postings, and the college’s HR department sent around mostly useless links to job boards and resources.”

    —Jennifer, early-career faculty member

    Each of us is committed to teaching despite the daily realities of the profession. The question for us was never about if we would teach, but instead where and how. We landed new positions, but they have come with new challenges.

    “I was offered a position to work at a local college that had adopted one of our closing college’s programs. This was a floating door in the frozen Atlantic, a silver lining. I didn’t have the need, nor the bandwidth, to negotiate. What I’m navigating now, however, is the prospect of starting over, once again.

    “My friends from grad school are talking about their tenure reviews while I’m starting my clock anew. Starting over every two years means I’ve focused on getting classes established and acclimating, while regrettably letting scholarship take a back burner. At these teaching-focused institutions, tenure requirements for publications differ, and priorities are aligned with service and teaching. I always thought I had more time.”

    —Jennifer, early-career faculty member

    “Advocating for yourself is difficult. During negotiations, the new institution offered to honor my newly acquired rank as associate professor, which made the decision for me. However, given that the tenure requirements were different, I still needed to apply for tenure in the near future. Although moving to a new area was not in our family’s immediate plans, we found a house. Instead of a 90-minute commute, I had a 13-minute one—the same as for my old institution.”

    —Julienne, midcareer faculty member

    “I had to take what I could get. No one was offering my rank. I felt committed to living in my current home, since my children attended the local high school. All of my children are adopted or in foster care; consistency is key for them. I observed my ‘equivalent’ colleagues talk about retirement, adjunct positions, major pay cuts. Throughout my career, as a female, I have always doubted my expertise and found it difficult to say, ‘I’m worth more.’ Self- advocacy has never been my strength.”

    —Terri, senior faculty member

    One Year Later

    We are not without hope. Despite the challenges facing higher education, and teacher-preparation programs in particular, we have each been reinvigorated beyond what we could have imagined.

    Jennifer found a tenure-track position at a neighboring private institution and has a beautiful new son. Her advice might speak to other early-career faculty.

    “I was once told not to say yes to everything in order to protect my time and energy. This has been sound advice, and I strive for work-life balance. I have benefited, however, from saying yes to some key opportunities. Taking on leadership and collaborative opportunities, such as IRB chair or assessment coordinator, or serving on collegewide committees even when feeling like a novice, have provided personal and professional growth.”

    —Jennifer, early-career faculty member

    Julienne received a promotion to associate professor just prior to the closure of the former institution. She negotiated with that advanced rank and relocated to a regional public comprehensive institution.

    “As new faculty in an unfamiliar area, I am once again forging new relationships with other departments, staff and local school teachers and school officials. In many ways I am starting anew. However, my diverse skill set has served me well. I have extensive experience with online teaching, curriculum design and facilitating professional development, and have kept abreast of instructional technologies. I have turned those prior leadership skills into opportunities for research and program development. I continue to grow and learn from my colleagues.”

    —Julienne, midcareer faculty member

    Terri was sought by a fully online public comprehensive institution for her knowledge regarding accreditation, assessment and certification. She was granted assistant professor status and is restarting both the rank and tenure process. As the most senior of the authors of this article, her perspective might give reason for hope for other senior faculty.

    “As I look back, I think we all failed to recognize how deeply troubled the institution was, how we each lost a bit of our passion and how stressful the work environment was. Now, six months removed and working without those previous stressors, I feel more focused and energetic. I didn’t know that my curiosity regarding online pedagogy, assessment and accreditation might lead me to this new opportunity. Diversification, like an investment portfolio, might serve us all well in academia—especially at small liberal arts institutions.”

    —Terri, senior faculty member

    We all believe the actions you take now may help you find your next position. So, we provide our limited experience advice below:

    • Diversify your academic portfolio. Develop a secondary passion in online pedagogy, accreditation or program assessment. These diversified interests may create new possibilities in policy development, technology or research roles in state government.
    • Become involved in and network within professional organizations, including, for teacher educators and state and local teacher-preparation organizations. Meaningful connections are often forged within those networks. Tenure is nice, but diversified interests and a record of leadership in professional activities can go a long way.
    • Develop a track record demonstrating a strong work ethic and responsiveness to the learning needs of a diverse student body. Create peer-mentor programs, develop tutoring programs at local schools and help the college provide strong mentorship to students who might be underperforming. It will prove extremely beneficial for others and for you.
    • Help your institution become more nimble. Take a direct role in responding to societal changes with urgency; the survival of the institution depends on flexible delivery while staying true to the mission.

