Tag: shape

How Japan and India will shape the next decade’s workforce

Japan and India are entering a new phase of partnership, built not on formal communiqués but on the steady movement of people. Though they speak different languages, both share respect, reliability, and a quiet focus on getting things done, setting the tone for success.

Japan today is facing a demographic shift that’s changing its economy and workforce, with labour shortages affecting everything from technology and healthcare to manufacturing, construction, and advanced engineering.

In response, the Japanese government has introduced new pathways, including the SSW visa, more English-taught university programs, and stronger internationalisation policies led by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).

While Japan has been actively reaching out to other countries for skilled talent, India is uniquely positioned to be the partner to bridge the gap at scale.

India, with its young, skilled, and increasingly global talent pool, is emerging as a natural partner to Japan. With the world’s largest youth population and a fast-growing base of STEM-trained graduates, India has the scale and capacity to make the goal of 500,000 Indian professionals working in Japan by 2030 realistic.

Against this backdrop, Japan and India are helping convert intent into outcomes by building a three-pillared, structured talent mobility bridge that works across the full continuum — from early awareness in schools to education, language acquisition, and workforce readiness — addressing the real frictions that often slow cross-border mobility.

Through Japanese language labs embedded in Indian schools and institutions, students are developing linguistic and cultural fluency early, reframing Japanese not as a barrier but as a long-term enabler.

This ecosystem approach is reinforced through joint initiatives with the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), which provides critical institutional linkage to Japan’s evolving workforce needs, and through the digital platform Navi Japan, the official platform for Study in Japan from South Asia. Together, these efforts are helping align India’s scale of talent with Japan’s demand, making mobility not episodic, but systemic and sustainable.

Moreover, in the last 11 months, interest in Japan is rising sharply among young Indians. Over 25,000 students have engaged with study-in-Japan initiatives through webinars, school interactions, and fairs, reaching more than 1,000 schools across 123 cities, from Tier 1 to Tier 3 locations. This early-stage outreach is vital to building the pipeline that will support Japan’s goal of welcoming half a million Indian professionals.

In just two months, Navi Japan attracted over 12,000 users, 11,000 of them from India, generating more than 125,000 engagements. These aren’t casual clicks — students are spending close to three minutes per visit, actively exploring degree programs, scholarships, English-taught options, and guidance on living costs, showing serious consideration.

What they’re searching for is just as telling: business programs top the list with more than 10,000 searches, followed by STEM at over 9,000, strong interest in AI and machine learning with more than 7,300 searches, and thousands more in robotics, computer science, and economics. These are exactly the skills Japan needs most, clearly showing how closely Indian student demand aligns with Japan’s workforce priorities.

What’s equally interesting is where this interest is coming from. While cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Kolkata remain highly active, momentum is quickly spreading beyond the major metros.

Education isn’t just about earning a degree; it is the most reliable pathway to long-term workforce integration

Students from cities such as Indore, Lucknow, and Bhopal are appearing in growing numbers, with engagement now seen across 142 cities in India — full coverage in Tier 1, around 50% in Tier 2, and a growing 20% in Tier 3. Students outside major cities increasingly see Japan as a realistic, future-focused option for education and upward mobility.

This is why student mobility has emerged as the real engine of the Japan-India relationship. Education isn’t just about earning a degree; it is the most reliable pathway to long-term workforce integration. Students who study in Japan gain more than academic knowledge — they absorb the culture, expectations, and work ethic — leaving them better placed to meet language requirements, qualify for SSW pathways, and move into the specialised roles where Japan’s talent shortages are most acute.

A critical part of this is what happens after education and how students move from the classroom into the workplace. Skills-focused initiatives are helping students prepare for Japan’s workforce through practical, Japan-relevant problem-solving, including programs such as the TechBridge challenge, which introduces learners to real-world domains and early exposure to Japan. These efforts connect education, skills, and career pathways seamlessly.

Both nations stand to gain considerably from the deepening of this mobility corridor. Japan secures the skilled workforce it urgently needs to sustain its economy, while India gains new avenues for global employment, technical upskilling and international collaboration.

If current momentum continues, the prospect of 500,000 Indian professionals working in Japan by 2030 is not only achievable but transformative. The real story, however, is not about numbers, it is about two nations building a long-term, mutually beneficial partnership anchored in talent, education, and opportunity.

There is a mobility anecdote that I love sharing. Indians grow up using Suzuki vehicles, listening to Sony music systems, or working with Panasonic technologies and yet few consciously think of them as Japanese; they are simply familiar and reliable, and that’s a powerful lesson for talent mobility.

When people move not as outsiders, but, as trusted contributors, integration becomes natural rather than negotiated, and that’s when mobility stops being a policy goal and becomes a lived reality.

Source link

January 16, 2026
Shape the Future or Get Left Behind: The New Reality for Higher Ed Leaders

Higher education is fundamentally rewiring in ways most legacy playbooks can’t handle.

Declining birth rates, growing skepticism about the value of a traditional degree and the rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence have exposed the fragility of many institutional models.

The leaders who treat this as a reset moment to rebuild for the Modern Learner will be the ones who thrive in the rewired landscape.

On a recent episode of the Job Ready podcast, EducationDynamics’ President of Enrollment Management Services, Greg Clayton, sat down with hosts Jeff Nelder and Charlie Nguyen to unpack what it will really take for institutions to thrive in this AI-powered, skills-driven market. Explore the key takeaways from that conversation and what they mean for any institution that intends to shape the future instead of being shaped by it.

You either evolve, or you don’t exist anymore.

Greg Clayton, President, Enrollment Management Services

Why Reputation and Revenue Now Drive Enrollment Growth

Revenue and reputation now function as the pillars of institutional viability.

