Tag: Rise

  • Building inclusive research cultures– How can we rise above EDI cynicism?

    Building inclusive research cultures– How can we rise above EDI cynicism?

    • Dr Elizabeth Morrow is Research Consultant, Senior Research Fellow Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, & Public Contributor to the Shared Commitment to Public Involvement on behalf of National Institute for Health and Care Research.
    • Professor Tushna Vandrevala is Professor of Health Psychology, Kingston University.
    • Professor Fiona Ross CBE is Professor Emerita Health and Social Care Kingston University, Deputy Chair Westminster University Court of Governors & Trustee Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity.

    Commitment and Motivation for Inclusive Research

    The commitment to inclusivity in UK research cultures and practices will endure despite political shifts abroad and continue to thrive. Rooted in ethical and moral imperatives, inclusivity is fundamentally the right approach. Moreover, extensive evidence from sources such as The Lancet, UNESCO and WHO highlights the far-reaching benefits of inclusive research practices across sectors like healthcare and global development. These findings demonstrate that inclusivity not only enhances research quality but also fosters more equitable outcomes.

    We define ‘inclusive research’ as the intentional engagement of diverse voices, communities, perspectives, and experiences throughout the research process. This encompasses not only who conducts the research but also how it is governed, funded, and integrated into broader systems, such as policy and practice.

    Beyond higher education, corporate leaders have increasingly embraced inclusivity. Research by McKinsey & Company shows that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25% more likely to outperform their peers in profitability, while those leading in ethnic diversity are 36% more likely to do so. This clear link between inclusivity, innovation, and financial success reinforces the value of diverse teams in driving competitive advantage. Similarly, Egon Zehnder’s Global Board Diversity Tracker highlights how diverse leadership enhances corporate governance and decision-making, leading to superior financial performance and fostering innovation.

    Inclusion in research is a global priority as research systems worldwide have taken a ‘participative turn’ to address uncertainty and seek solutions to complex challenges such as Sustainable Development Goals. From climate change to the ethical and societal implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI), inclusive research is a track that ensures that diverse perspectives shape solutions that are effective, fair and socially responsible.

    Take the example of AI and gender bias – evidence shows that women are frequently not included in technology research and are underrepresented in data sets. This creates algorithms that are biased and can have negative consequences of sensitivity, authenticity, or uptake of AI-enabled interventions by women. Similar biases in AI have been found for other groups who are often overlooked because of their age, gender, sexuality, disability, or ethnicity, for example.

    Accelerating Inclusion in UK Research

    A recent horizon scan of concepts related to the UK research inclusion landscape indicates domains in which inclusive research is being developed and implemented, illustrated by Figure 1.

    Inclusion is being accelerated by the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2029, with a stronger focus on assessing People, Culture, and Environment (PCE). REF 2029 emphasises the integration of EDI considerations across research institutions, with a focus on creating equitable and supportive cultures for researchers, participants and communities. The indicators and measures of inclusion that will be developed and used are important because they can encourage diversity of perspectives, knowledge, skills and worldviews into research processes and institutions, thereby increasing relevance and improved outcomes. All units of assessment and panels involved in the REF process will have guidance from the People and Diversity Advisory Panel and the Research Diversity Advisory Panel. This means that inclusion will develop in both the culture of research institutions and the practices that shape research assessment.

    The National Institute for Health Research, which is the largest funder of health and social care research, has pioneered inclusion for over 30 years and prioritises inclusion in its operating principles (see NIHR Research Inclusion Strategy 2022-2027). NIHR’s new requirements for Research Inclusion (RI) will be a powerful lever to address inequalities in health and care. NIHR now requires all its domestic commissioned research to address RI at the proposal stage, actively involve appropriate publics, learn from them and use this learning to inform impact strategies and practices.

    Given the learning across various domains, we ask: How can the broader UK system share knowledge and learn from the setbacks and successes in inclusion, rather than continually reinventing the wheel? By creating space in the system between research funders and institutions to share best practices, such as the Research Culture Enablers Network, we can accelerate progress and contribute to scaling up inclusive research across professional groups and disciplines. There are numerous examples of inclusive innovation, engaged research, and inclusive impact across disciplines and fields that could be shared to accelerate inclusion.

