Tag: Reshape

  • 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

  • How the BCA could reshape UK university recruitment in India and South Asia

    How the BCA could reshape UK university recruitment in India and South Asia

    When the UK government unveiled its immigration white paper in May, my first reaction was simple: “A step in the right direction.”

    Buried among the many proposals, five key policy reforms stood out for their potential to reshape international student recruitment for UK universities. The headline-grabber on social media was the shortening of the Graduate Route from 24 months to 18 months. But, truth be told, that’s not the change keeping universities awake at night.

    The real shake-up comes from the Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) reforms, expected to roll out in September 2025, which will prove especially tough for smaller universities.

    What’s changing?

    From next year, UK universities sponsoring international students will face much stricter BCA benchmarks:

    • Visa success rate: At least 95% of students issued a CAS must obtain their visa (up from 90%).
    • Enrolment rate: Of those, 95% must enrol on their course (up from 90%).
    • Completion rate: At least 90% must complete the course (up from 85%).

    On paper, these increases might look like small percentage rises. In practice, they’re a gamechanger.

    Why this is big

    For years, many universities in the UK, both modern and traditional alike, have operated just above the current BCA thresholds, leaving little leeway for the inevitable drop-outs, deferrals, or visa refusals, especially from high-risk regions such as South Asia and Africa.

    According to a recent story published by The PIE, quoting analysis from ApplyBoard’s study on visa refusal rates between Q1 2024 and the same period in 2025, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh saw a notable decline in visa grant rates.

    Pakistan’s visa grant rate fell from 82% to 74%, while the other two countries saw even sharper declines: Bangladesh dropped 15 percentage points from 78% to 63%, and Nepal fell by 14 percentage points from 98% to 84% during the same period.

    But now, with the bar raised, there’s far less margin for error. To comply, universities will have to halve their visa refusal rate from 10% to 5% and simultaneously boost enrolment and completion rates. That means rethinking recruitment pipelines, especially in regions like South Asia and Africa, where volumes are high but visa risks can be significant.

    The good news, though, is that some of the biggest countries in high-risk regions, such as India, Nigeria and Ghana, have seen a marginal increase in visa grant rates, providing a sigh of relief for universities heavily recruiting from these countries.

    Why smaller universities are nervous

    Large universities enjoy a buffer. Recruit 10,000 international students in an intake, and a 5% refusal rate gives you room for up to 500 refusals before you breach the threshold.

    Small universities, however, don’t have that luxury. If you enrol fewer than 100 international students, even a handful of refusals could push you into the danger zone. This forces smaller institutions to be extremely selective, tightening quality control on applications and perhaps narrowing the recruitment pool altogether.

    It’s worth considering whether the MAC and UKVI might allow different levels of flexibility for smaller institutions. Applying the same standards across the board could be unfair, as not all institutions recruit in the same way or at the same scale.

    A small, specialist provider in creative or performing arts, for example, will naturally draw fewer students than a comprehensive university offering everything from anthropology to zoology. Even among smaller universities, subject mix matters, as one with business, engineering and computing courses is likely to recruit far more students than another of the same size focused on niche disciplines such as veterinary science or agricultural studies.

    The bottom line?

    While the Graduate Route change has stolen the spotlight, the new BCA rules may well prove the bigger disruptor. For universities in the UK and recruiters in India and South Asia, September 2025 isn’t far away. The scramble to adapt has already begun.

    How the BCA could reshape international recruitment

    The impact of these changes will likely be felt in four major ways.

    First and foremost, managing recruitment agents will become significantly more crucial. With visa refusal rates coming under intense scrutiny, universities will increasingly demand stricter compliance and accountability from their recruitment partners.

    This will likely lead to more thorough vetting processes for agents, more stringent contractual agreements, and widespread implementation of standards such as the Agent Quality Framework (AQF).

    Agents with consistently poor performance, particularly those associated with high visa refusal rates, will face swift removal from university-approved lists.

    While the exact timeline for these changes is not yet clear, the immigration white paper also suggested the possibility of introducing a public “traffic light” system to display the BCA data of the universities transparently.

    It would therefore be reasonable to expect a similar public database for recruitment agents available in the public domain, allowing universities easier access to detailed track records of agencies. This increased transparency will empower institutions to make more informed decisions about which agents to collaborate with.

    Second, admissions processes will become more selective. This means deeper scrutiny of financial documents, academic readiness, and genuine study intent before issuing a CAS. Universities may introduce additional pre-CAS interviews, English proficiency re-checks, or even conditional academic bridging programs to ensure higher completion rates.

    Selective treatment may be reintroduced as a strategy once again. Historically, many global universities have adopted region-specific recruitment policies, tailoring their approaches to different cities or states within the same country. These variations are often influenced by factors such as past visa approval rates, the academic calibre of students from particular areas, and key market insights.

    In a vast and diverse market like India, this approach becomes especially relevant. Universities tend to exercise greater caution when recruiting from certain states compared to others, reflecting the complex demographic, economic, and educational landscape of the country.

