Tag: spring

  • UK higher education in spring 2025: 10 ‘killer facts’

    UK higher education in spring 2025: 10 ‘killer facts’

    • This is the text of a speech delivered by Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, to the 16th Annual Student Housing Investment Conference.

    Good morning. It is wonderful to be here, even if the outlook for our sector does not feel quite as rosy as when I have appeared here in the past – and, given the new migration white paper from the Home Office, not as rosy as it felt just a few hours ago.

    The currency of policymaking is ‘killer facts’: those one-off striking statistics that act as ammunition for policymakers.

    • One example of a recent killer fact is the Office for Students’ announcement in November 2024 that ‘nearly three quarters (72 per cent) of higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26’ (1), which has certainly concentrated minds.
    • A second killer fact currently obsessing policymakers is 782,000 (2), which is the number for net inward migration to the UK in 2023 and which is driving the new crackdowns.

    In what is left of my 15 minutes, I want to focus on a few more killer facts.

    First, just in case you have not come across the organisation I lead before, the Higher Education Policy Institute or HEPI is the UK’s only specialist think tank for higher education and a registered charity. Our goal is to prompt evidence-based conversations about higher education policy through engagement, publications and events. We are funded by most universities throughout the UK and a limited number of corporations, including some of the bigger Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) providers, such as Unite Students, UPP and iQ, and we are very grateful for that support.

    The killer number I wish to provide about our own work is 10: that is how many new bits of research we have produced since 1 January 2025 (3). The reports we have covered include:

    We have also published 112 blogs since 1 January, covering the full range of higher education issues. The three most well-read pieces so far this year are:

    Conferences like this one are organised far in advance and the title I was given is ‘New Government Policy – what does it mean for the Sector?’ All I can say is: I wish I knew. I suspect the organisers thought we might have found out the answer to this question by now when they first scoped out the agenda late last year.

    But the fact is, aside from a letter from the Secretary of State for Education, the Rt Hon. Bridget Phillipson, to vice-chancellors from November last year, which chastised universities for not doing more on economic growth, access, teaching quality, efficiency and civic engagement, we are still waiting for a hint on what this Government’s legacy on higher education will be. So far, we have had more higher education policy from the Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government than we have from the Department for Education.

    I keep reading the administration is in its early days and needs time to find its feet, but it is now 10 months in. It took Tony Blair just two months after the 1997 election to announce the (re)introduction of tuition fees and it took the Coalition just six months after the 2010 election to announce the tripling of fees to £9,000.

    We have long ago missed the boat for making significant changes to fees and funding for 2025/26 and we will soon miss the boat for making changes for 2026/27, by which point we will be halfway through this Parliament.

    One of the reasons for the lack of clarity over government policy is that the shadow ministers who were responsible for the Labour Party’s approach to higher education and research in Opposition prior to the election did not end up in charge of those areas in government, so there was a new broom. This sort of sweeping out is now entirely normal. Which takes me to my next killer fact: in my 11 years leading HEPI, there have been 11 Ministers for Universities and 11 Secretaries of State for Education (4).

    The biggest challenge facing institutions currently is obviously the financial one. Since the brave decision to raise the full-time undergraduate fee cap to £9,000 from 2012, inflation has been eating away at the sum so it is now less than two-thirds of what it was, in real terms: according to Mark Corver of DataHE, the current fee cap of £9,250 is actually worth just £5,714 in 2012/13 terms (5). That is the same level as when John Major felt it necessary to set up the Dearing review, with the agreement of Tony Blair in Opposition.

    Mark Corver also points out in his recent fascinating LinkedIn post that an international student at a higher-tariff provider is now worth £69,000 (6) more to their university over the lifetime of a three-year course than a home student, as a result of the much higher international student fees. One possible response to that is to beat up on universities, as the Minister for Universities did earlier this week in a piece on the Telegraph website, for feathering their own nests. Another is to recognise that universities have not let their charitable status hold them back in becoming a vitally important UK export sector from which we all benefit – and also that it is our leading universities’ entrepreneurial spirit which has created the cross-subsidies that keep UK universities at the top of the international league tables, which ministers generally like to celebrate.

    And despite all the accusations and denials, we should be honest that university staff would have to be super human not to take those stark numbers into account when deciding how many of their places will be reserved for people from other countries and how many for home students.

