Tag: sector

  • Canadian sector hits back over plan to cancel study permits in crises

    Canadian sector hits back over plan to cancel study permits in crises

    Immigration Minister Lena Diab told a House of Commons committee last week that the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act (Bill C-12) would target “people who are going to be committing large-scale fraud”.

    However, an opposition member, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, rejected the idea that the Liberal government needs sweeping powers to keep the immigration system functioning.

    “That sounds like an authoritarian dictatorship to me,” Rempel Garner said.

    Languages Canada Executive Director Gonzalo Peralta told The PIE News there was a need to define under what conditions Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) could cancel student visas.

    “The term ‘public interest’ as grounds for cancelling visas or applications is vague and does not provide the assurances needed to ensure that legitimate students are not inadvertently impacted by the legislation,” Peralta said.

    At the committee meeting, Rempel Garner argued: “It seems like you’re trying to give yourself and your department more powers to correct mistakes in the system that they could have made in screening out potential fraud to begin with.” 

    The term ‘public interest’ as grounds for cancelling visas or applications is vague and does not provide the assurances needed

    In the wake of a large number of fraudulent study permit applications made by unscrupulous education agents, in 2023 the department implemented a system requiring applicants to present a verified letter of acceptance from a designated learning institution in order to obtain a study permit.

    In many cases, the students said they were not aware that their agent was submitting fraudulent documents on their behalf.

    MP Rempel Garner called out the minister for blaming students and other newcomers to Canada. “Why don’t you make the system work instead of punishing the victims of human trafficking,” she demanded at the meeting.

    Larissa Bezo, president of the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE), told The PIE her group supports measures to uphold the integrity of the International Student Program. “However, we do not want to see international students who have been the victims of fraud unfairly punished,” Bezo said.

    Peralta of Languages Canada condemned the Liberal government for failing to consult with the sector about this legislation and other policy changes.

    “In the case of the proposed Bill C-12, a more comprehensive definition is needed of the specific conditions under which IRCC could cancel visas,” Peralta said.

    Canadian immigration policy has hit the headlines over the past week after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government set out its intention to cut new international study permits by more than 50% in 2026-2028 – going further with enrolment caps that are already causing significant problems for the international education sector.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Axing IB funding in the state sector harms our ambitions for higher-level education and training

    WEEKEND READING: Axing IB funding in the state sector harms our ambitions for higher-level education and training

    This blog was kindly authored by Richard Markham, Chief Executive Officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association (IBSCA).

    At International Baccalaureate (IB) schools and colleges, we have always been ambitious for our students. We know what they can achieve and support them to reach their goals. Through its broad curriculum – including Maths, English, a humanities, science, arts and language subject – the IB Diploma Programme (DP) provides stretch and challenge, developing a thirst for lifelong learning in our 16 to 19-year-olds. And, through extended essays, theory of knowledge and service in the community, it produces confident, well-rounded citizens who thrive in life and work. Year after year, we join our students and their families in celebrating their outstanding destinations at top universities and apprenticeships.

    That is why it is deeply disappointing that the Government is axing the financial uplift for schools and colleges delivering the IB DP in the state sector, as soon as the next academic year.

    Disappointing, but also surprising. By axing the large programme uplift – the top-up funding awarded to schools and colleges to reflect the additional teaching time required to deliver the IB DP – the Government risks tripping over its own hurdles. The post-16 white paper sets “objectives” for the 16-19 sector, with the first being that it “delivers world-leading provision that breaks down the barriers to opportunity”. The imminent final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review will set out its recommendations to ensure that “every child” has “access to a broad range of subjects”.  

    On this front, it is vital that we keep the IB alive in the state sector. Far more extensive than A Levels, T Levels and now V Levels, the IB proves that creativity is not the preserve of the arts, nor logic the preserve of science. Both belong together in world-class education. It is a rigorous, aspirational study programme, offering all the advantages of a private school education, accessible to families who couldn’t dream of affording tuition. We should be expanding opportunities to an IB education, not shutting them down.

    The second objective set for further education is that it supports the Government’s “ambition for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning” after they leave school. IB DP students in the UK are three times more likely to enrol in a top-20 higher education institution. Deep thinkers, broad skill sets – they excel at university-level study. DP students are 40% more likely to achieve a first-class or upper second-class honours degree. If the Government does not find a way through, the higher education sector will be poorer for it.

    Moreover, UCAS data from the 2021/24 cycles gives us an indication of just how well the IB DP supports progression into courses that closely align with the UK’s Industrial Strategy priority sectors. The greatest proportion of DP students (4,900) accepted university offers in courses related to the life sciences sector, driven by medicine, dentistry and nursing. This was closely followed by professional and business services – with 3,365accepted offers for subjects like economics, law, management and politics – and upwards of 1,000 accepted offers in crucial science and engineering courses.