    Developing Shared Language and Inclusive Approaches

    Approaches to building inclusive cultures in research often come with passion and commitment from opinion leaders and change agents. As often happens when levering change, a technical language evolves that can become complex and, therefore, inaccessible to others. For example, acronyms like RI can apply to research inclusion, research integrity and responsible innovation. Furthermore, community-driven research, public and community engagement, and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) have become synonymous with inclusive research, and such participation is an important driver of inclusion.

    The language and practices associated with inclusive research vary by discipline to reflect different contexts and goals. This can confuse rather than clarify and form barriers that possibly get in the way of trust and more effective inclusion strategies and practices. We ask: How can we establish shared understanding, methods of participation, accountability pathways and mechanisms that will promote inclusion in the different and dynamic contexts of UK research?

    With over 20 years of experience in the fields of inclusion and equity, like other researchers, we have found that interdisciplinary collaboration, participatory methods, co-production, and co-design offer valuable insights by listening to and engaging with publics and communities on their own terms and territory. An inclusive approach has deepened our understanding and provided new perspectives on framing, methodological development, and the critical interpretation of research.

    Final reflection

    Key questions to overcome EDI cynicism are: How can we deepen our understanding and integration of intersectionality, inclusive methods, open research, cultural competency, power dynamics, and equity considerations throughout research processes, institutions, and systems? There is always more to learn and this can be facilitated by inclusive research cultures.

    Figure 1. Inclusive Research Dimensions

    Source link

  • Cunk & The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism (Quality Culture)

    Cunk & The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism (Quality Culture)

    Source link

  • The Dangerous Rise of Anti-Intellectualism (Professor Dave Explains)

    The Dangerous Rise of Anti-Intellectualism (Professor Dave Explains)







    Higher Education Inquirer : The Dangerous Rise of Anti-Intellectualism (Professor Dave Explains)




    Source link

  • Student mental health difficulties are on the rise, and so are inequalities

    Student mental health difficulties are on the rise, and so are inequalities

    As current discussions around higher education understandably focus on the challenges (especially around funding) that the sector faces, the experience of the nearly three million students attending our universities and colleges can often be overlooked.

    Current students generally benefit from and enjoy their time in higher education, but the national conversation too often ignores the challenges students face and the inequalities that many students experience.

    One area that deserves greater attention is student mental health.

    Correlation

    In a report published today, we find that the proportion of students reporting mental health difficulties has reached 18 per cent, tripling in just seven years. This implies that around 300,000 of the UK’s undergraduate student population is affected by mental health difficulties, a number that has been rising over recent years.

    And the rise in reported mental health difficulties is greater for some student groups than others. Notably, twice as many women as men report mental health difficulties, while rates for LGBTQ+ students are particularly high, rising to nearly one in three for lesbian (30 per cent) and bisexual (29 per cent) students. Higher still are the rates for trans students (around 40 per cent report mental health difficulties) and nonbinary students (over half report mental health difficulties). While sample sizes make it harder to compare trends over time for these groups, the rates of mental health difficulties are shocking, and require action from higher education providers.

    There is an association between socio-economic status and mental health difficulties. Mental health difficulties are directly correlated with higher participation rates: for every POLAR region of higher education participation, the lower the rate of higher education participation, the higher the proportion of people reporting mental health difficulties. Similarly, state educated pupils are more likely to report difficulties than privately educated pupils, indicating a need for greater support for children’s mental health services too.

    Better reporting

    There are some possible explanations for the sharp rise in student mental health difficulties. First, it is important to note that these figures reflect respondents’ self-reported mental health. Compared to a decade ago, there is less social stigma around disclosing and discussing mental health difficulties, and this may mean that previous reporting underestimated the numbers facing difficulties. There has also been a wider rise in mental health difficulties among all younger people, sometimes linked to the cost of living, concerns about the climate crisis or negative experiences on social media and smartphones. Our findings do not allow us to conclude which (if any) of these explanations is driving the rise in mental health difficulties, but given the rate of increase over the last seven years, it is unlikely to be caused by one explanation alone.