    When I have spoken at this and similar events in the past, I have usually been optimistic on future student numbers. There are still some grounds for optimism in relation to both home and international students. For example, we have had decades of growth in UK higher education and the number of UK school leavers grows in each year of this decade.

    We used to predict that English universities alone would need another 350,000 places for home students by 2035 (7) – and many more still if the opportunity to reach higher education were spread more equally throughout society. However, we are more pessimistic now because, while demand for higher education went up during COVID, it has slipped back in recent times.

    In relation to international students, last week’s report from the Office for Students notes:

    ‘The reported non-UK student recruitment in 2023-24 was 15.5 per cent lower than last year’s forecast, largely because of a reduction in recruitment from January 2024 onwards [when the rules on dependants were tightened up]. This reduction is forecast to continue in 2024-25 with a small overall decrease in student numbers, meaning that entrant numbers are now projected to be 21 per cent lower than previous forecasts.’

    Yesterday’s migration white paper was accompanied by a Technical Annex, which estimated the policy changes the Government has proposed will reduce incoming international students by getting on for 40,000.

    In relation to home students, the Office for Students’ report notes:

    ‘In 2023-24, UK entrants were reported at broadly the same level as the previous year, but 10.8 per cent lower than forecast.’

    When it comes to the future, the OfS chastise regulated providers for being over-ambitious and model some alternative options, which suggest ‘providers would face significant financial challenges in all scenarios.’

    No one knows with complete certainty why demand is now so flat, but – when focusing in on home students – it seems to me the most likely causes are:

    1. First, the cost-of-living affecting students, whose maintenance packages have not kept up with anything like the true cost of being a student – my killer facts on this are that 57% of full-time undergraduates now do paid work during term time (8) (according to the 2024 HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey) and also that, according to our calculations, students need £18k per year to live with dignity (9), which is significantly above the maximum maintenance loan – this number was calculated for second and third-years in houses of multiple occupation, but I can announced today that we are now working on a second iteration of the Student Minimum Income Standard with Technology1 and the University of Loughborough looking at first-year students in PBSA.
    2. The second factor that I think is dampening demand is the negative rhetoric about higher education emanating from all sorts of places. In the last few days, we even have had two Labour MPs for northern seats say they are relaxed about the prospect of universities disappearing – one of them, Dan Carden, wrote in the Daily Mail that he ‘would close half our universities and turn them into vocational colleges.’ With friends like that, who needs enemies?

    Before I sit down, I want to make just one more point. I was asked in the rubric for today to mention degree apprenticeships. So let me say that there is a whole lot of nonsense talked about them, especially to young people. They are amazing when they work out, such as  when the apprentice knows exactly what profession they want to enter and to work in for the foreseeable future. I am proud to have a relative doing one. But despite all the promises, especially from the previous Government, degree apprenticeships barely exist for young people just out of school. Only 5% of Level 6 entrants are on degree apprenticeships (10) and the majority of them are 25 or over – just 13% were aged 18 in 2022/23. Moreover, many of those who do start a Level 6 apprenticeship do not complete the course. So for a conference like this one in 2025, degree apprenticeships remain something of a red herring.

    Source link

  • Creating Human-Centered Workplaces: Takeaways From CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    Creating Human-Centered Workplaces: Takeaways From CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    by Christy Williams | May 7, 2025

    At the 2025 CUPA-HR Spring Conference in Seattle, our keynote speakers shared their insights into the future of the higher ed workplace. They encouraged HR practitioners to step boldly into brave leadership, to investigate neuroscience’s insights into human behavior, to embrace advances in artificial intelligence, and to use data to enhance the employee experience.

    But the key message was that innovation should be people-centered and align with HR’s fundamental goal: creating workplaces where people feel safe, valued and free to thrive.

    The Brain Needs to Belong 

    The brain is a social organ, Dr. Jessica Sharp stressed in her opening keynote. Whether or not we’re conscious of it, we’re always searching for connection and belonging — for psychological safety.

    “Our brains need affirmation that we belong. Without it, we don’t feel safe,” Dr. Sharp said.