Revenue growth is no longer just about filling seats. Institutions need diversified pathways, new program models and market strategies built around how learners actually discover, evaluate and choose programs today.

Reputation can no longer be reduced to prestige markers like rankings or athletics. Modern Learners quickly filter out surface-level messaging and evaluate institutions based on cost, convenience and career outcomes. Institutions that lead with tradition instead of value are losing ground.

Increasingly, learners also look for clear proof that an institution can deliver real job readiness and connect education to concrete career trajectories.

In this reality, reputation is revenue. It is earned by demonstrating academic rigor, employment relevance and a credible return on investment. Institutions that make those elements impossible to miss in the market win attention, trust and enrollment. Institutions that don’t are training Modern Learners to look elsewhere.

It’s not simply, ‘am I a flagship public institution with a football team’… What we’re talking about is, does the institution have a reputation for delivery of excellence that meets academic standards but also creates job readiness in the marketplace?

Greg Clayton, President, Enrollment Management Services

How AI Is Reshaping Discovery in Higher Education Marketing

Artificial intelligence is not a priority for tomorrow. It’s already here and rewriting the rules of search, discovery and decision-making.

Today, a large majority of .edu-oriented Google searches surface an AI overview before traditional organic results. For many prospects, the first touchpoint with an institution is now mediated by an AI-generated summary, not the homepage.

When institutions are not actively managing how they appear in those AI overviews, they effectively cede their first impression to an algorithm trained on everyone else’s narrative.

This shift changes how institutions are discovered. Program details, brand signals and reputation markers are being interpreted and condensed by AI systems, which means fragmented or inconsistent market signals are quickly reflected in fragmented AI outputs.

Because AI now influences how learners search, compare and choose, institutions need a new blueprint for understanding how brand, reputation and revenue actually work together.

EducationDynamics’ AI visibility pyramid provides that blueprint, making one thing clear: revenue is no longer a standalone goal, but the outcome of coordinated brand amplification and reputation building. When an institution’s digital footprint and third-party credibility are reinforced through AI density—the consistency with which an institution appears in AI-generated responses—revenue follows at the top.

In this environment, content, PR, advertising and enrollment operations can’t operate in isolation. Disconnected efforts dilute AI visibility and waste spend. Institutions that orchestrate these functions around a unified strategy for AI discoverability will be the ones that win attention and intent.

How the Enrollment Cliff Is Exposing Fragile Models

The wave of closures and mergers over the past decade is not random. It is the predictable outcome of models built for a world that no longer exists.

The most vulnerable institutions tend to be heavily tuition dependent, slow to diversify revenue and reluctant to make structural changes even as market conditions shift around them.

Flagship publics and highly endowed privates have more buffer. Many regional and tuition-dependent institutions do not. As demographics tighten and competition increases, legacy models that once felt stable are now under significant strain.

Many of the institutions struggling most today share a common pattern: delayed pivots to online and hybrid delivery, continued reliance on tuition as the primary revenue source and limited attention to Modern Learner expectations around flexibility and cost. Those dynamics are now being tested by the market.

By contrast, institutions that are evolving have accepted that yesterday’s playbook is no longer sufficient. They are actively redesigning their models around revenue diversification, program-market fit and measurable outcomes. They understand that the expectations of Modern Learners have fundamentally changed and that tomorrow’s challenges will not be solved with yesterday’s solutions.

How Student Behavior Is Reshaping Enrollment Strategy

Modern Learner behavior has moved beyond traditional age-based segments. Preferences for online, hybrid and flexible formats cut across generations. Convenience, outcomes and affordability matter just as much to working adults and career switchers as they do to recent high school graduates.

Modern Learners are the architects of their own educational journeys. They don’t wait to be recruited and they don’t stay loyal when processes are rigid and difficult to navigate.

This is especially true for the roughly 43 million Americans with some college and no credential. Many institutions have struggled to reach this audience due to higher acquisition costs, limited capital or an assumption that these learners fall outside their “core” market.

That assumption no longer aligns with how learners actually make decisions. Strategies built for 18–22-year-old residential students do not automatically translate to working adults balancing jobs, family and study. Reaching this audience requires rethinking acquisition channels, messaging, support models and program design.

Institutions that are successfully engaging this segment treat education as a lifelong relationship, not a one-time transaction. They are building pathways for learners to return to upskill and reskill over time, often in partnership with employers, creating recurring value for learners and recurring revenue for the institution.

Attracting traditional students into your institution does not work when it comes to tapping into the 43 million [Americans with] some college, no credential. It’s two completely different things.

Greg Clayton, President, Enrollment Management Services

Why Employer Alignment Now Shapes Reputation and Outcomes

Employer partnerships remain one of the most underleveraged assets in higher education. At the same time, employers consistently report difficulty finding candidates with applied, job-ready skills, particularly as AI reshapes roles and workflows across industries.

That disconnect is not a minor gap. It is a credibility problem. When programs are not aligned with the roles employers are hiring for, institutions are asking students to fund an education the market does not fully value.

High-impact employer partnerships go far beyond tuition discounts and logo swaps. Those are table stakes. The partnerships that move the needle help define the skills and competencies programs should teach, inform curriculum refresh cycles and create structured pathways into internships, apprenticeships and full-time roles.

When job readiness is deliberately designed into every program — including comfort with AI tools and workflows — institutions are better able to prove their value to both learners and employers. That, in turn, strengthens reputation, improves outcomes data and creates new opportunities for sustainable revenue.