    This nuanced strategy allows institutions to optimise their recruitment efforts by focusing resources where the chances of success are higher, while managing risks in regions with less favourable indicators.

    Finally, market focus could shift. Institutions heavily reliant on high-risk markets may diversify towards countries with stronger visa success rates, while in South Asia, universities may work more closely with fewer but higher-quality partners. In practice, this might mean fewer students being offered places, but with higher confidence that those who arrive will stay the course.

    In essence, the proposed changes to the BCA thresholds signal a fundamental shift in how international student recruitment is approached. Rather than focusing primarily on sheer volume or the quantity of students recruited, the emphasis is moving decisively towards quality, ensuring that students admitted meet higher standards and contribute positively to the university community and the broader educational ecosystem.

    This shift challenges universities to rethink their recruitment strategies, prioritising compliance, student success, and sustainable growth over simply hitting numerical targets. For institutions within the prestigious Russell Group as well as others across the sector, the ability to swiftly adapt to these new expectations will be critical.

    Those that embrace the change and implement robust quality-focused recruitment processes will be the ones best positioned to maintain strong and healthy intake numbers in the evolving landscape. Ultimately, the future belongs to universities that recognise the importance of quality over quantity and act accordingly.

    Source link

  • How Major Restrictions Silently Reshape Student Pathways

    How Major Restrictions Silently Reshape Student Pathways

    Title: The Invisible Barrier: How Restrictions on Majors Influence Career Paths

    Source: Strada Education Foundation

    Author: Nichole Torpey-Saboe and Akua Amankwah-Ayeh

    When university departments face increasing demand, many implement additional entry requirements. But this seemingly reasonable practice has far-reaching consequences for equity and workforce development, according to new research from Strada Education Foundation surveying recent college graduates.

    The study found that while 67 percent of recent public four-year institution graduates considered a restricted major, only 50 percent were admitted to one. This gap translates to more than 200,000 students annually deterred from pursuing their preferred field of study—with the impact falling disproportionately on historically marginalized populations. Black graduates (27 percent) and first-generation students (22 percent) did not pursue restricted majors of interest at higher rates than the average graduate (17 percent).

    A notable finding is that major restrictions operate largely outside institutional awareness. For every student formally rejected from a restricted major, four others never apply, deterred by requirements they see as difficult to meet. This “invisible barrier” effect means institutional data captures only a fraction of the impact, making it difficult for institutions to fully assess the effects of these policies.

    These findings align with economic research by Zachary Bleemer and Aashish Mehta that highlights two conclusions. First, major restrictions have tripled the economic value gap between degrees earned by underrepresented minority students and their peers since the mid-1990s. Second, there is no evidence that restrictions improved educational outcomes for excluded students or enhanced the value of restricted majors for those who remained.

    The most common restrictions respondents report are academic performance thresholds: out-of-department GPA requirements (42 percent), in-department GPA thresholds (33 percent), and test score requirements (29 percent). Other barriers include higher costs (15 percent), required work hours (12 percent), wait lists (9 percent), portfolio reviews (8 percent), and auditions (7 percent).

    The research identifies four approaches institutions might consider:

    • Implement bridge programs for underrepresented students in gateway courses for high-demand majors, paired with specialized academic and career advising.
    • Develop alternative credential pathways through certificates, minors, and interdisciplinary programs that provide students access to skills in high-demand fields without major-specific entry barriers.
    • Secure funding, such as through state appropriations, to expand educational resources and capacity in high-demand departments, recognizing these programs’ higher delivery costs as well as their value.
    • Work with industry leaders to secure access to equipment, facilities, guest instructors, and financial support to expand capacity in resource-intensive programs.

    While institutional resource constraints are real, the unintended consequences of major restrictions are reshaping student pathways in ways that affect both equity and workforce development. By implementing thoughtful alternatives, institutions can better respond to student aspirations while addressing workforce needs.

    For more information, read the complete Strada Education Foundation report and Bleemer & Mehta’s economic analysis on how these policies affect long-term wage disparities.

    —Alex Zhao

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy: 3 Ways To Reshape The Pyramid

    Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy: 3 Ways To Reshape The Pyramid

    Bloom’s Taxonomy is probably the most widespread and enduringly popular model in education. It was created in 1956 by Dr. Benjamin Bloom and colleagues at the Board of Examinations, University of Chicago. In 2001, the pyramid was revised by Lorin Anderson, a student of Bloom’s, resulting in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy.

    Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy focuses on learning outcomes. The framework demands that very first thing that instructors need to think about is what students have to know by the end of the course. Learning objectives need actions to get to them. And Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy is hierarchical, requiring your students to achieve each level in succession—in order to understand a concept, you must remember it; to apply a concept you must first understand it, and so on.

    There’s no doubt that this way of classifying educational objectives has been extremely useful to millions of teachers over the years. But for those who might not have had conclusively positive results evaluating Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy or incorporating it into instruction, it’s worth considering some more ways to think outside the pyramid to improve teaching and learning. Here are three things you could bear in mind when using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in your lesson planning.