    There is one positive finding in the study, namely that over the course of their studies, LGBTQ+ students experience a relative increase in wellbeing. It is important to note that these students still have higher rates of mental health difficulties compared to their peers, but it’s also worth reflecting on the beneficial role that attending higher education can bring. Particularly for younger LGBTQ+ students, higher education may allow them to navigate and affirm their identity in a new way, and find like-minded friends and peers for the first time. Indeed, there may be learning for other organisations and institutions, particularly employers, in thinking about how they enable wellbeing among their recent and future graduate employees.

    Public health

    What, then, can be done to better address student mental health? One important change would be to adopt a “public health” approach to student mental health, and mental health generally. Higher education providers could also ensure that they effectively signpost students to both wellbeing support services and to clinical health services where required. Significantly, given that some students are more likely to experience mental health difficulties than others, providers also need to ensure these services reach everyone, and may need to tailor their services to do so.

    A key recommendation regards students leaving their courses. In the survey, mental health difficulties was by far the most common reason cited for why students were considering dropping out of their course, mentioned almost five times more than the second most common reason (financial difficulties). Providers therefore need to ensure that their retention efforts address mental health while also measuring how wellbeing and mental health support impacts on the likelihood that students complete their courses.

    Providers need to ensure that they are effectively evaluating their wellbeing and mental health services. It is positive that mental health is now seen as an important area for university services, and that social stigma has declined. Tight financial circumstances are increasing pressure on universities, and we all recognise the challenges of meeting every student need. At the same time, foregrounding the interests of students and ensuring their success in higher education requires a more extensive, effect focus on student mental health, not least given the extent of mental health difficulties, and how inequalities both produce and amplify these difficulties, before, during and after students leave higher education.

    Source link

  • Interest in QuestBridge students on the rise

    Interest in QuestBridge students on the rise

    As colleges and universities look for new ways to diversify their student bodies and increase access to low-income students, one national program is emerging as an increasingly popular tool in those efforts.

    QuestBridge, a national match program that places high-achieving low-income students at selective partner colleges, saw early-admission rates for its applicants rise by 17 percent this year, according to data released in December. A total of 2,627 students from QuestBridge’s program were accepted early to the Class of 2029, and that number will likely grow as regular-decision acceptance letters roll in.

    And that growth will likely continue into the future after the 21-year-old organization recently added three new university partners to its roster: Bates College, the University of Richmond and, most notably, Harvard University—the last Ivy League institution to join forces with the organization.

    QuestBridge students go through a competitive application process to become finalists: Only 7,288 were selected this cycle out of more than 25,000 applicants. The finalists rank their top choices out of the organization’s 55 partner colleges, and QuestBridge matches them with a full scholarship at the highest-ranking institution on their list that accepts them.

    A spokesperson for QuestBridge chalked up this cycle’s record-breaking early acceptances to typical growth. But the numbers are hard to ignore: QuestBridge went from having 1,755 early admits in 2023 to 2,627 in 2025, during which time it only added two partner universities.

    Institutions say that QuestBridge helps deliver talented students from diverse backgrounds, filling in where their resources fall short. That’s become especially important since the Supreme Court’s decision in June 2023 banning affirmative action. In fact, universities’ interest in QuestBridge scholars surged last year, too, right after the ruling, when admit rates went up by a whopping 28 percent and the program added Cornell University and Skidmore College as partners.

    The vast majority of QuestBridge’s partner schools practiced affirmative action before the court decision. After a slew of selective colleges reported declines in Black and Hispanic enrollment this fall, they have been looking for race-neutral recruitment and admissions tools to enhance incoming classes’ diversity, including expanded financial aid programs and a commitment to first-generation students.

    Bryan Cook, director of higher education policy at the Urban Institute and the author of an ongoing study on the wide-reaching effects of the Supreme Court decision, said that whether colleges were looking to boost racial diversity or expand on efforts to admit more low-income students post–affirmative action, QuestBridge fits the bill.

    “My sense from talking to admissions professionals across the country is that they’re utilizing every tool available to them to identify diverse students,” Cook said. “Before [the Supreme Court decision], QuestBridge was a good resource but maybe not necessary,” so “it’s not surprising to see an uptick after the fact.”

