Tag: Responding

  • What does our future workforce look like – and how are universities responding?

    What does our future workforce look like – and how are universities responding?

    • By Jamie Roberts, Policy Manager, and Aiste Viduolyte, PhD student intern at the Russell Group.

    To achieve the government’s ambitious aims of increasing growth and productivity, the UK will need a skilled workforce to match.

    All eight high-potential growth sectors identified by the government’s Industrial Strategy green paper will heavily rely on graduate skills – in particular the creative, digital and life sciences sectors, where over 70% of the workforce is made up of graduates. The government’s own forecasts show that the UK will need an additional 11 million graduates across the country by 2035, with 88% of new jobs being graduate-level.

    To meet these needs on both national and local levels, Russell Group universities are building on their existing partnerships with colleges, businesses and local authorities to make sure education remains as relevant and responsive as possible for graduates and employers alike. Our latest briefing paper, Local Partnerships to Deliver Skills, looks in more detail at the ways in which our universities collaborate with industry, local government and education providers.

    Here we explore three key characteristics of the UK future workforce – and how our universities are responding.

    1. Workers’ skills must keep pace with employers’ rapidly evolving needs

    The government is determined to get British business back to full health and has identified several growth-leading sectors in the Industrial Strategy green paper. These are likely to attract the most investment, but to generate productivity and deliver innovation, they will also need a workforce with the right set of skills – and these needs are evolving at speed.

    Not only will we need new graduates with the latest skills and knowledge, but also existing workers who can be upskilled and reskilled to make sure the workforce’s capabilities keep pace with rapidly changing technological developments and industry practices. This is why Russell Group universities partner with industry to shape course content, ensuring education and training are agile and responsive to each sector.

    Increasingly – now at 17 of our 24 universities – this includes degree apprenticeships, which give people opportunities to pivot or upskill at any stage of their career. Apprenticeships have become an essential pathway for delivering skills directly to industry at all levels, and almost 8,000 students enrolled on apprenticeships at Russell Group universities in 2023/24. At Queen’s University Belfast, for example, business partners such as PwC and construction firm Farrans are directly influencing apprenticeship course content and building talent streams in the areas where skills are most urgently needed, from digital software technology to civil engineering and building.

    More and more, this also means partnering with Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which form the bedrock of the UK economy. At the University of Liverpool, the careers and employment service works with a network of local SMEs to support graduate recruitment and ensure that the university’s graduates are equipped not only with the specialist and technical know-how, but also essential soft skills to enhance what they can bring to local small businesses.

    2. Local workforces must meet each region’s specific needs, strengths and skills gaps

    Whether it’s fixing cold spots or supporting existing industry clusters, we can’t take a one-size-fits-all approach across the country. Local growth plans will be vital in shaping each region’s workforce needs.

    That’s why universities, as important anchor institutions in their towns, cities and regions, must be at the heart of these plans. Our members are already in active collaboration with local and combined authorities to research, understand and address local workforce needs – as part of City Deals, Civic University Agreements, or university involvement in local skills networks.

    In Manchester, the University has teamed up with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and four other regional university partners to develop the first ever city-region Civic University Agreement (GMCUA) in the UK. This model is transforming the relationship between the university sector and local government, allowing them to work together on mapping skills and opportunities, particularly in green skills, the creative sector, health and social care. Meanwhile in London, UCL’s partnership with the councils of Camden, Islington and Newham enables students to contribute to local research and policy, while granting residents access to data skills and literacy training to improve their employability and career prospects.

    3. Every workforce benefits from multiple educational pathways to build the best combination of skills and experience

    While growing the UK’s graduate workforce, it is important we remain cognisant of the wide variety of educational backgrounds and pathways in our communities, and maximise the strengths that different providers bring. We need to move toward a skills and education system that incentivises true collaboration. Partnerships between higher education and further education are invaluable and should acknowledge that further education colleges are not just feeder institutions. Building on existing collaboration will allow students the best of both worlds, while creating cohesive educational pathways that complement, rather than compete with each other.

    Through a mixture of academic and vocational training, our universities’ partnerships with our further education colleagues offer a broad range of expertise, which can support a variety of career options and cover the multitude of skills needed in each region.

    Working together makes sure we not only fulfil a broader range of skills and sectors but also support greater access to education for all. A co-ordinated system, where further and higher education are aligned, creates clearer pathways for people of all backgrounds and educational experiences to access higher-level qualifications. This generates more mechanisms by which we can upskill our workforce.

    A sustainable, highly skilled workforce is of course reliant on a stable, well-funded university system. which is one of the reasons the sector has been so keen to make government understand the scale and urgency of the financial challenges we’re facing. Simply put, the UK won’t have the right workforce to achieve its growth ambitions without considering the role of its universities.

    Source link

  • FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration

    FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration

    On April 21, 2025, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the federal government froze $2.2 billion in federal research funding with threats of more cuts to come. The administration claimed Harvard failed to address anti-Semitism on campus, especially in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and issued a list of demands in exchange for lifting the freeze. 