    Evidently, this is a financial decision, not one taken in the best interests of our education and skills system. To dress it up in any other way does our educators a disservice. The large programme uplift given to IB DP schools is worth just £2.5 million a year. That is 0.0025 per cent of the Department for Education’s £100 billion annual budget. A drop in the ocean, and yet the programme delivers true value for money.

    On Wednesday, MPs across the House united to fight for the future of the IB in Westminster Hall, calling for an urgent reversal of these cuts to provide certainty for school and college leaders, current and prospective IB students and their families, universities and employers. MPs questioned the very basis for the Department’s decision: “how can the Government can claim to want more students, particularly more girls, on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that?”

    Let us not forget, it was a Labour Government under Prime Minister Tony Blair that pledged an IB school in every local authority, but subsequent Prime Ministers have recognised the value and championed a baccalaureate-style education system. Support for the IB cuts across party lines and nation’s borders – reflecting the shared values of its global community of alumni, prospective students, parents, teachers, and policymakers who see its potential to raise ambition and foster international understanding. That cross-party appeal is no accident: many MPs, former IB teachers and alumni, know first-hand what the programme can do. They recognise its power to develop deeper thinkers, broader skill sets and more adaptable young people – qualities our economy and universities urgently need right now.

    Find out more about the ‘Save the IB’ via the IBSCA website: www.ibsca.org.uk/save-the-ib-with-ibsca

    Source link

  • 180 ransomware attacks plague education sector worldwide in 2025 through Q3

    180 ransomware attacks plague education sector worldwide in 2025 through Q3

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The education sector saw 180 ransomware attacks worldwide in the first three quarters of the year — a 6% year-over-year increase from the 170 attacks recorded in 2024, according to Comparitech data released Thursday. The findings include both confirmed and unconfirmed attacks. 

    • Most of the 2025 ransomware attacks — 95 out of 180 — were in the U.S. Some 35 of those 95 attacks have been confirmed by the targeted schools so far. The number of confirmed attacks is expected to climb in the coming months, as breaches are often reported some time after an attack. 

    • Still, the past two quarters marked the first dip in attacks since the start of 2024, which could indicate “a more positive outlook for the education sector,” according to the cybersecurity and online privacy product review website.

    Dive Insight:

    The ransom demand across all 180 attacks globally averaged $444,400. 

    “This definitely isn’t the time to get complacent,” said Rebecca Moody, head of data research at Comparitech, in an email to K-12 Dive on Thursday. “These attacks, and their subsequent breaches, remain a dominant threat. That’s why it’s imperative schools and colleges of all sizes take key steps to try and mitigate their risks.”

    Many of the confirmed attacks resulted in systems going offline, leading to network disruptions and classes being cancelled for days or weeks. The incidents led to stolen data more often than not, with an average of 2.6 terabytes worth of data stolen per attack. 

    In South Carolina’s Cherokee County School District, for example, a confirmed March attack affected systems for around a week and resulted in 624 gigabytes of data allegedly stolen. Last month, the school district reported that data from 46,000 people was impacted. 

    A 2023 Comparitech report estimated the cost of ransomware attacks on K-12 and higher education institutions globally at over $53 billion in downtime between 2018 and mid-September 2023. 

    To prevent ransomware attacks, Moody said schools should keep systems up to date, patch vulnerabilities as soon as they’re flagged, and conduct regular cybersecurity training for employees. 

    “A worst-case scenario plan should also be in place because, as gangs continue to exploit vulnerabilities via third parties, even schools with the best cybersecurity standards can be left vulnerable if the third parties they’re working with are targeted,” said Moody.

    Likewise, cybersecurity experts suggest that school districts implement phishing tests, establish a backup network and tap into state and federal support such as cybersecurity advisors to prevent and respond to ransomware attacks. 

    Phishing, which often seeks to trick staff into revealing login credentials, can target high-profile employees more often than others, such as those working in human resources, business, the superintendency and other administrative roles with access to sensitive data.

    Source link

  • The higher education sector needs an honest broker to support structural change

    The higher education sector needs an honest broker to support structural change

    Of all the current headwinds faced by the higher education sector, one of the most challenging is a lack of expertise and experience in the area of structural change.

    In an environment where radical collaboration and merger are increasingly seen – rightly or wrongly – as a solution to the sector’s financial challenges, the expertise needed to broker and execute a successful merger or other collaboration seems to be patchy.

    As, arguably, are the somewhat different competences required to steward the longer term strategic integration of two or more distinct institutions, each with their own teaching and research portfolios and cultures. The answer to the question “who has done this before?” can only be answered in the affirmative by a handful of people.