    As the three of us adjust to our new environments, we wonder why so little research explores the realities of college closure for tenured and tenure-track faculty. We are now considering research that might delve into deeper questions.

    1. Do faculty outside our field of teacher education experience the closure of an institution, the employment search and re-employment in similar ways?
    2. Has the trend of college closures impacted women in higher education differently and/or disproportionally than our male counterparts?
    3. What elements of ageism, sexism, racism, etc., are impacting job searches and negotiating processes for faculty after a closure?
    4. Are early-career faculty more likely to experience multiple closures?
    5. What impact might multiple closures have on one’s career and identity?

    While it is an area of study filled with turmoil, we envision continuing this line of research. We believe many college faculty members might benefit from the collective wisdom of colleagues caught in the same situation. We hope to continue to provide direction and support for our colleagues who might need to find a new academic home.

    Jennifer N. Suriano is an assistant professor of education at Siena College. Terri Ward is an assistant professor at Empire State University. Julienne Cuccio Slichko is an associate professor of special education at the State University of New York at Oneonta. All three previously served as faculty at the College of Saint Rose, which closed in 2024.

    Source link

  • Professional services staff need equal recognition – visibility in sector data would be a good start

    Professional services staff need equal recognition – visibility in sector data would be a good start

    Achieving recognition for the significant contribution of professional services staff is a collaborative, cross-sector effort.

    With HESA’s second consultation on higher education staff statistics welcoming responses until 3 April, AGCAS has come together with a wide range of membership bodies representing professional services staff across higher education to release a statement warmly welcoming HESA’s proposal to widen coverage of the higher education staff record to include technical staff and professional and operational staff.

    By creating a more complete staff record, HESA aim to deliver better understanding of the diverse workforce supporting the delivery of UK higher education. AGCAS, together with AHEP, AMOSSHE, ASET, CRAC-Vitae, NADP and UMHAN, welcome these proposals. We have taken this collaborative approach because we have a common goal of seeking wider recognition for the outstanding contributions and work of our members in professional services roles, and the impact they make on their institutions, regions, graduates and students.

    A matter of visibility

    Since the 2019–20 academic year, higher education providers in England and Northern Ireland have had the option to return data on non-academic staff to HESA. However, this has led to a lack of comprehensive visibility for many professional services staff. In the 2023–24 academic year, out of 228 providers only 125 opted to return data on all their non-academic staff – leaving 103 providers opting out.

    This gap in data collection has raised concerns about the recognition and visibility of these essential staff members – and has not gone unnoticed by professional services staff themselves. As one AGCAS member noted:

    Professional service staff have largely remained invisible when reporting on university staff numbers. Professional services provide critical elements of student experience and outcomes, and this needs to be recognised and reflected better in statutory reporting.

    This sentiment underscores the importance of the proposed changes by HESA, and the reason for our shared response.

    Who is and is not

    A further element of the consultation considers a move away from the term “non-academic” to better reflect the roles and contributions of these staff members and proposes to collect data on staff employment functions.

    Again, we collectively strongly support these proposed changes, which have the potential to better understand and acknowledge the wide range of staff working to deliver outstanding higher education across the UK. The term non-academic has long been contentious across higher education. While continuing to separate staff into role types may cause issues for those in the third space, shifting away from a term and approach that defines professional services staff by othering them is a welcome change.

    As we move forward, it is essential to continue fostering collaboration and mutual respect between academic and professional services staff. Challenging times across higher education can create or enhance partnership working between academic and professional services staff, in order to tackle shared difficulties, increase collaboration and form strategic alliances.