What Institutions Are Rebuilding to Compete

Across the sector, a distinct pattern is emerging among institutions that are gaining ground. They aren’t optimizing at the edges. They’re reworking the systems that drive growth.

These institutions treat revenue as mission fuel, not a dirty word. They understand that without sustainable margin, they can’t expand access, invest in innovation or support students at the level the market now expects.

They make ROI explicit — in their marketing, advising and student experience. Cost, convenience and career outcomes are addressed head-on, not buried in fine print. Modern Learners can clearly see how a program connects to specific skills, roles and advancement paths.

Program portfolios are tightly aligned with workforce needs. Curricula are refreshed frequently. Skills and competencies are mapped to real job requirements, not just internal assumptions. Job readiness and AI literacy are integrated into programs, not offered as optional extras.

Brand, marketing and enrollment are orchestrated around AI-driven discovery. These institutions understand that AI is now a primary gateway to information, so they actively manage how they show up in AI overviews and search — not just in traditional rankings and media.

Employer partnerships are deep and operational. Employers help shape programs, provide work-based learning, and validate the skills graduates bring to the table. B2B and workforce channels become meaningful contributors to both impact and revenue.

Institutions design for Modern Learners across ages and life stages. They build flexible pathways, stackable credentials and re-entry points so learners can return to upskill and reskill over time. Education becomes an ongoing relationship, not a one-time transaction.

The common thread is not size, sector or selectivity. It is a willingness to challenge internal inertia, reject the status quo and align every part of the institution with how learners and employers actually behave today. In this market, safety often masquerades as stability — and stagnation carries real risk.

The Decision Facing Higher Ed Leadership

Taken together, these dynamics create a defining choice for higher education leaders: optimize a fading model or rebuild for an AI-powered, skills-driven market. There is no middle ground.

Those that clearly communicate ROI, align programs with workforce demand, build AI into their discovery strategy and use reputation to drive growth will define what comes next.

At EducationDynamics, we’re partnering with leaders ready to make that shift. For a deeper look at how and where to begin, listen to Greg Clayton’s full conversation on the Job Ready podcast.

Source link

January 14, 2026
High-Risk Hobbies That Shape Your Insurance Options
For many professionals, especially physicians, dentists and business owners, higher income opens the door to hobbies that were once out of reach — things like flying lessons, backcountry skiing, scuba diving, or rock climbing.

These hobbies are exciting, but they also change how insurers assess your risk. And in insurance, added risk often shows up as higher premiums, exclusions, or even an inability to qualify for certain coverage.

This isn’t meant to discourage anyone from pursuing what they enjoy. The goal is to understand how these activities are viewed by life and disability insurance underwriters so you can make the best decisions long before you file an application.

Why insurers care about hobbies

Insurers are looking for patterns that increase the likelihood of a claim. For high-income professionals, the combination of disposable income and adventurous hobbies is common in underwriting files. Activities like:
- Scuba diving
- Skydiving
- Bungee jumping
- Rock climbing or bouldering
- Backcountry skiing
- Flying as a private pilot
These can all trigger additional scrutiny. In some cases, they lead to exclusions similar to what you might find with a pre-existing condition. In others, they result in a higher premium or a denial altogether.

In my experience, private piloting is the most common trigger for outright denials, especially with life insurance. Even training for a pilot’s license can affect your application.

Get the best price on own occupation disability insurance

SLP Insurance will find you the best price even if it’s not with us. Fill out the form below to get discounts of up to 30%.

Get the best price on own occupation disability insurance

SLP Insurance will find you the best price even if it’s not with us. Fill out the form below to get discounts of up to 30%.

Hobbies most likely to affect coverage

Insurers treat each activity differently, but several consistently show up in underwriting decisions for life and disability insurance.

Private pilot licenses

This is one of the biggest red flags in underwriting. Some carriers may decline the application entirely. Others might offer coverage but exclude aviation-related deaths.

Importantly, applications ask whether you are currently flying, planning to take lessons, or expect to start within the next two years. Even if you intend to apply now and start flying later, the carrier expects full disclosure. If an aviation-related death occurs and the application wasn’t accurate, they may not pay the claim.

Rock climbing and bouldering

For disability insurance, a rock-climbing exclusion is extremely common if you are actively participating in this hobby. And for good reason — injuries to the wrist or hand can immediately affect the ability of a surgeon, dentist, or operator to perform their job.

Backcountry skiing

Backcountry skiing is typically covered under life insurance only if you pay an added premium. In one case I saw, that added cost essentially doubled the client’s annual premium.

Is it worth paying for the coverage? For a healthy 30-year-old buying a 20-year term policy, the most likely non-illness causes of death are accidents, in this case, most likely from an avalanche. If backcountry skiing is part of your lifestyle, you generally want it included.

Scuba diving

Scuba is more nuanced. Traditional open-water recreational diving is often acceptable, especially if the frequency is low and you stay within standard depth limits.

Where problems arise:
- Very frequent diving
- Deep or technical dives
- Cave diving
- Diving without recognized certifications
Some carriers require a PADI certification before they’ll include scuba without an exclusion. Others vary widely in their approach, which is why insurer selection matters.

How much details matter: frequency, depth, training

When insurers ask about hobbies, they’re looking for specifics:
- How often do you do it?
- What level of training do you have?
- How extreme is the activity? (Depth, altitude, terrain, etc.)
- Do you plan to increase frequency in the next few years?
Someone who scuba dives twice a year on vacation is treated very differently from someone diving every weekend. The same applies to climbers who occasionally top-rope indoors versus those who regularly do multi-pitch climbs outdoors.

What exclusions and added premiums look like

Life insurance tends to handle these risks with extra premiums. Disability insurance usually applies exclusions instead.