    This issue was acknowledged in Mills & Reeve’s joint report with Wonkhe Connect More with the following insight from a one of the heads of institution we interviewed:

    We all have a skills matrix for boards and for courts and for councils. I think, increasingly, that needs to reflect people who’ve got some expertise and some background in this space…I don’t think there are many vice chancellors who would necessarily have the skills, the knowledge, and the background. Really, this is new territory, potentially, for us, it’s new turf.

    Of course, it wasn’t always thus. One of the ironies of the current dearth of experience is that large numbers of providers are themselves the product of historic mergers and collaborations. Taking the long view, the history of many providers is a complex genealogy, a narrative of mergers past and more recent.

    In part, the steady decline in institutional experience of these things was the natural result of a relatively benign financial environment. It’s easy to forget in the current climate but the period of low inflation and cheap borrowing meant that, at an institutional level, there was little impetus to challenge the operating model and, of course, the introduction of a marketised funding model meant that competition, rather than collaboration, was very much the order of the day.

    That marketised model was also accompanied by a marked shift in approach from the regulator. While HEFCE adopted a relatively low-key approach to mergers and collaboration – generally leaving the impetus to come together to institutions themselves – it did publish guidance on mergers and had a collaboration and restructuring fund to assist institutions to explore and implement structural change.

    Crucially, HEFCE was widely accepted to be a neutral broker who would help facilitate institutions coming together – and it had the funding to help smooth the path. By contrast, OfS, in its response to a question from the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee, made it clear that it does not consider itself to have “the remit, powers or funding to intervene to prevent closure or to facilitate mergers or acquisitions.”

    Skills gap

    Where, then, does that leave providers? Typically, there is a reliance on the institution’s executive team, in particular, the vice chancellor, to steer the merger. But most higher education executives are not from the business world with experience in mergers and to a significant degree they have a conflict of interest. There is also a need to continue with their day jobs and manage business as usual in case the merger doesn’t happen.

    The next most obvious port of call is to look for expertise among their own governing bodies, and, specifically, their external members. After all, one of the main motivations of having lay external members is to draw upon their expertise and to fill gaps which (understandably enough) exist within the skill sets of senior management teams and the institution more widely.

    The problem, however, is that merger and radical collaboration require a very particular set of skills. It’s very easy for universities to get starry-eyed about a governor just because they happen to be an investment banker, an accountant, or have experience of public sector mergers in the NHS, for example. But the skills required in a university merger or a complex debt restructuring are very specific and even a governing body which is well-stocked with members from across different professional services and backgrounds cannot assume that its trustees have the requisite expertise to drive forward a merger of two institutions.

    Of course, an institution can buy in a certain level of expertise. But what perhaps can’t always be replicated by professional advice are the experience and war stories of those who have lived and breathed mergers and collaborations from the inside – particularly from the education and adjacent sectors. In Mills & Reeve’s joint report with KPMG UK – Radical collaboration: a playbook – we drew out some of those lived experiences in the form of case studies. However, written case studies need to be seasoned with real-life personal experience. What is really needed when scoping a potential merger or other kind of radical collaboration is access to a “hive mind” of critical friends.

    An HE Commissioner model

    Other sectors have taken a strategic approach to developing this expertise. The Further Education Commissioner is the most obvious parallel. Between 2015 and 2019 the FE sector saw 57 mergers, three federations, three joint FE and HE institutions and 23 academy conversions. If most of UK higher education no longer has institutional memory of mergers, FE has it in bucket loads.

    The FE Commissioner and their team offer a range of services to FE colleges – ranging from informal chats and financial health checks, through to more formal invention assessments. Their team – a mix of former leaders and finance professionals from within the sector – have genuinely seen and done it all before. Higher education deserves the same deep pool of knowledge to draw on, especially if the worst case scenario of institutional insolvency and/or disorderly market exit is to be avoided.

    For this to work successfully in HE there would need to be some level of funding and a decision as to whether a commissioner’s role might sit within DfE or OfS. Our sense – particularly given the size and complexity of universities and the involvement of key stakeholders such as banks and private placement bondholders – is that there will still be a large role played by private sector consultants, lawyers, and accountants. However, there is room for a more collegiate level of engagement from DfE and OfS than arguably exists at present.

    As well as pooling expertise on how to collaborate, placing an HE commissioner role on a formal footing might also allow it to broker conversations between providers seeking to work together more closely – something which, in our experience, is done very hesitantly at present, both because of the fear of breaching competition rules and, more generally, because every potential collaboration partner is, in a very real sense, also a competitor.