    A better environment

    By working in this way, we can create a more inclusive and supportive environment that recognises the diverse contributions of all staff members, ultimately enhancing outcomes for all higher education stakeholders, particularly students.

    Due to the nature of our memberships, our shared statement focuses on professional services staff in higher education – but we also welcome the clear focus on operational and technical staff from HESA, who again make vital contributions to their institutions.

    We all know that representation matters to our members, and the higher education staff that we collectively represent. HESA’s proposed changes could help to start a move towards fully and equitably recognising the vital work of professional services staff across higher education. By expanding data collection to include wider staff roles and moving away from the term “non-academic”, we can better understand and acknowledge the wide range of contributions that support the higher education sector.

    This is just the first step towards better representation and recognition, but it is an important one.

    Source link

  • Surviving and thriving in HE professional services

    Surviving and thriving in HE professional services

    by GR Evans

    This blog was first published in the Oxford Magazine No 475 (Eighth Week, Hilary term, 2025) and is reproduced here with permission of the author and the editor.

    Rachel Reeds’ short but comprehensive book, Surviving and Thriving in Higher Education Professional Services: a guide to success (Routledge, 2025), is both an instruction manual for the ‘professionals’ it was written for and an illuminating account of what they do for the academics and students who benefit. However, Reeds is frank about what is sometimes described as ‘trench warfare’, a ‘tension’ between academics and ‘everyone else’, including differences of ‘perceived status’ among the staff of  ‘higher education providers’.

    Her chapters begin with a survey of the organisation of ‘UK higher education today’. Then comes a description of  ‘job or career’ in ‘professional services’ followed by a chapter on how to get such a post. Chapter 4 advises the new recruit about ‘making a visible impact’ and Chapter 5 considers ‘managing people and teams’. The widespread enthusiasm of providers for ‘change’ and ‘innovation’ prompts the discussion in Chapter 6.

    Reeds defines ‘Professional Services’ as replacing and embracing ‘terms such as administrators, non-academic staff or support staff’. In some providers there are not two but three categories, with ‘professional services’ sometimes described as ‘academic-related’ and other non-academics as ‘assistant’ staff. Some academics are responsible for both teaching and research but there may also be research-only staff, usually on fixed-term externally-funded contracts, which may be classified on the sameside of the ‘trench’ as academics. The ‘umbrella carriers’ of ‘middle management’ and ‘dealing with difficult things’ provide matter for Chapter 7. In Chapter 8 and the conclusion there is encouragement to see the task in broader terms and to share ‘knowledge’ gained. Each chapter ends with suggestions for further reading under the heading ‘digging deeper’.

    The scope of the needs to be met is now very wide. Government-defined ‘Levels’ of higher education include Levels 4 and 5, placing degrees at Level 6, with postgraduate Masters at 7 and doctorates at 8. The Higher Education and Research Act of 2017 therefore includes what is now a considerable range of ‘higher education providers’ in England, traditional Universities among them, but also hundreds of ‘alternative providers’. Some of these deliver higher education in partnership with other providers which have their own degree-awarding powers, relying on them to provide their students with degrees. These all need ‘professional services’ to support them in their primary tasks of teaching and, in many cases, also research.

    Providers of higher education need two kinds of staff: to deliver education and research and others to provide support for them. That was noticed in the original drafting of the Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 s.65, 2 (b) which approved the use of (the then significant) ‘block grant’ public funding for:

    the provision of any facilities, and the carrying on of any other activities, by higher education institutions in their area which the governing bodies of those institutions consider it necessary or desirable to provide or carry on for the purpose of or in connection with education or research.

    In what sense do those offering such ‘services’ constitute a Profession? The Professional Qualifications Act of 2022, awaiting consideration of amendments and royal approval, is primarily concerned with licence to practise and the arrangements for the acceptance of international qualifications. It is designed to set out a framework ‘whereby professional statutory regulatory bodies (PSRBs) can determine the necessary knowledge and experience requirements to work in a regulated profession (for example nursing or architecture)’. It will permit ’different approaches to undertaking’ any ‘regulatory activity’ so as ‘to ensure professional standards’This is not stated to include any body recognising members of the Professional Services of higher education.  Nor does the Government’s own approved list of regulated professions.