Examples:
- Life insurance: “This policy will not pay a death benefit if the insured dies while backcountry skiing unless an additional premium is paid.”
- Disability insurance: “This policy will not cover disabilities resulting from rock climbing or bouldering.”
In certain high-risk cases, the company may simply decline to offer coverage at all.

Can exclusions be removed later?

In most cases, no. Once a dangerous hobby exclusion is added, it stays on the policy. Even if you stop the activity, insurers assume you may return to it.

And practically speaking, if you’re no longer doing the hobby, the exclusion doesn’t affect you anyway — there’s no remaining risk for them to insure.

What to do if you participate in these hobbies

Be fully honest on the application

This part is non-negotiable. If you misrepresent your activity and a claim arises within the incontestability period (typically the first two years), the carrier can deny the claim. In cases of outright fraud, they may deny payment even after that period.

The worst-case scenario is simple:

You pay for a policy for years, and when you need it most, it doesn’t pay out.

Be upfront with your broker

Different insurers treat the same hobby very differently. Scuba diving is a prime example. Some carriers exclude it almost automatically, while others include it with no added cost.

An independent broker can pre-check hobby guidelines across multiple carriers and guide you toward the one most favorable to your situation.

Remember: What you do after the policy is issued is your business

If you’re honest on the application and decide to take up scuba diving or piloting six years later, the policy generally still covers you. Insurers care about your activities and plans at the time of underwriting, they can’t stop you from doing something years down the road.

What if you can’t get coverage?

If you’re declined by standard carriers due to an extreme hobby, specialized insurers like Lloyd’s of London can sometimes provide coverage. It’s a niche solution, and the premiums are significantly higher, but for unique situations, it may be the only option.

How to approach insurance when you have risky hobbies

High-risk hobbies don’t automatically disqualify you from life or disability insurance, but they do change how insurers evaluate you. The best strategy is always the same:
- Be honest with your broker.
- Be accurate on the application.
- Understand the exclusions and decide whether additional premiums are worth it.
When buying life and disability insurance, the goal is simple: coverage that’s comprehensive, reliable, and aligned with the way you actually live.

Compare disability insurance quotes and save

SLP Insurance will find you the best price on own occupation coverage, even if it’s not with us. Fill out the form below for a quote with up to 30% discounts.
Source link
December 27, 2025
St. Augustine’s Offers to Help Shape Trump’s Compact

The HBCU has seen its enrollment drop significantly and faced other challenges as it aims to stay open.

Saint Augustine’s University

Saint Augustine’s University, a historically Black college in North Carolina, has expressed interest in signing the Trump administration’s higher ed compact, Fox News reported, joining New College of Florida and Valley Forge Military College.

However, Verjanis Peoples, the interim president of Saint Augustine’s University, and board chair Sophie Gibson wrote in a letter to the Education Department that several provisions of the proposed compact are not “compatible with the statutory mission and federal mandate under which HBCUs operate.” Those include restrictions on the use of race in admissions or for financial support.

“As noted in our institutional analysis, such provisions would unintentionally force HBCUs to choose between compliance and survival, a position that is neither feasible nor consistent with congressional intent,” wrote Peoples and Gibson in a letter posted by Fox News.

Other requirements that raise concerns include a cap on international students and a five-year tuition freeze. “Without mission-sensitive accommodations, these sections risk unintended consequences that would impede our ability to serve students effectively,” they added.

Saint Augustine’s has struggled in recent years amid declining enrollment and financial challenges. The university had 175 students as of October 2024; more recent enrollment figures aren’t available. Late last year, Saint Augustine’s lost its accreditation, though a federal court overturned that decision. Classes were held online this fall.

The 158-year-old university is the first HBCU to show interest in the compact, which would require colleges to make a number of changes to their policies and practices in exchange for potential benefits such as an edge in federal grant competitions. The Trump administration first invited nine universities to give feedback on the document, and none in the group decided to sign on. Since the proposal was made public in early October, several universities have rejected it, arguing the federal funding should be based on merit—not adherence to a president’s priorities.

The administration has initially aimed to finalize the compact by Nov. 21, but that deadline has reportedly been extended.

Peoples and Gibson wrote that they support the compact’s goal to strengthen academic excellence, accountability and transparency in higher ed, and they see alignment between Saint Augustine’s historic mission and the administration’s proposal.

Despite their other reservations, “Saint Augustine’s University remains eager to participate as a constructive partner and early-engagement institution,” they wrote. They asked the department to work with HBCUs to shape a final agreement that upholds “both the letter and spirit of the Compact while safeguarding our statutory purpose.”

Source link

November 21, 2025
How Educators Seek to Shape AI Use in Classrooms

For educators, using artificial intelligence in the classroom only makes sense if they have a real say in its development.

Building on expert experience

This summer, the American Federation of Teachers and its New York City affiliate, the United Federation of Teachers, announced a $23 million partnership with Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic to establish a first-of-its-kind teacher institute for artificial intelligence: the National Academy for AI Instruction.

“Technology is routinely weaponized against us,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew. “We were not going to sit by and watch that happen again. This initiative allows us to take control of AI in the education sphere and develop it for and by educators.”

While the physical plant will take 12–18 months to build, the academy has already started hosting its first series of AI workshops, introducing attendees to tools to help teachers plan, manage their workload, and meet student needs more effectively. Teachers received guidance on writing AI prompts and discussed ethics and the responsible use of AI.

“The academy is saying to teachers: You bring expertise to the classroom. You bring high-value pedagogy to the classroom,” said Rob Weil, Chief Executive Officer of the Academy. “We want you to use that pedagogy and expand that pedagogy, and there are resources you can use to make your expertise better. This is not about replacing your expertise; it’s about expanding your expertise.”