    What can’t be underestimated is how urgently this function is needed. Providers are capable of doing this alone, as recent examples such as the Anglia Ruskin/Writtle and St George’s/City mergers testify. However, how much better for the long-term future of the sector it would surely be if providers had ready access to some critical friends and some “protected” spaces to have conversations about how best to achieve and implement forms of radical collaboration.

    This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve. 

    Source link

  • The PM’s announcement on higher level participation is a win for the HE sector

    The PM’s announcement on higher level participation is a win for the HE sector

    You could read “abolishing the 50 per cent participation target” as a vote of no-confidence in higher education, a knee-jerk appeal to culturally conservative working-class voters. But that would be both a political/tactical mistake and a fundamental misreading of the policy landscape.

    To recap: in his leader’s speech to Labour Party Conference on Tuesday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that two thirds of people under 25 should participate in higher level learning, whether in the form of academic, technical, or work-based training, with at least ten per cent pursuing technical education or apprenticeships by 2040.

    So let’s start by acknowledging, as DK does elsewhere on the site, that the 50 per cent participation target has a totemic status in public discourse about higher education that far outweighs its contemporary relevance. And, further, that party conference speeches are a time for broad strokes and vibes-based narrativising for the party faithful, and soundbites for the small segment of the public that is paying attention, not for detailed policy discussions.

    An analysis of Starmer’s speech on Labour List suggests, for example, that the new target signals a decisive break with New Labour, something that most younger voters, including many in the post-compulsory education sector, don’t give the proverbial crap about.

    True North

    What this announcement does is, finally, give the sector something positive to rally around. Universities UK advocated nearly exactly this target in its blueprint for the new government, almost exactly a year ago, suggesting that there should be a target of 70 per cent participation in tertiary education at level four and above by 2040. Setting aside the 3.333 percentage point difference, that’s a win, and a clear vote of confidence in the post-compulsory sector.

    Higher education is slowly recovering from its long-standing case of main character syndrome. Anyone reading the policy runes knows that the direction of travel is towards building a mixed tertiary economy, informed if not actively driven by skills needs data. That approach tallies with broader questions about the costs and financing of dominant models of (residential, full time) higher education, the capacity of the economy to absorb successive cohorts of graduates in ways that meet their expectations, and the problematic political implications of creating a hollowed out labour market in which it it is ever-more difficult to be economically or culturally secure without a degree.

    The difference between the last government and this one is that it’s trying to find a way to critique the equity and sustainability of all this without suggesting that higher education itself is somehow culturally suspect, or some kind of economic Ponzi scheme. Many in the sector have at times in recent years raged at the notion that in order to promote technical and work-based education options you have to attack “university” education. Clearly not only are both important but they are often pretty much the same exact thing.

    What has been missing hitherto, though, is any kind of clear sense from government about what it thinks the solution is. There have been signals about greater coordination, clarification of the roles of different kinds of institution, and some recent signals around the desirability of “specialisation” – and there’s been some hard knocks for higher education providers on funding. None of it adds up to much, with policy detail promised in the forthcoming post-16 education and skills white paper.

    Answers on a postcard

    But now, the essay question is clear: what will it take to deliver two-thirds higher level learning on that scale?

    And to answer that question, you need to look at both supply and demand. On the supply side, there’s indications that the market alone will struggle to deliver the diversity of offer that might be required, particularly where provision is untested, expensive, and risky. Coordination and collaboration could help to address some of those issues by creating scale and pooling risk, and in some areas of the country, or industries, there may be an appetite to start to tackle those challenges spontaneously. However, to achieve a meaningful step change, policy intervention may be required to give providers confidence that developing new provision is not going to ultimately damage their own sustainability.

    But it is on the demand side that the challenge really lies – and it’s worth noting that with nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, the model in which exam results at age 16 or 18 determine your whole future is, objectively, whack. But you can offer all the tantalising innovative learning opportunities you want, if people feel they can’t afford it, or don’t have the time or energy to invest, or can’t see an outcome, or just don’t think it’ll be that interesting, or have to stop working to access it, they just won’t come. Far more thought has to be given to what might motivate young people to take up education and training opportunities, and the right kind of targeted funding put in place to make that real.

    The other big existential question is scaling work-based education opportunities. Lots of young people are interested in apprenticeships, and lots of higher education providers are keen to offer them; the challenge is about employers being able to accommodate them. It might be about looking to existing practice in teacher education or health education, or about reimagining how work-based learning should be configured and funded, but it’s going to take, probably, industry-specific workforce strategies that are simultaneously very robust on the education and skills needs while being somewhat agnostic on the delivery mechanism. There may need to be a gentle loosening of the conditions on which something is designated an apprenticeship.

    The point is, whatever the optics around “50 per cent participation” this moment should be an invigorating one, causing the sector’s finest minds to focus on what the answer to the question is. This is a sector that has always been in the business of changing lives. Now it’s time to show it can change how it thinks about how to do that.