    Some of the colleges with the steepest declines in underrepresented student enrollment are doubling down on QuestBridge during this early admissions cycle. Brown University, which saw a 10 percent decline in Black, Hispanic and Indigenous students, admitted 90 QuestBridge finalists early, up from 64 the prior year. Tufts University had a six-percentage-point drop in underrepresented students this fall and admitted 42 QuestBridge applicants early, up from 30 in 2023–24. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which reported a nine-point drop in minority students, admitted 100 QuestBridge students early, nearly double the 56 it accepted last year and comprising more than 10 percent of its early-action cohort this cycle. Black, Hispanic and Indigenous enrollment also fell by 10 percentage points this fall at Cornell, which is welcoming its first class of QuestBridge scholars this cycle.

    QuestBridge, crucially, is not a race-based program—if it were, it might earn the scrutiny being given other race-conscious scholarships and admission-adjacent initiatives. Instead, its criteria are income-based; this past year, 90 percent of applicants came from families who earn less than $65,000. While the organization’s website breaks down data on certain applicant characteristics—81 percent first-generation, 37 percent Southerners, 5 percent noncitizens—it offers no information on racial demographics. As recently as 2020, the organization did publish those breakdowns; that year, about 41 percent of finalists were white, 24 percent were Asian American, 14 percent Latino and 9 percent Black.

    “As an organization focused on socioeconomic status, we do not currently publish race data, although there have not been significant shifts in our demographics by race pre and post the [Supreme Court] decision,” a QuestBridge spokesperson wrote in an email.

    Chazz Robinson, education policy adviser at the left-of-center think tank Third Way, said the affirmative action ban isn’t the only important context for the rise in QuestBridge admits. Heightening scrutiny of wealthy colleges has increased pressure to boost financial aid programs and increase socioeconomic diversity—both problems that QuestBridge can be part of addressing.

    “There’s growing concern from students about costs. There’s growing questions for administrators about value, about the students they’re serving,” Robinson said. QuestBridge “can be part of building the case that they’re helping students from struggling backgrounds achieve socioeconomic mobility.”

    In a statement, Harvard admissions director William Fitzsimmons said the partnership reflected the university’s commitment to “bringing the most promising students to Harvard from all socioeconomic backgrounds.”

    Leigh Weisenburger, dean of admission and vice president for enrollment at Bates, said the new partnership isn’t specifically aimed at increasing racial diversity, but it is part of the university’s commitment to increasing “all kinds of diversity.”

    “Given the law, I don’t want to misconstrue [the QuestBridge partnership] as an attempt to racially diversify our class,” she said. “While we can’t consider race any longer, we obviously are continuing to do everything in our power to feed our prospect applicant pools in access-oriented ways.”

    Extending Recruiters’ Reach

    Stephanie Dupaul, vice president for enrollment management at the University of Richmond, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the university had been entertaining a partnership with QuestBridge for “many years.” She emphasized the program’s potential to amplify the university’s recruitment range geographically and reach high schools outside its normal recruitment zone.

    “We were particularly interested in their connections with rural students who might not have exposure to schools like Richmond,” she wrote.

    Weisenburger also stressed the benefits of QuestBridge’s broad geographic reach.

    “Bates is on the smaller scale of many of the institutions with whom QuestBridge partners and so for us to be present in Oklahoma as much as we’re present in California, as much as we’re present in rural Vermont, just isn’t feasible,” she said. “This allows us to be in those students’ conversations.”

    Geographic gaps aren’t the only recruitment concern for selective private colleges. Bates, like many small New England liberal arts colleges, has historically struggled to diversify its student body, which is currently about 72 percent white; its most diverse cohort yet, admitted last year, was made up of 32 percent domestic students of color. Bates’s student body is also disproportionately wealthy. Fewer than half of students receive any kind of need-based aid, and a 2023 New York Times report ranked Bates as tied for last in socioeconomic diversity out of a pool of 283 colleges. The Times report also found that only 8 percent of Bates students receive Pell Grants, and the share of Pell recipients in the student body fell by five percentage points from 2011 to 2023.

    Weisenburger said that while Bates has always striven to welcome a wide variety of students to its Lewiston, Me., campus, finding the resources to not only recruit those students but support them once they arrive on campus can be a challenge. And though she maintains Bates has a better history of diversity than many of its peers, Weisenburger acknowledged the college has a reputation for being “undiverse and privileged.”