AI use influenced by teachers

Workshops this fall will engage educators in 200 New York City schools and then extend to educators in AFT union affiliates across the country. Organizers said the content will deepen as educators gain experience. And while supporting the exploration of AI, the AFT and the UFT were clear that neither organization endorsed specific AI tools or platforms.

Iolani Grullon, a teacher at P.S. 4 in Manhattan who attended two sets of AI workshops this summer, said AI could be “a game changer” for educators.

“This is where things are going,” Grullon said. “If we resist, we’re only going to make our lives harder. We need to be part of the conversation, learn how to use these tools, and influence their next iteration. We are the voice of the classroom. We know what educators and students need. And if these tools can streamline planning and paperwork, it allows for more time to build relationships with students.”

“It does not replace the human component,” Grullon said. “You need to see my face. You need to hear me say, ‘Great job!’ or ‘Let’s try this again’ or ‘Are you OK?’”

Source link

November 7, 2025
Higher Education must help shape how students learn, lead and build the skills employers want most

For the first time in more than a decade, confidence in the nation’s colleges and universities is rising. Forty-two percent of Americans now say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, up from 36 percent last year.

It’s a welcome shift, but it’s certainly not time for institutions to take a victory lap.

For years, persistent concerns about rising tuition, student debt and an uncertain job market have led many to question whether college was still worth the cost. Headlines have routinely spotlighted graduates who are underemployed, overwhelmed or unsure how to translate their degrees into careers.

With the rapid rise of AI reshaping entry-level hiring, those doubts are only going to intensify. Politicians, pundits and anxious parents are already asking: Why aren’t students better prepared for the real world?

But the conversation is broken, and the framing is far too simplistic. The real question isn’t whether college prepares students for careers. It’s how. And the “how” is more complex, personal and misunderstood than most people realize.

Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

What’s missing from this conversation is a clearer understanding of where career preparation actually happens. It’s not confined to the classroom or the career center. It unfolds in the everyday often overlooked experiences that shape how students learn, lead and build confidence.

While earning a degree is important, it’s not enough. Students need a better map for navigating college. They need to know from day one that half the value of their experience will come from what they do outside the classroom.

To rebuild America’s trust, colleges must point beyond course catalogs and job placement rates. They need to understand how students actually spend their time in college. And they need to understand what those experiences teach them.

Ask someone thriving in their career which part of college most shaped their success, and their answer might surprise you. (I had this experience recently at a dinner with a dozen impressive philanthropic, tech and advocacy leaders.) You might expect them to name a major, a key class or an internship. But they’re more likely to mention running the student newspaper, leading a sorority, conducting undergraduate research, serving in student government or joining the debate team.

Such activities aren’t extracurriculars. They are career-curriculars. They’re the proving grounds where students build real-world skills, grow professional networks and gain confidence to navigate complexity. But most people don’t discuss these experiences until they’re asked about them.

Over time, institutions have created a false divide. The classroom is seen as the domain of learning, and career services is seen as the domain of workforce preparation. But this overlooks an important part of the undergraduate experience: everything in between.

The vast middle of campus life — clubs, competitions, mentorship, leadership roles, part-time jobs and collaborative projects — is where learning becomes doing. It’s where students take risks, test ideas and develop the communication, teamwork and problem-solving skills that employers need.

This oversight has made career services a stand-in for something much bigger. Career services should serve as an essential safety net for students who didn’t or couldn’t fully engage in campus life, but not as the launchpad we often imagine it to be.

Related: OPINION: College is worth it for most students, but its benefits are not equitable

We also need to confront a harder truth: Many students enter college assuming success after college is a given. Students are often told that going to college leads to success. They are rarely told, however, what that journey actually requires. They believe knowledge will be poured into them and that jobs will magically appear once the diploma is in hand. And for good reason, we’ve told them as much.

But college isn’t a vending machine. You can’t insert tuition and expect a job to roll out. Instead, it’s a platform, a laboratory and a proving ground. It requires students to extract value through effort, initiative and exploration, especially outside the classroom.

The credential matters, but it’s not the whole story. A degree can open doors, but it won’t define a career. It’s the skills students build, the relationships they form and the challenges they take on along the way to graduation that shape their future.

As more college leaders rightfully focus on the college-to-career transition, colleges must broadcast that while career services plays a helpful role, students themselves are the primary drivers of their future. But to be clear, colleges bear a grave responsibility here. It’s on us to reinforce the idea that learning occurs everywhere on campus, that the most powerful career preparation comes from doing, not just studying. It’s also on us to address college affordability, so that students have the time to participate in campus life, and to ensure that on-campus jobs are meaningful learning experiences.

Higher education can’t afford public confidence to dip again. The value of college isn’t missing. We’re just not looking in the right place.

Bridget Burns is the founding CEO of the University Innovation Alliance (UIA), a nationally recognized consortium of 19 public research universities driving student success innovation for nearly 600,000 students.

Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

This story about college experiences was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Source link

October 6, 2025
Framework to shape international education – Campus Review

An international education framework will shape the “next phase of maturity” of the Albanese government’s vision of a quality-first, managed-growth tertiary education sector.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

September 24, 2025
Student voices should shape how universities tackle harassment

In the midst of a global crisis in social relations, spiralling levels of harassment, scapegoating and online and interpersonal hostility have become routine, especially for members of minoritised and stigmatised communities.

As microcosms of wider society, university spaces are not immune to these social, cultural and political tensions. Yet the ways prejudices play out in higher education often go under-explored. As a result, many students feel unsafe and unsupported at a time when multiple points of crisis have exposed student communities to a heightened risk of harassment.