    Source link

  • EaseMyTrip enters sector with almost 50% stake in Planet Education

    EaseMyTrip enters sector with almost 50% stake in Planet Education

    As part of its diversification drive, the travel platform has formed a strategic alliance with Planet Education to forge its path into international study tourism. 

    According to an exchange filing by EaseMyTrip last year, the company acquired its stake in the study-abroad organisation by purchasing shares from existing shareholders through the issuance of fully paid-up equity shares of EaseMyTrip worth INR 39.20 crore (approximately £3.5 million).

    While EaseMyTrip, a publicly listed company on India’s National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), will provide Planet Education with access to its customer base and technological capabilities, the travel platform is expected to gain from Planet Education’s 25 years of experience in the international education sector, including expertise in counselling, university placements, and visa assistance.

    Leveraging Planet Education’s expertise, we aim to simplify the process of visas and documentation for students, making it hassle-free
    Nishant Pitti, EaseMyTrip

    “Every year, lakhs of students pursue higher education in countries like the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland. Our acquisition in Planet Education is a strategic step to enter the burgeoning international study tourism, allowing us to offer a seamless, end-to-end experience that integrates both education and travel services for our customers,” said Nishant Pitti, CEO & co-founder, EaseMyTrip.

    “Leveraging Planet Education’s expertise, we aim to simplify the process of visas and documentation for students, making it hassle-free. We see immense potential in Planet Education’s model and are excited to combine our tech-driven capabilities with their expertise to create enhanced value for our valued customers.”

    “[The] proposed alliance would be a perfect synergy for expansion and growth of businesses of both the entities whereby wide network of Planet Education in form of its presence across the country and EaseMyTrip’s presence through its online platform for travel and tourism will be facilitating each other’s line of business and thereby achieving growth in the businesses,” stated Sanket Shah, founder, Planet Education. 

    Meanwhile, Planet Education founder Sanket Shah said the partnership marked “a perfect synergy for expansion” and the growth of both businesses.

    While this marks the first investment by an Indian travel platform in an international education provider, several travel companies over the years have introduced services aimed at India’s growing outbound student population, which is expected to reach 2.5 million by 2030.

    Just last year, BookMyForex, a subsidiary of another leading travel platform MakeMyTrip, launched a promotional campaign offering cashback on forex cards and tuition fee transfers for students planning to study abroad.

    Moreover, in 2023, MakeMyTrip rolled out a series of student-focused collaborations, teaming up with airlines to provide additional baggage allowances and special fares, with banks to extend exclusive credit card discounts on bookings, and with travel accessory brands to offer concessions.

    “We are delighted that this integrated offering will lead to economy and convenience for the student cohort travelling abroad, especially to destinations such as the USA, Canada, Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand,” stated Saujanya Shrivastava, COO, Flights, Holidays, and Gulf Cooperation Council, MakeMyTrip.

    Source link

  • Peak bodies criticise red tape in sector – Campus Review

    Peak bodies criticise red tape in sector – Campus Review

    Peak higher education bodies have warned a Senate inquiry against counterproductive over-regulation and towards proper university funding ahead of the government’s productivity roundtable.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • What should the higher education sector do about AI fatigue?

    What should the higher education sector do about AI fatigue?

    Raise the topic of AI in education for discussion these days and you can feel the collective groan in the room.

    Sometimes I even hear it. We’re tired, I get it. Many students are too. But if we don’t keep working creatively to address the disruption to education posed by AI – if we just wait and see how it plays out – it will be too late.

    AI fatigue is many things

    There are a few factors at play, from an AI literacy divide, to simply talking past each other.

    AI literacy is nearly unmanageable. The complexity of AI in education, exacerbated by the pace of technological change, makes AI “literacy” very difficult to define, let alone attain. Educators represent a wide range of experience levels and conceptual frames, as well as differing opinions on the power, quality, opportunity, and risk of generative AI.

    One person will see AI as a radical first step in an intelligence revolution; the next will dismiss it as “mostly rubbish” and minimise the value discussing it at all. And, as far as I have found, there is no leading definition of AI literacy to date. Some people don’t even like the term literacy.

    Our different conceptual frames compete with each other. Many disciplines and conceptual orientations are trying to talk together, each with their own assumptions and incentives. In any given space, we have the collision of expert with novice, entrepreneur with critic, sceptic with optimist, reductionist with holist… and the list goes on.

    We tend to silo and specialise. Because it is difficult to become comprehensively literate in generative AI (and its related issues), many adopt a narrow focus and stick with that: assessment design, academic integrity, authorship, cognitive offloading, energy consumption, bias, labour ethics, and others. Meetings take on the character of debates. At the very least, discussions of AI are time-consuming, as each focus seems to need airing every day.