    “We do have limited resources, looking at the college’s overall operating budget and our financial aid budget, and so we have to think really strategically and critically about how we’re going to best use those funds,” Weisenburger said. “That’s where QuestBridge for us just seems obvious.”

    Cook said that QuestBridge, with only a few thousand finalists a year, is not a cure for colleges’ diversity woes. But as admissions offices scramble to plug the hole left by the affirmative action ban, he said, partnering with outside organizations like QuestBridge can be a good short-term solution—and based on growing interest in the program, colleges may be thinking the same thing.

    “A lot of admissions professionals are still trying to figure out what are the best tools and options available to achieve the type of diverse student bodies they want. And most of them, to my knowledge, have not found a magic bullet,” he said. “I wouldn’t say that QuestBridge is a replacement for doing the hard work of figuring out other strategies. But understanding that’s not going to happen overnight, why not use it to help in the interim?”

    Source link

  • The rise of the ultra-right in the US (DW Documentary)

    The rise of the ultra-right in the US (DW Documentary)

    Source link

  • The rise of multidisciplinary research stimulated by AI

    The rise of multidisciplinary research stimulated by AI

    AI research tools such as OpenAI o1 have now reached test score levels that meet or exceed the scores of those who hold Ph.D. degrees in the sciences and a number of other fields. These generative AI tools utilize large language models that include research and knowledge across many disciplines. Increasingly, they are used for research project ideation and literature searches. The tools are generating interesting insights to researchers that they may not have been exposed to in years gone by.

    The field of academe has long emphasized the single-discipline research study. We offer degrees in single disciplines; faculty members are granted appointments most often in only one department, school or college; and for the most part, our peer-reviewed academic journals are in only one discipline, although sometimes they welcome papers from closely associated or allied fields. Dissertations are most commonly based in a single discipline. Although research grants are more often multidisciplinary and prioritize practical solution-finding, a large number remain focused on one field of study.

    The problem is that as we advance our knowledge and application expertise in one field, we can become unaware of important developments in other fields that directly or indirectly impact the study in our chosen discipline. Innovation is not always a single-purpose, straight-line advance. More often today, innovation comes from the integration of knowledge of disparate fields such as sociology, engineering, ecology and environmental developments, and expanding understanding of quantum physics and quantum computing. Until recently, we have not had an efficient way to identify and integrate knowledge and perspectives from fields that, at first glance, seem unrelated.

    Most Popular

    AI futurist and innovator Thomas Conway of Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology addresses this topic in “Harnessing the Power of Many: A Multi-LLM Approach to Multidisciplinary Integration”:

    “Amidst the urgency of increasingly complex global challenges, the need for integrative approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries has never been more critical. Climate change, global health crises, sustainable development, and other pressing issues demand solutions from diverse knowledge and expertise. However, effectively combining insights from multiple disciplines has long been a significant hurdle in academia and research.

    “The Multi-LLM Iterative Prompting Methodology (MIPM) emerges as a transformative solution to this challenge. MIPM offers a structured yet flexible framework for promoting and enhancing multidisciplinary research, peer review, and education. At its core, MIPM addresses the fundamental issue of effectively combining diverse disciplinary perspectives to lead to genuine synthesis and innovation. Its transformative potential is a beacon of hope in the face of complex global challenges.”

    Even as we integrate AI research tools and techniques, we, ourselves, and our society at large are changing. Many of the common frontier language models powering research tools are multidisciplinary by nature, although some are designed with strengths in specific fields. Their responses to our prompts are multidisciplinary. The response to our iterative follow-up prompts can take us to fields and areas of expertise of which we were not previously aware. The replies are not coming solely from a single discipline expert, book or other resource. They are coming from a massive language model that spans disciplines, languages, cultures and millennia.