In response to these mounting pressures, the OfS has emphasised the urgent need for action. From August 2025, new requirements will compel institutions to actively address harassment and sexual misconduct. However, current discussions too often overlook the full spectrum of harassment. Non-sexual forms of hostility—such as racist, disablist, homophobic, and transphobic harassment—frequently remain at the periphery of institutional priorities.

Our current research, due to be completed in July 2027, addresses this gap. It takes an inclusive, victim-centred approach to examining all forms of harassment. By investigating the barriers students face in accessing effective support and understanding their lived experiences of violence, microaggressions, and exclusion, the study will generate critical insights to help universities create truly safe and supportive environments.

The importance of self-definition

A crucial aspect of this research is that harassment cannot, and should not, be narrowly defined by institutional standards or legislation alone. This is why allowing students to define what constitutes as harassment to them is so important.

Self-definition acknowledges that students are best placed to interpret the behaviours that harm them, informed by their unique identities, cultural contexts, and lived experiences.

This approach moves beyond rigid, exclusionary notions of who experiences harassment and in what form. It acknowledges the subjective and often complex nature of harassment and fosters empathy and inclusivity. For instance, a seemingly minor microaggression may carry significant emotional weight for a student facing intersecting disadvantages. Equally, behaviours such as online victimisation, sustained name-calling, or subtle exclusion may not fit traditional definitions of harassment, yet they can deeply impact an individual.

Our 2020 pilot study at the University of Leicester embraced this framework of self-definition. Students identified more than a dozen identity characteristics as a motivating factor in their victimisation. Amongst some of the more often discussed identity characteristics, students spoke about how their political views, subcultural status, accent, dress and appearance, and their status as a mature student were also reasons they felt they were targeted.

The emotional, behavioural and educational impacts of targeted harassment were diverse, far-reaching and profoundly damaging to their student experience.

Self-definition does not mean abandoning clear policies or legal obligations. Instead, it complements existing frameworks by placing student voices at the centre of institutional responses. By understanding often ‘hidden’ and under-acknowledged forms of harassment, universities can build more holistic, evidence-based systems to support victims. For instance, reporting systems should allow students to disclose harassment that targets multiple aspects of their identity – for example, a student who is both Black and gay, or a student who is Muslim and disabled. Staff training can then focus on recognising these nuanced impacts, ensuring that responses are handled with cultural sensitivity and empathy.

Working across institutions

Sector-wide progress has been hindered by fear of reputational damage, a culture of conservatism, and, in some cases, a continued denial of the problem entirely. Where reliable research on harassment within HE exists, it generally focuses on one particular institution or just a single form of harassment. Our approach is different.

We are working across five participating higher education institutions (HEIs) in England, purposefully selected for their very different geographical locations, student demographics and institutional profile. By working cross-institutionally and through our continued collaborations with OfS and Universities UK, we can maximise the impact of our findings and shift the narrative surrounding harassment and sexual misconduct. Rather than being perceived as an issue confined to a handful of “bad apple” universities, this approach acknowledges that such problems exist across the sector and require a unified response.

This technique should also help to reduce fears of reputational damage, as it frames the issue as a systemic challenge rather than a localised failure. It also fosters a culture of accountability and continuous improvement, showing that universities are committed to addressing misconduct comprehensively rather than reacting defensively after incidents occur.

Working with a range of HEIs in this way allows us to produce a suite of student-informed resources that can be tailored to individual HEIs. The insights gained from our research will not merely reflect existing challenges; they offer a roadmap for compliance with OfS conditions and for creating transformative, lasting change. By prioritising inclusivity and evidence, institutions can fulfil their obligations while fostering safer, more equitable spaces for all students.

To find out more, please reach out to the research team at [email protected]

Source link

September 2, 2025
Safety must shape policy on single-sex spaces

As a campaigner focusing on gender-based violence within higher education, I am extremely concerned about the consequences for trans and non-binary people of the recent Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

Crucial work is being done by trans activists and their allies to challenge this judgement, including a proposed judicial review. In the meantime, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been consulting on its guidance, and higher education institutions are discussing the implications of the judgement.

Given that any further legal case will take some time to come to fruition, it is crucial that decisions being made around trans and non-binary people’s access to spaces within higher education are informed by good quality evidence.

This evidence – which comes from a wide range of international studies, as outlined below – shows clearly that trans and non-binary people face much higher risks in relation to sexual harassment and assault than cis people, both men and women. This fact is entirely missing in the consultation version of the guidance.

My response to the consultation has outlined these issues. But this point needs to be taken into account by all HEIs currently considering how to implement the Supreme Court judgement. This piece aims to give evidence and wording to help staff to do so.

Research context

Trans and non-binary people are much more likely than cis people, including cis women, to be subjected to sexual harassment and violence. This is a well-established fact, evidenced by national studies of 180,000 students in the US; 8000 students in Ireland; and 43,000 students in Australia, as well as studies focusing on staff-student sexual misconduct (p.277) or on specific disciplines; and studies across campuses and that compare different sexual and gender minority groups.

For example a survey of over 43000 students in Australia published in 2022 found that trans students were more than twice as likely as cis women to have been subjected to sexual violence in the past year, and also significantly more likely to be subjected to sexual harassment, as detailed in the figure below.

In addition, non-binary and trans people may often experience sexual harassment that intersects with harassment on the basis of their gender identity. For example, in a large national survey of sexual harassment and violence in Ireland with responses from 7901 students, 45% of non-binary students described being subjected to sexualised comments related to their gender identity.

Toilets have been identified as a particularly risky space for trans and non-binary children at school.