    We feel grief for what we may be losing: human authorship, agency, status, and a whole range of normative relational behaviours. A colleague recently told me how sad she feels marking student work. Authorship, for example, is losing coherence as a category or shared value, which can be surreal and dispiriting for both writers and readers. AI’s disruption brings a deeply challenging emotional experience that’s rarely discussed.

    We are under-resourced. Institutions have been slow to roll out policy, form working groups, provide training, or fund staff time to research, prepare, plan, and design responses. It’s a daunting task to just keep up with, let alone get ahead of, Silicon Valley. Unfortunately, the burden is largely borne by individuals.

    The AI elephant in the room

    Much of the sector suffers from the wishful thinking that AI is “mostly rubbish”, not likely to change things much, or simply an annoyance. Many educators haven’t thought through how AI technologies may lead our societies and our education systems to change radically and quickly, and that these changes may impact the psychology of learning and teaching, not to mention the entire infrastructure of education. We talk past each other.

    Silicon Valley is openly pursuing artificial general intelligence (AGI), or something like that. Imagine a ChatGPT that can do your job, my job, and a big piece of the knowledge-work jobs recent graduates may hope to enter. Some insiders think this could arrive by 2027.

    A few weeks ago, Dario Amodai, CEO of AI company Anthropic, wrote his prediction that 50 per cent of entry-level office jobs could vanish within the next couple of years, and that unemployment overall could hit 20 per cent. This could be mostly hype or confirmation bias among the tech elite. But IBM, Klarna, and Duolingo have already cited AI-linked efficiencies in recent layoffs.

    Whether these changes take two years, or five, or even ten, it’s on the radar. So, let’s pause and imagine it. What happens to a generation of young people who perceive increasing job scarcity, and options and social purpose?

    Set aside, for now, what this means for cities, mental health, or the social fabric. What does it mean for higher education – especially if a university degree no longer holds the value it once promised? How should HE respond?

    Responding humanely

    I propose we respond with compassion, humanity… and something like a plan. What does this look like? Let me suggest a few possibilities.

    The sector works together. Imagine this: a consortium of institutions gathers together a resource base and discussion space (not social media) for AI in education. It respects diversity of positions and conceptual frames but also aims for a coherent and pragmatic working ethos that helps institutions and individuals make decisions. It drafts a change management plan for the sector, embracing adaptive management to create frameworks to support institutions to respond quickly, intelligently, flexibly, and humanely to the instability. It won’t resolve all the mess into a coherent solution, but it could provide a more stable framework for change. And lift the burden on thousands of us who feel we are reinventing the wheel every day.

    Institutions take action. Leading institutions embrace big discussions around the future of society, work, and education. They show a staunch willingness to face the risks and opportunities ahead, they devote resources to the project, and they take actions that support both staff and students to navigate change thoughtfully.

    Individuals and small groups are empowered to respond creatively. Supported by the sector and their HEIs, they collaborate to keep each other motivated, check each other on the hype, and find creative new avenues for teaching and learning. We solve problems for today while holding space for the messy discussions, speculate on future developments, and experiment with education in a changing world.

    So sector leaders, please help us find some degree of convergence or coherence; institutions, please take action to resource and support your staff and students; and individuals, let’s work together to do something good.

    With leadership, action, and creative collaboration, we may just find the time and energy to build new language and vision for the strange landscape we have entered, to experiment safely with new models of knowledge creation and authorship, and to discover new capacities for self-knowledge and human value.

    So groan, yes – I groan with you. And breathe – I’ll go along with that too. And then, let’s see what we can build.

    Source link

  • Dundee’s troubles and the state of the sector

    Dundee’s troubles and the state of the sector

    “Dundee University’s reputation soars,” shouted the front page of the Courier in 2004. Making the most of a rise in the league tables, the then university secretary highlighted the institution’s commitment to excellent learning and teaching, its outstanding research and its contribution to the local community.

    Fast forward 21 years and more recent press coverage has been less positive – the university’s desperate financial situation, rapid departures by senior staff, emergency government funding, threats of large-scale job losses and very painful sessions before the Scottish parliament education committee.

    A hard-hitting report by former Glasgow Caledonian principal Pamela Gillies put the blame on “poor financial judgement, inadequate management and reporting, poor monitoring of the financial sustainability KPI, a lack of agility in responding to a fall in income by the University leadership and weak governance in relation to financial accountability by the University Court” compounded by the “top-down, hierarchical and reportedly over-confident style of leadership and management” and “a culture in which challenge was actively discouraged.”

    The 64-page document is excoriating in its condemnation of senior officers and the university’s governors – a view shared by the select committee, where MSPs expressed their criticism in the strongest possible terms. Later events – including the departure of the interim finance director after a week in the job – have only made the agony worse.