    As we integrate these tools, we too will naturally become aware of new and emerging perspectives, research and developments generated by fields that are outside our day-to-day knowledge, training and expertise. This will expand our perspectives beyond the fields of our formal study. As the quality of our AI-based research tools expands, their impact on research cannot be overstated. It will lead us in new directions and broader perspectives, uncovering the potential for new knowledge, informed by multiple disciplines. One recent example is Storm, a brainstorming tool developed by the team at Stanford’s Open Virtual Assistant Lab (OVAL):

    “The core technologies of the STORM&Co-STORM system include support from Bing Search and GPT-4o mini. The STORM component iteratively generates outlines, paragraphs, and articles through multi-angle Q&A between ‘LLM experts’ and ‘LLM hosts.’ Meanwhile, Co-STORM generates interactive dynamic mind maps through dialogues among multiple agents, ensuring that no information needs overlooked by the user. Users only need to input an English topic keyword, and the system can generate a high-quality long text that integrates multi-source information, similar to a Wikipedia article. When experiencing the STORM system, users can freely choose between STORM and Co-STORM modes. Given a topic, STORM can produce a structured high-quality long text within 3 minutes. Additionally, users can click ‘See BrainSTORMing Process’ to view the brainstorming process of different LLM roles. In the ‘Discover’ section, users can refer to articles and chat examples generated by other scholars, and personal articles and chat records can also be found in the sidebar ‘My Library.’”

    More about Storm is available at https://storm.genie.stanford.edu/.

    One of the concerns raised by skeptics at this point in the development of these research tools is the security of prompts and results. Few are aware of the opportunities for air-gapped or closed systems and even the ChatGPT temporary chats. In the case of OpenAI, you can start a temporary chat by tapping the version of ChatGPT you’re using at the top of the GPT app, and selecting temporary chat. I do this commonly in using Ray’s eduAI Advisor. OpenAI says that in the temporary chat mode results “won’t appear in history, use or create memories, or be used to train our models. For safety purposes, we may keep a copy for up to 30 days.” We can anticipate these kinds of protections will be offered by other providers. This may provide adequate security for many applications.

    Further security can be provided by installing a stand-alone instance of the LLM database and software in an air-gapped computer that maintains data completely disconnected from the internet or any other network, ensuring an unparalleled level of protection. Small language models and medium-size models are providing impressive results, approaching and in some cases exceeding frontier model performance while storing all data locally, off-line. For example, last year Microsoft introduced a line of SLM and medium models:

    “Microsoft’s experience shipping copilots and enabling customers to transform their businesses with generative AI using Azure AI has highlighted the growing need for different-size models across the quality-cost curve for different tasks. Small language models, like Phi-3, are especially great for:

    • Resource constrained environments including on-device and offline inference scenarios
    • Latency bound scenarios where fast response times are critical.
    • Cost constrained use cases, particularly those with simpler tasks.”

    In the near term we will find turnkey private search applications that will offer even more impressive results. Work continues on rapidly increasing multidisciplinary responses to research on an ever-increasing number of pressing research topics.

    The ever-evolving AI research tools are now providing us with responses from multiple disciplines. These results will lead us to engage in more multidisciplinary studies that will become a catalyst for change across academia. Will you begin to consider cross-discipline research studies and engage your colleagues from other fields to join you in research projects?

    Source link

  • Rise in college applications driven by minority students

    Rise in college applications driven by minority students

    The number of first-year applicants this cycle is up 5 percent over January of last year, according to a new report from Common App, and overall applications rose 7 percent.

    The growth was buoyed by a sharp uptick in underrepresented students: Latino applicants increased 13 percent, Black applicants by 12 percent and first-generation applicants by 14 percent. Asian applicants rose by 7 percent, while the number of white applicants didn’t change.

    A Common App analysis also found that the number of applicants from low-income neighborhoods increased more than those from neighborhoods above the median income level—by 9 percent, compared to 4 percent. And the number of applicants who qualify for a fee waiver is up 10 percent so far.

    Geographically, applicant trends seemed to follow broader demographic trends; they surged by 33 percent in the Southwest, with a 36 percent boost in Texas alone, while every other region remained relatively stable. The Western region saw applicants decline by 1 percent.

    In general, students are applying to about the same number of schools as last year, with only a 2 percent increase in applications per student. Public institutions have received 11 percent more applications, while private ones have received 3 percent more.

    For the first time since 2019, domestic applicant growth outpaced that of international applicants, with the former increasing by 5 percent and the latter slowing to 1 percent. Certain high-volume countries experienced steep declines: The number of applicants from Africa fell by 14 percent, and Ghana in particular saw a 36 percent decrease. Applicants from other increasingly popular source countries for international students surged; Bangladesh, for instance, saw 45 percent growth.