A recent US study analysed a survey of 3673 transgender and nonbinary US adolescents in grades 7 to 12. They found that – while trans and non-binary students were already more likely to experience sexual assault than cis students – this risk was increased by a large amount where they are not allowed to use toilets that match their self-identified gender (this included policies where trans and non-binary students had to use alternative facilities such as staff bathrooms).

Transgender boys and girls, as well as nonbinary students assigned female at birth, whose restroom and locker room use was restricted, were more likely to have experienced sexual assault in the past 12 months compared with those without restrictions and the largest increased risk (149%) was among transgender girls.

This study – with an unusually large sample of trans and non-binary students from across the US – shows the significantly heightened risk that trans and non-binary youth are subjected to sexual assault as a result of bathroom usage policies.

This is not a negligible amount of risk. The study’s focus on youth is particularly important – in the UK context, more than a third (35 per cent) of trans and non-binary people report having started transitioning by age 18 and two-thirds (67 per cent) by age 25. Therefore, schools and higher education institutions are a key site where trans and non-binary people’s safety needs to be considered.

These research findings are not currently reflected in the EHRC guidance, as outlined below.

How the EHRC guidance needs to change

At points in the current (consultation) version of the EHRC guidance, women’s “safety” is used as a justification for providing single-sex services for cis women only. For example, in point 13.3.4:

When considering the benefits of offering a separate or single-sex service, the service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should think about whether women’s safety, privacy and / or dignity would be at risk in the service if it was shared with men.

Considered in light of the evidence presented above, it is concerning that women’s safety is discussed but there is no mention of the safety of trans and non-binary people. Trans and non-binary people face the greatest risk to their safety and dignity (as sexual harassment is by definition a violation of dignity) if compared to the current practice where trans women use women-only facilities.

Trans and non-binary people’s safety is significantly more compromised by the use of single sex spaces than cis women’s. But the guidance is entirely silent on the risks that trans and non-binary people face if single-sex spaces are limited to cisgendered women and men respectively.

Similarly, section 13.5 discusses “relevant considerations when deciding whether the exclusion of trans people from a separate or single-sex service is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” but does not mention trans and non-binary people’s increased risk of sexual harassment and assault.

Throughout the guidance, where arguments are made about considering cis women’s safety or perceived safety in relation to single-sex services, the same arguments also need to be made – and indeed are heightened – in relation to trans and non-binary people. This means that HEIs, in considering provision of single-sex spaces, must also consider the ways in which trans and non-binary people’s risk of sexual assault and harassment is heightened when they are excluded from spaces that match their gender identity.

HEIs considering their provision of space could draw on the finding from the US study of trans and non-binary high school students, discussed above. This study found that offering alternative provision trans and non-binary students, for example whereby they would use the staff toilets (which are single toilets) instead of the student toilets, still correlated with increased risk of sexual assault for trans and non-binary students.

Harassment on the basis of gender reassignment

The other area that the EHRC guidance needs to consider more carefully is the risk of harassment on the basis of gender reassignment. In 13.5.6 the consultation version of the guidance discusses the circumstances that might be considered when making decisions on trans or non-binary people’s use of single sex spaces. The relevant text reads (trigger warning: transphobia):

13.5.6 A legitimate aim for excluding a trans person from a separate or single-sex service for their own biological sex might be to prevent alarm or distress for other service users. Whether it is reasonable to think that the presence in that service of the trans person will cause alarm or distress will depend on all the circumstances, including the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex. For this reason, a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should only consider doing this on a case-by-case basis. [my emphasis]

The suggestion that service providers should consider “the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex” as part of their consideration of circumstances on a case-by-case basis is highly problematic.

This suggestion seems to invite harassment on the basis of gender reassignment, i.e. service providers are invited to pass judgement on whether a trans person “passes” or not; as this judgement is being made on a case-by-case basis, the service providers are required to assess the gender presentation of a particular individual.

This is likely to have the effect of creating an intimating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment – i.e. harassment on the basis of gender reassignment – for the person being considered. Furthermore, judgements about how a person of any sex should “present” also puts other groups at risk such as butch cis women and femme cis men, and I could not find any mention of intersex people throughout the consultation.

Implications for higher education institutions

The high prevalence of sexual violence and harassment faced by trans and non-binary students is particularly relevant in light of the Office for Students’ new regulatory requirements for higher education institutions to address harassment and sexual misconduct.

Firstly, this regulation includes the requirement to address harassment on the basis of gender reassignment, so the example identified above would contravene the OfS requirements. Second, the regulatory requirements state that each provider will need to understand its student population and the extent to which its students may be likely to experience harassment or sexual misconduct in order to properly address these issues

As such, higher education institutions in England have obligations under the new regulations to ensure that any steps they take following the Supreme Court judgement take into account the heightened risk of sexual harassment and violence faced by trans and non-binary students (and indeed staff).

Next steps

In considering any steps in response to this judgement, HEIs would do well to consider this guide from Gendered Intelligence. Drawing on a legal opinion from the Good Law Project, they make a distinction between single sex spaces or services, i.e. those designated for a group of people (women or men) using the (new) Equality Act 2010 definition of sex; and single gender spaces or services designated for a group of people (women or men) that are trans inclusive. As they note:

…there is no automatic individual or collective right to ‘single sex’ provision or spaces’ under the Equality Act; this is only justifiable when it is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

HEIs also have obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) which aims to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations. This duty of course applies to all protected characteristics and therefore the evidence presented above of trans and non-binary people’s increased risk of sexual harassment and assault should be considered within PSED implementation. The fundamental point is that “a service for all women does not have to say that it is a single sex provision.”