    The modern Professional Services came into existence in a recognisable form only in the last few decades.The need for support for the work of the ‘scholars’ got limited recognition in the early universities. When Oxford and Cambridge formed themselves as corporations at the beginning of the thirteenth century they provided themselves with Chancellors, who had a judicial function, and Proctors (Procuratores) to ensure that the corporation stayed on the right side of the law. The office of Registrar (Oxford) and Registrary (Cambridge) was added from the fifteenth sixteenth century to keep the records of the University such as its lists and accounts.

    The needs to be met expanded towards the end of the nineteenth century. Oxford’s Registrar had a staff of five in 1914. The Oxford and Cambridge Universities Commission which framed the Act of 1923 recommended that the Registrar’s role be developed. The staff of Oxford’s Registrar numbered eight in 1930 and forty in 1958. By 2016 the Registrar was manager to half the University’s staff.

    The multiplication of universities from the 1890s continued with a new cluster in the 1960s,  each with its own body of staff supporting the academics. A body of University Academic Administrative Staff created in 1961 became the Conference of University Administrators in 1993. The  resulting Association of University Administrators (AUA) became the  Association of Higher Education Professionals (AHEP) in 2023. CUA traced its history back to the Meeting of University Academic Administrative Staff, founded in 1961. Its golden jubilees was celebrated in 2011 in response to the changing UK higher education sector. It adopted the current name in 2023.

    This reflects the development of categories of such support staff not all of whom are classified as ‘Professional’.  A distinction is now common between ‘assistant staff’ and the ‘professionals’, often described as ’academic-related’ and enjoying a comparable status with the ‘academic’.

    The question of status was sharpened by the creation of a Leadership Foundation in Higher Education (LFHE) in 2004, merged with AdvanceHE in 2018.  This promises those in  Professional Services ‘a vital career trajectory equal to research, teaching and supporting learning’ and, notably, to ‘empower leaders at all levels: from early-career professionals to senior executives’ That implies that executive leadership in a provider will not necessarily lie with its academics. It may also be described as managerial.

    Reading University identifies ‘role profiles’ of four kinds: ‘academic and research’; ‘professional and managerial’; support roles which are ‘clerical and technical; ‘ancillary and operational support’. The ‘professional and managerial’ roles are at Grades 6-8. It invites potential recruits into its ‘Professional Services’ as offering career progression at the University. The routes are listed under Leadership and Management Development; ‘coaching and mentoring’ and ‘apprenticeships’. This may open a ‘visible career pathway for professional services staff’ and ‘also form part of succession planning within a team, department or Directorate or School where team members showing potential can be nurtured and developed’.

    Traditional universities tend to adopt the terminology of ‘Professional Services’. Durham University, one of the oldest, details its ‘Professional Services’ in information for its students, telling them that they will ‘have access to an extensive, helpful support network’. It lists eleven categories, with ‘health and safety’ specifically stated to provide ‘professional’ advice. York University, one of the group of universities founded during the 1960s, also lists Professional Services. These are ‘overseen by the Chief Financial and Operating Officer’ and variously serving Technology; Estates and Facilities; Human Resources; Research and Enterprise; Planning and Risk; External Relations; student needs etc. The post-1992 Oxford Brookes University also has its Professional Services divided into a number of sections of the University’s work such as ‘academic, research and estates’. Of the alternative providers which have gained ‘university title’ Edge Hill (2006) lists seven ‘administrative staff’, two ‘part-time’, one described as administration ‘co-ordinator’, one as a ‘manager’ and one as a ‘leader’.

    Reeds’ study draws on the experience of those working in a wide range of providers, but it does not include an account of the provision developed by  Oxford or Cambridge. Yet the two ancient English Universities have their own centuries-long histories of creating and multiplying administrative roles. The Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge similarly distinguish their ‘academic’ from their other staff. For example St John’s College, Oxford and Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge list more than a dozen ‘departments’, each with its own  body of non-academic staff.