    The number of applicants who submitted test scores was about even with the number who didn’t. For the past four years, since test-optional policies were implemented in 2020, no-score applicants have significantly outnumbered those who submitted scores, but institutions returning to test requirements may be swinging the pendulum back.

    Source link

  • Fall and Rise | HESA

    Fall and Rise | HESA

    Fall and Rise

    The question I am getting more often than any other these days is: “what are you hearing about cuts at colleges and universities?” And my answer for the most part has been: “damned if I know.”

    The reason for my confusion is that publicly available details are few and far between. The HESA Towers team has been scouring the public record for details on institutional budget announcements; by our count, only 34 universities or colleges have so far announced anything concrete about their 25-26 budget plans and/or any planned cuts as a result of changing international student numbers. It’s possible more have been announced internally but just not caught the notice of the local press; we’ll be doing a lot more digging over the next couple of weeks. My guess is that many institutions are trying to avoid bad headlines by simply not going public about any plans to cut…but of course in the process, they are making it harder to convey to the public the magnitude of the downsizing being forced on the sector.

    (This is a really interesting version of the Tragedy of the Commons!).

    Some additional problems with the data: such information as one can glean from public sources is often skimpy and inconsistent: sometimes you get a figure for “loss of anticipated revenue,” sometimes you get a “projected deficit” (which sometimes is for 24-25, and other times for 25-26, and whether the figure is for operating budget or total budget take a bit of digging). Sometimes the numbers of programs being cut are announced but the identity of the programs is secret. Often you see that there will be budget cuts of $X million but there is no clarity about where those cuts will come from or the timeframe for the return to budget balance. In terms of job “cuts” as near as we can tell only five institutions have announced specific numbers for layoffs which have actually so far occurred, for a total of 214 lost jobs. You may have seen higher estimates from other sources, but these seem to include data on jobs which “will be affected” and it’s not 100% clear how many of these are permanent jobs which will be eliminated vs. permanent posts which will not be filled, or contract jobs which will not be renewed. All of these nuances may sound petty, but it’s really hard to get meaningful numbers unless you get this stuff right.

    The story of how universities and colleges deal with the sudden loss of international student income (and the long-term consequences of provincial disinvestment) is the biggest and most consequential story in Canadian postsecondary education this century. How we deal with this collectively will shape the sector for over a decade, maybe even out to 2050. The HESA Towers team is working hard to document what is happening and help the sector make sense of fast-moving events and respond appropriately. So today I want to tell you about two initiatives we’re launching.

    The first is a Retrenchment Watch, which will follow developments in institutional cutbacks not just in Canada, but around the world (albeit with a particular focus on the anglosphere). Higher education probably hit peak public funding around the globe over a decade ago, but what we’re now seeing is an actual contraction of the sector as a whole, happening via an un-coordinated set of decisions made by individual institutions according to local imperatives. Understanding how this is happening is of great importance, not just for posterity but for present-day decision makers. And we’ll be making this information freely available to all via Retrenchment Watch.

    For the moment, the Retrenchment Watch is extremely bare bones, but we’ll be filling it out very quickly over the next few weeks, with the Canadian institutions first. If you want regular updates on who is cutting what as well as some basic pattern analysis, please fill out this form, and we’ll get you signed up to our newsletter so you’re always up-to-date.

    The second is what we are calling “The Recovery Project.” We know that institutional leaders aren’t just thinking about surviving cuts, they’re also thinking about how to position their organizations to thrive in the aftermath. To help them, we’re launching a subscription research project looking at universities and colleges around the world who have faced serious financial sustainability problems over the past three decades and examining how they turned their fortunes around. In a crisis, there’s no time to re-invent the wheel: with this research institutions can understand better what works, when and why. By spreading the cost of research collectively across many institutions, we can offer this premium product—which involves monthly reports and webinar sessions for all members—at a huge discount to individual schools (and if your school is a member of the University Vice-President’s Network, we’ll be offering an even bigger discount).

    If you’re interested in joining this project, my colleague Tiffany MacLennan has been working to bring this information together. Email her at [email protected] and we’ll get back to you ASAP with a prospectus.

    There’s no disguising how the sector is taking a beating right now. It will recover. The only question is how quickly, and which institutions will be at the forefront.

    Source link