    The financial collapse at Dundee inevitably raises questions for the rest of the HE sector in Scotland and the UK as a whole. Are the same weaknesses present in other institutions? Is higher education in crisis? And how should governments and the sector respond?

    Governance and management

    Before going any further, I must declare a personal interest – I was the university secretary quoted in the 2004 press article and I have retained an abiding affection for the University of Dundee since leaving in 2008.

    I also chaired the group that produced the latest revision of the Scottish Code for Good Higher Education Governance in 2023 – a document which Professor Gillies deems fit for purpose, provided institutions follow it carefully. However, implementing the code of governance, excellent as it is, will not be enough – we all need to learn lessons from the Dundee story and make sure that our own universities are protected from a similar fate. To that end, we ought to engage in an open discussion about what has happened and consider it from every angle.

    So far, the criticism has focused on the failings of Dundee’s senior managers and governors. In response, they have accepted that they should have spotted the financial problems earlier and taken avoiding action. That way, as one officer put it to the committee, they could have dealt with them “under their own steam”.

    Senior managers and the university court should certainly have been aware of the worsening financial situation in the second half of academic year 2023–24. Student recruitment fell in September 2023 and again in January 2024; meanwhile the international market was contracting and the UK government looked set to implement unhelpful policy developments as part of its anti-immigrant agenda.

    At that stage, the university’s executive board should have been keeping an eagle eye on the monthly management accounts, freezing all but essential staff recruitment and paring back expenditure. The failure even to recognise there was a financial deficit until October 2024 was a critical lapse.

    Reflecting on this, all universities will now be examining their systems, processes and culture to make sure they do not fall into the same trap. The sense of urgency will be especially acute in institutions which are running deficits – a plight that now affects many HEIs previously considered immune to such challenges. In Scotland, the cabinet secretary for education has urged the sector to address the problem of “unsustainable jobs” – apparently giving the green light to further staffing reductions.

    University courts and councils will be assessing governance arrangements and exploring how to strengthen financial scrutiny; some will also be reviewing the way they interact with their vice chancellors and senior teams. In doing this, they should ensure that senior officers and trade union reps are enabled to challenge heads of institutions and bring any concerns they have to the governing body.

    Model issues

    All of this is sensible, but the debate so far has largely ignored some fundamental points. Most importantly, the sector needs a different financial model – it cannot survive by placing ever greater reliance on the international student fee account. In England, the UK government has at least allowed the home undergraduate fees cap to increase in line with inflation but Holyrood has not made a similar move, and nor is it likely to before the 2026 Scottish election.

    The lack of funding will mean further retrenchments and cost-cutting in estates and IT budgets; unpalatable options such as delaying the national pay uplift or cancelling academic promotions rounds may also come into play. Against this background, Scotland’s politicians must step up – we need to treat university funding as a national problem which deserves an enduring solution, preferably identified through a review supported by all parties.

    Returning to Dundee, there is a reason why that university was so badly hit that goes beyond mistakes made by senior management. For at least 30 years, Dundee has been a powerhouse of life sciences research, with a special focus on cancer and tropical diseases. A glance at the 2021 REF results for biological sciences bears this out – there is Dundee, ranked number two behind the Institute of Cancer Research, ahead of Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and many other universities with much greater resources.

    This is an extraordinary story – a relatively small, provincial university taking on and beating some of the greatest and best-funded institutions in the world; in the process, Dundee’s researchers have benefited humanity, not just in this country but also across the global south. Sir Alfred Cuschieri, Sir David Lane, Sir Philip Cohen, Cheryll Tickle CBE, Sir Pete Downes, Sir Mike Ferguson – the list of top biomedical scientists whose careers have flourished at Dundee is hugely impressive.

    However, this achievement comes at a price – even 20 years ago, Dundee struggled to generate surpluses which would protect the institution against a rainy day. As everyone knows, research funding simply does not cover the cost of the work it is supposed to support – universities have to cross-subsidise scientific endeavour with endowments, donations and international student fees.

    The challenge is even greater when much of your funding is from charities, which pay a lower overhead than government research councils. That left Dundee in an especially vulnerable position when the international student recruitment market began to contract in 2023–24 – a problem not shared by other universities with a fraction of Dundee’s research activity.

    Given what has happened, it is right that universities conduct self-audits and make certain that their own houses are in order. The Scottish government and the funding council should also seek assurance that Scotland’s HEIs are effectively led and managed. But the deeper question of how the sector should be funded still needs to be addressed, and quickly.