It’s important to note that this opinion is likely to be significantly more progressive than those produced by HEIs’ own legal advisers, assuming the latter are primarily concerned with protecting the institution against legal risk. Nevertheless, this means there is a significant amount of space for activism; this judgement reveals how provision of single-sex or single-gender services is a political choice that depends in a large part on the relative power of different voices or groups in arguing their case.

However, for staff who are attempting to navigate this terrain via policy, a further crucial consideration is put forward by Gendered Intelligence:

a policy must be implementable and the very act of writing a policy and considering its implementation will establish that taking a trans exclusionary approach around single sex services and spaces will prove to be impossible in practice. Conversely, taking a trans inclusive approach is more practical and workable in reality.

This is because “there is no evidence or documentation that anyone can provide that proves definitively that they are cisgender. It would not only be pointless to try, but potentially highly intrusive and inappropriate”. It could be that the practicalities end up guiding policy implementation as much as the legal or political arguments.

Taken as a whole, the Supreme Court judgement, and the EHRC’s interpretation of it, risks making trans and non-binary people even more unsafe by revealing their identities when it may not be safe to do so, and by creating a climate where targeting them for abuse on the basis of their identities is more acceptable. As a result, the figures given above on the prevalence of sexual violence and harassment against trans and non-binary people are likely to grow even larger.

Source link

July 17, 2025
What SHAPE graduates do | Wonkhe

As debates continue about the value of degrees, and the role of universities in society and the future economy, understanding graduate outcomes is more important than ever.

Yet much of the current discussion – and policymaking – is shaped by narrow metrics, which over-focus on graduate earnings.

This approach overlooks many of the ways graduates contribute to society and distorts our understanding of the value of different subjects.

The right SHAPE

The British Academy represents SHAPE disciplines; social sciences, humanities and arts for people and the economy. SHAPE graduates develop crucial skills like critical thinking, creativity and problem solving. These skills help them contribute to tackling many of today’s most pressing challenges, from climate change to the ethical deployment of AI.

However, we wanted to know more. How do they use these skills? What do SHAPE graduates do after university? How can we best measure the full breadth of their contribution to the UK economy and society? And do we have the data to address these questions comprehensively?

To help provide answers, the British Academy has launched a new data-rich policy resource, Understanding SHAPE Graduates, which illustrates exactly how SHAPE graduates contribute to the UK economy and society. The toolkit consists of an interactive data dashboard, a series of key findings drawn from the data, and a policy briefing contextualising the measurement of graduate outcomes.

SHAPE graduates and the economy

The toolkit offers several myth-busting insights into SHAPE graduate activity, some of which we will outline here. Importantly, it challenges the narrative that SHAPE graduates have weak labour market prospects, showing that their employment rates are strong: 87 per cent of SHAPE graduates were in work in 2023, compared to 79 per cent of non-graduates with level 3 qualifications and 88 per cent of STEM graduates.

SHAPE graduates also earn significantly more than non-graduates, with an average real hourly wage of £21 in 2023 – £5 higher than the average for those with at least two A levels or equivalent. And you can increasingly find them working in the UK’s fastest growing sectors; between 2010 and 2022, the top three sectors by GVA growth – manufacturing; transport and communication; and professional, scientific and technical services – saw growing numbers of SHAPE graduates. These sectors are outlined in the Government’s Industrial Strategy green paper, and SHAPE graduates comprised 52.8 per cent of the graduate workforce in all of them combined in 2023, up from 45.8 per cent in 1997.

They are also well represented in the UK’s most productive regions. In 2023, SHAPE first-degree graduates accounted for 71 per cent per cent of the graduate workforce in London, 64 per cent in the North West and 58 per cent in the South East of England – the three regions with the highest GDP levels that year.

What the data doesn’t show

While the Academy’s policy toolkit marks a step forward, it also highlights the limitations of current graduate data. For example, while broad categories like SHAPE and STEM are useful, they can mask significant variations between disciplines.

The toolkit uses the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset. Most significantly, both LEO and LFS focus primarily on earnings and employment. This narrow lens misses non-financial aspects of graduate impact – such as contributions to public life, wellbeing, culture, and civic engagement – which are especially important in understanding the SHAPE disciplines.

Limitations in longitudinal graduate data also present specific challenges. Response rates to the LFS have declined in recent years, affecting its robustness, particularly for smaller cohorts like doctoral graduates. And the LEO dataset, which offers rich England-only data by tracking individuals from education into the labour market, has its own knowledge gaps. For example, LEO does not distinguish between full-time and part-time work, making it harder to interpret earnings data, especially for female graduates who are more likely to work part-time due to caregiving responsibilities. LEO also struggles to fully capture self-employed graduates, including freelancers in the creative industries and other sectors, due to its reliance on PAYE data.

Looking ahead, the HESA Graduate Outcomes Survey (which replaced the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey in 2018) offers promise. Over time, it will offer increasingly longitudinal insights to help us deepen our understanding, and it is encouraging to see that HESA is already exploring non-financial measures of graduate activity. We plan to incorporate these into future work.

Starting the conversation

The Understanding SHAPE Graduates toolkit shows that SHAPE graduates are vital to the UK economy. As we approach the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review and await the publication of its refreshed Industrial Strategy, we must remember that the UK’s future success depends on drawing talent from across all disciplines.

We want to continue exploring how we capture non-financial outcomes, to reflect the full value of a university education.

At the British Academy, we will continue to champion the diverse and vital contributions that SHAPE graduates make across society and the economy. We look forward to working with the sector to develop better data, better metrics, and better understanding.

You can see and use the data here.

Source link

June 9, 2025