    1. Cultivate judgment rather than transmit information

    The instructional strategies behind Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy require educators to begin with “lower order” tasks, arguing that students need to master these first. This means we front-load our courses with information: information that can be recalled, defined, identified or another objective in the lowest layer of the pyramid.

    But constructivist theories of learning—and our own classroom experiences—tell us that learning does not happen through information transference alone. A learner is an not empty vessel into which we pour definitions. He or she is not going to truly understand something without interpreting it, questioning it, or relating to it.

    So when designing your course, try to incorporate ways to strengthen and take advantage of their faculties of judgment.

    What would it mean to cultivate judgment during a course? Start by doing. Engage your students to take action in some relevant way—through a lab experiment, for example, or by field research. Another way to do this is role-play. When I taught history, we started out by taking on the identities of various countries, coming to decisions supported by research and analysis. The historical facts—and there were many—were all taught in this context. In this way, facts are put into the service of learning, rather than becoming an initial goal in themselves.

    2. Start, rather than end, with creativity

    As educator Shelley Wright has pointed out, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy gives the impression there’s a “scarcity of creativity.”1 Only those strong enough or talented enough to work their way up to the summit of the pyramid can be creative. The truth is that everybody is naturally creative—just think of a seven year-old at play—except that this way of being in the world is often squelched or squandered. Ken Robinson, for instance, has strongly argued that creativity is typically “educated out” of us.2

    What could it mean to start with creativity? Have your students create on day one. (OK, maybe day two or three.) Wright explains how this works for her media studies class. Instead of beginning by laying out design principles and the history of media, she gets the students to make an advert mockup. Then they compare their mockups to published adverts. Wright helps them analyze differences and introduces, through student-facilitated research, the major principles and concepts of design that help them explain their own creation and those of others.

    A create-first approach could work just as well in courses that are theory-rich and fact-heavy such as philosophy, literature, or science. In environmental science, for example, ask students to propose a solution to deforestation or ocean acidification. Then, starting from their contributions, explore the principles, factors, concepts, contingencies at play, including the ones that were omitted. Have students compare their solutions to others’. Get them to elicit the principle involved, the recent literature in the area, and articulate and fully describe the concepts and the facts.

    3. Promote awareness instead of entrenching hierarchy

    The stratification of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy into “lower” and “higher” order objectives sets up a value proposition. It leads educators to think that certain kinds of learning necessarily reflect superior kinds of cognition.

    But as Roland Case argues, tasks at every level of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy can be performed thoughtfully or thoughtlessly.3 It is possible to defend a position in a completely superficial way. It is possible to propose a plan that lacks good judgment or analysis. It is possible to create something without building from a base of relevant knowledge. Indeed, that is why it’s necessary to practice and develop judgment, critical thinking skills and creative problem-solving.

    When Anderson and Krathwohl revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, they accounted for this with a second scale for assessment called The Knowledge Dimension, which lies as another dimension or axis to the cognitive domain. One should assess each of the revised categories (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create) according to whether factual, conceptual, procedural or metacognitive knowledge is demonstrated.

    If no category is higher or lower than any other, then leveling makes no sense. With proper consideration for The Knowledge Dimension, we are far from a pyramid… and always have been! But who knew? As Leslie Wilson points out, “what most educators are given in training is a simple chart listing levels and related accompanying verbs.”4

    Bloom’s Taxonomy revised: A pyramid alternative

    And so, if we want to engage students’ creativity, cultivate judgment and make sure that each stage of learning is fully developed and attuned to the right outcome, then organizing anew the existing structure of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy could go a very long way. Instead of a pyramid, how about a mandala?

    Bloom's Taxonomy in a Mandala or Rose format. CC-BY-SA 3.0 K. Aainsqatsi

    Strange things happen when we feel beholden to a structure. If lesson planning with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy hasn’t been working for you or your class, rethink the background on how it should be applied. Reconsider the way you’re assessing student learning. Break down the hierarchy and rebuild.

    Illustration credits: CC-BY 2.0 Vanderbilt University; CC-BY-SA 3.0 K. Aqinsqatsi.

    Related stories
    Bloom’s verbs and how to apply them to questions

    Get a set of online teaching resources to help you develop effective teaching practices and foster active learning within your classrooms.

    Download your free Top Hat Toolkit Here:

    References

    1. Wright, S. (2012, May 15). Flipping Bloom’s Taxonomy [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://plpnetwork.com/2012/05/15/flipping-blooms-taxonomy/
    2. Parker, Q. (2018, October 3). The Possibilities of an Agile Classroom: Sir Ken Robinson [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://tophat.com/blog/sir-ken-robinson-qa/
    3. Case, R. Unfortunate Consequences of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from https://tc2.ca/uploads/PDFs/Critical%20Discussions/unfortunate_consequences_blooms_taxonomy.pdf
    4. Wilson, L. O. (2017, January 20). Understanding the New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. [Blog post] https://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-revised/

    Tagged as:

    Source link