    In Oxford the distinction between academics and ‘professional’ administrators is somewhat blurred by grading administrators alongside academics at the same levels. Oxford’s Registrar now acts ‘as principal adviser on strategic policy to the Vice-Chancellor and to Council’, and to ‘ensure effective co-ordination of advice from other officers to the Vice-Chancellor, Council, and other university bodies’ (Statute IX, 30-32). Cambridge’s Registrary is ‘to act as the principal administrative officer of the University, and as the head of the University’s administrative staff’ and ‘keep a record of the proceedings of the University, and to attend for that purpose’ all ‘public proceedings of the University’, acting ‘as Secretary to the Council.’

    The record-keeping responsibility continues, including ‘maintaining a register of members of the University’, and ‘keeping records of matriculations and class-lists, and of degrees, diplomas, and other qualifications’. The Registrary must also edit the Statutes and Ordinances and the Cambridge University Reporter (Statute C, VI). The multiplication of the Registrary’s tasks now requires a body offering ‘professional’ services. ‘There shall be under the direction of the Council administrative officers in categories determined by Special Ordinance’ (Statute c, VI).

    Oxford and Cambridge each created a ‘UAS’ in the 1990s. Both are now engaged in ‘Reimagining Professional Services’. Oxford’s UAS (‘University Administration and Services’, also known as ‘Professional Services and University Administration’) is divided into sections, most of them headed by the Registrar. These are variously called ‘departments’, ‘directorates’, ‘divisions’, ‘services’ and ‘offices’ and may have sub-sections of their own. For example ‘People’  includes Childcare; Equality and Diversity; Occupational Health; Safety; ‘Organisational Development’; ‘Wellbeing’ and ‘international Development’, each with its own group of postholders. This means that between the academic and ‘the traditional student support-based professional services’ now fall a variety of other tasks some leading to other professional qualifications, for example from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Chartered Management Institute or in librarianship and technology.

    Cambridge’s UAS (Unified Administrative Service), headed by its Registrary and now similarly extensive and wide-ranging, had a controversial beginning. Its UAS was set up in 1996 bringing together the Financial Board, the General Board, and the Registry. Its intended status and that of its proposed members proved controversial. Although it was described as ‘professional’, the remarks made when it was proposed in a Report included the expression of concerns that this threatened the certainty that the University was ‘academic led’. This prompted a stock-taking Notice published on 20 June 2001 to provide assurance that ‘the management of the University’s activities, which is already largely in the hands of academic staff, must also continue to be academic-led’ and that the ‘role of the administration is to support, not to manage, the delivery of high-quality teaching and research’.  But it was urged that the UAS needed ‘further development both in terms of resourcing and of organization’. The opportunity was taken to emphasise the ‘professionalism’ of the service.

    With the expansion of Professional Services has gone a shift from an assumption that this forms a ‘Civil Service’ role to its definition as ‘administrative’ or ‘managerial’. ‘Serving’ of the academic community may now allow a degree of control. Reeds suggests that ‘management’ is a ‘role’ while ‘leadership’ is a ‘concept’, leaving for further consideration whether those in Professional Services should exercise the institutional leadership which is now offered for approval.

    In Cambridge the Council has been discussing ways in which, and with whom, this might be taken forward. On 3 June 2024 its Minutes show that it ‘discussed the idea of an academic leaders’ programme to help with succession planning by building a strong pool of candidates for leadership positions within the University’. It continued the discussion at its July meeting and agreed a plan which was published in a Notice in the Reporter on 31 July:

    to create up to six new paid part-time fellowships each year for emerging academic leaders at the University, sponsored by the Vice-Chancellor. Each fellow would be supported by a PVC or Head of School (as appropriate) and would be responsible for delivering agreed objectives, which could be in the form of project(s).

    ‘In addition to financial remuneration’, the Fellows would each receive professional coaching, including attendance on the Senior Leadership Programme Level 3. Unresolved challenge has delayed the implementation of this plan so far.

    The well-documented evolution and current review of Professional Services in Oxford and Cambridge is not included, but the story of Professional Services told in this well-written and useful book is illustrated with quotations from individuals working in professional services.

    SRHE member GR Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History in the University of Cambridge.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link