    These demands included adopting an ideological litmus test for foreign students, a comprehensive mask ban, an audit of disfavored academic departments, mandated reforms to the university’s internal governance structure, and eliminating diversity programs. Harvard argued that these demands and the funding cuts that followed violated its institutional autonomy and constitutional right free speech and academic freedom. In the lawsuit, the university is asking the court to restore its funding and block the government from imposing such requirements in the future.

    FIRE agrees that the Trump administration’s approach is unlawful. Below are answers to some common questions we have received about the situation. 

    Harvard isn’t entitled to federal funds. Why is FIRE defending it? 

    You’re right. Harvard isn’t entitled to federal funding. No institution is. 

    But Harvard — just like you (or FIRE, or any person or organization) —  is entitled to a federal government that follows the law. And just as the law gives us certain protections, it also says the government can’t cancel funding on a whim, like the administration did last week. 

    Let’s take a closer look. 

    The vast majority of colleges and universities receive federal funds. These funds mostly consist of financial aid, like Pell grants, and grants for scientific and medical research. Of the $9 billion reportedly under review by the Trump administration, the Harvard Crimson estimates over $6 billion comes in the form of funding for five regional hospitals associated with the university, along with $2.7 billion in research funding at the university itself. 

    To be eligible to receive federal funding, institutions pledge to follow federal anti-discrimination laws. Those laws include Title VI, the federal law that prohibits colleges and universities from discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Since the George W. Bush administration, the federal government has interpreted Title VI as prohibiting anti-Semitic discrimination, too.

    So far, so good. Colleges get government funding for students and research. The federal government in return gets (among other things) a commitment that those colleges won’t engage in or tolerate discrimination. That’s the deal.  

    And the deal has rules to protect colleges, the government, and the taxpayers who foot the bill from being negatively affected by arbitrary decisions. Before the federal government can pull funds from an institution, it has to take a series of steps. 

    First, the Department of Education must investigate complaints about discrimination. If it finds problems, ED is required to work with an institution to address those problems “by informal means whenever possible.” This is the most common process, where the department’s Office for Civil Rights enters into a “resolution agreement” with an institution to ensure compliance with Title VI. 

    If that doesn’t work, for whatever reason, here’s what happens next. In order to strip federal funding, the department must give notice to the institution again and provide an opportunity for an administrative hearing where the institution can challenge the determination. If the determination stands, ED then has to report this to Congress and give 30 days’ notice before it actually terminates funding to the affected programs. ED may also refer the matter to the Department of Justice for litigation. 

    In short, one way or another, the federal government is going to have to provide evidence and prove its case if it wants to pull out of the deal.

    Those are a lot of steps, but they’re important. They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right. 

    These rules are also important because they provide a safeguard against political bias, risk of error, and governmental overreach. 

    Even the federal government acknowledges the role of due process and following existing statute. In a federal court filing earlier this month, the government wrote, “But ED’s only power is to withhold funding from institutions receiving federal funding, after a robust process required by statute and aimed at ensuring compliance.” In that same court filing, the government reiterated that point, writing that “by statute and regulation, numerous steps aimed at ensuring compliance must occur before ED may withdraw funding.”

    Without these rules, an administration could, for example, decide to dramatically expand the definition of “sexual harassment” to include core protected speech and to remove due process protections from sexual misconduct hearings, using the threat of federal funding to force schools to go along with it. That’s exactly what happened under President Obama — and FIRE fought back.  

    And without these rules, nothing prevents the federal government from arbitrarily declaring a university in violation of federal law, yanking federal funding, and demanding fealty and censorship. 

    That’s what President Trump is doing now. And again, FIRE is fighting back. 

    Is FIRE saying that what happened to Jewish students at Harvard and other colleges is OK? 

    No. As FIRE has consistently noted, some campus protests veered into violations of both campus rules and the law. Examples include when protesters took over buildings, blocked access and exit to and from areas of campus, disrupted classes, or committed acts of violence against Jewish students. 

    In responding to these incidents — or failing to respond — Harvard, Columbia, and other colleges may well have been in violation of their obligations under Title VI. If they refused to correct their mistakes as the process played out, revoking their funding might have been justified and legal. 

    But the process matters. 

    What FIRE is saying is that the law is important. Following it isn’t optional. It protects all of us — students, faculty, administrators, families, scientists, hospitals, and the entire country. The administration can’t just decide unilaterally to skip steps. 

    If you support President Trump — or just don’t like Harvard — remember this: Any power the president seizes to ignore the law now won’t magically disappear when he leaves office. It will be wielded by his successors, too. And this time, it might well target schools or other organizations you like.  

    Didn’t Harvard rank last for free speech on your list? 

    It sure did — two years in a row, in fact. 

    But one of the reasons we created our rankings was to give colleges and universities an incentive to do better. Protecting expressive rights on campus is a big part of our mission, and Harvard has a long way to go. Indeed, Harvard (like Columbia) makes a politically popular target precisely because so many people resent its years of engaging in the kind of behavior towards dissenting students and faculty that FIRE was founded to combat. 

    But lately Harvard has been making an effort, and we won’t succeed by writing schools off. And we definitely won’t succeed by allowing the federal government to take them over, trading one dominant ideology for another. 

    You can’t censor your way to free speech.

    Source link