    As part of this we should recognise that world-class research of the kind nurtured in Dundee is something to be cherished; we should all back the recovery effort on Tayside. For my part, I believe strongly that the university will remain a powerhouse of research and excellence in learning and teaching for decades to come. With the right support, Dundee’s reputation will soon soar again.

    Source link

  • NZ’s new study visa rules strike chord with Australian sector

    NZ’s new study visa rules strike chord with Australian sector

    The New Zealand government announced earlier this week that, from November, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) will increase permitted work hours for study visa holders, extend work rights to all tertiary students on exchange or study abroad programs. It may also introduce a short-term work visa of up to six months for graduates not eligible for a post-study work visa.

    While the relaxations are a key part of New Zealand’s push to boost international student numbers by over 40% by 2034, INZ has also clarified that students who change their education provider or lower their study level will need to apply for a new visa, rather than simply requesting a variation of conditions on their existing one.

    The mandate has struck a chord with Australia’s international education sector, where some individuals and associations have been calling for an overhaul of the study visa system, specifically on linking study visas to the institution of initial enrolment.

    Commenting on New Zealand’s recent changes, Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach, wrote in a LinkedIn post that instead of banning agent commissions for onshore student transfers to address attrition, Australia could “just copy” the neighbouring country’s approach. 

    “Australia is currently facing a significant issue where students use higher ranked or low-risk universities (as categorised by Home Affairs) to secure their student visas easily and then after the first semester of studies, the students get moved to private colleges offering higher education degrees,” Singh told The PIE News. 

    According to Singh, while such moves, often made by Indian or Nepali students with the help of onshore immigration agents, may be genuine, they “waste” the efforts of offshore education agents and universities that initially recruited the students.

    “Some policy makers feel that students have a right to choose the correct education provider and if they feel that what they desire as a customer can be met at private colleges, they should be allowed to move,” stated Singh. 

    “However, we also have the situation where students have demonstrated their available funds through an education loan which is issued in the name of a particular university,” he added. If the student does move institutions, the education loan is not valid as a demonstration of funds and thus the argument that the students should be asked to apply for a fresh student visa.”

    According to Singh, many international students, particularly from South Asia, who arrive in Australia on education loans often find themselves without “available” or “accessible” funds when they switch providers and are required to show new financial evidence.

    It would appear that three modern advanced economies who have championed consumer protections and who have established international study destinations believe this measure is not contrary to ‘consumer choice’
    Gareth Lewis, Western Sydney University

    Moreover, a recent report by Allianz Partners Australia revealed that over 61% of international students found daily life in the country “significantly more expensive than expected”, with more than a quarter considering withdrawing from their studies due to financial woes. 

    “While we are discussing attrition and student movements once the student is onshore, we also need to acknowledge that university fees have been increasing and students are beginning to question ROI. Thus there is an argument for more student visa grants for higher education degrees at TAFE and private providers,” said Singh. 

    “The fees of such programs is much lower to what is charged at the universities. If this happens, the students who are more price sensitive will join the TAFE and private providers right in the beginning and universities will have only those students who can afford the degree and likely to complete them at the university itself.”

    While Australia’s Ministerial Direction 111, which replaced MD 107, provides immigration case officers stricter guidance on assessing the Genuine Student requirement, and introduces a two-tier visa processing system that prioritises institutions with strong compliance records and low visa risks, it influences the decision-making process, not the entire visa mechanism unlike New Zealand’s recent move. 

    However, New Zealand is not the only model Australia could look to, according to stakeholders.

    A recent submission by the Association of Australian Education Representatives in India (AAERI) to the ministers for education and home affairs in Australia pointed to examples from the UK and Canada, where students must obtain a new Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) and a new study permit, respectively, if they wish to change institutions.

    “Australia’s recent reforms, such as closing the concurrent CoE loophole and requiring CoEs for onshore visa applications, are steps in a similar direction but do not go far enough to address the core issue of unethical student poaching, misuse of student visa and provider switching,” stated AAERI in its submission in May to the Labor government. 

    After New Zealand’s changes were announced, regional director, Western Sydney University, Gareth Lewis also echoed a similar opinion on Australia’s reluctance to do what New Zealand, the UK, and Canada have done. 

    “It would appear that three modern advanced economies who have championed consumer protections and who have established international study destinations believe this measure is not contrary to ‘consumer choice’,” read Lewis’s LinkedIn post. 

    “Unfortunately Australia believes it is. This needs to change.” 

    Find out more about how Australia can improve its visa system at The PIE Live Asia Pacific 2025 on July 30, during the session “Visa status: MD111 and MD106 mapping – is the current visa system working?”, which will explore the impact of current visa policies on HE, VET, and ELICOS sectors, covering genuine student assessments, onshore switching, and ways to improve the operating environment. Check out more details here – PLAP 2025 agenda.

    Source link