    Because our brains interpret emotional threats in the same way as physical threats, feeling unsafe at work can provoke a similar feeling to walking alone in a dark parking garage or seeing a snake on a hiking trail. But when we feel a sense of psychological safety and social belonging, our brains shift into connected mode. When we feel safe, we’re more likely to collaborate with our team, be less resistant to change and feel creative.

    Dr. Sharp invited higher ed HR to step into the future of work through neuroleadership. Neuroleadership is a model of talent management that understands the connection between the brain’s inner workings and people’s best work.

    Takeaway: The brain can’t be inspired when it’s in survival mode. Prioritize safety and belonging to encourage creativity.

    Further reading: Explore more ways to strengthen resilience and enhance psychological safety.

    AI Is Your Time-Saving HR Assistant

    AI is the future of work, said Jennifer Parker, the assistant director of HR operations at Colorado Community College System. While this may sound intimidating, it’s important to know that AI won’t replace you, but rather free up time and mental energy so that you can focus on strategy and long-term projects.

    Here’s how Parker uses AI to simplify routine HR tasks:

    • As a brainstorming partner. For example, you can say to AI, “help me write my leadership statement.” Provide context about your career to enhance the responses.
    • To write or revise emails. Parker’s communication mode tends to be folksy, so she has ChatGPT rewrite her emails to be more formal in tone.
    • As a software coach. Ask AI to give you step-by-step directions on creating an Excel formula.
    • To develop presentations, trainings and professional development sessions. ChatGPT helped Parker write microsessions for an online civility campaign, create slide decks and a video explaining benefits to employees.
    • As an employee engagement assistant. Tell AI the dynamics of your culture and ask how you can help foster a healthy workplace.
    • As an event planner. Ask AI to create a training calendar or other complex timeline. For events like open enrollment, ask it for an invitation to the health fair or to craft an inspiring message to remind employees to review their benefits.

    AI can also summarize complex information, break down survey results, act as a career coach or problem solver, offer advice, and more. Get creative! But always review what AI generates for accuracy, and make it your own.

    Takeaway: AI can simplify HR’s daily tasks and free up time for strategic thinking.

    Further reading: Read this step-by-step guide to learn how Parker used ChatGPT as her assistant in creating a virtual civility training program.

    Benchmark Your Employee Experience Using CUPA-HR’s Data 

    What does it take to attract top talent to higher ed? CUPA-HR’s new survey — the Benefits, Employee Experience, and Structure Survey — gives higher ed a snapshot of what it takes to be an employer of choice in a competitive employment landscape, explained Melissa Fuesting, associate director of research at CUPA-HR.

    Using the BEES Survey, colleges and universities can benchmark traditional benefits. And now, for the first time, explore data on:

    • Flexible work
    • Professional development
    • Campus and community engagement
    • Hiring metrics
    • Performance reviews
    • Institutional structure (such as where HR is housed)
    • Policies

    The BEES survey also allows you to take a deep dive on these topics. For example, when it comes to flexible work, you can find answers to questions such as: Which employees have the ability to work flexible schedules or flexible hours? Who determines the policies around hybrid and remote work? Which employee groups can be hybrid or remote?

    Takeaway: To enhance your employee value proposition, benchmark your benefits and employee experience using data from CUPA-HR’s new BEES Survey with DataOnDemand.

    Further reading: For more on attracting and retaining talent, check out the results of the 2023 Employee Retention Survey and stay tuned for the results of the 2025 survey coming this fall.

    “Who We Are Is How We Lead” 

    Cheryl Cofield closed this year’s spring conference with a compelling message: “Who we are is how we lead.” In her powerful keynote, Cofield challenged higher ed HR professionals to examine the leadership armor we wear — the protective behaviors that keep us from leaning into vulnerability and courage. Instead of avoiding difficult conversations or striving for unattainable perfection, brave leaders must be willing to get uncomfortable, speak honestly and model the values they profess.

    Drawing from Brené Brown’s research, Cofield identified four key skill sets that support courageous leadership: vulnerability, values, trust and learning. She described how emotional armor — such as perfectionism, detachment, or a need to always be right — gets in the way of connection, inclusion and growth.

    Through self-reflection and practical tools like emotional literacy, empathy and curiosity-based conversation cues, Cofield encouraged attendees to identify their own “call to courage.” She reminded us that courage in leadership is not only a personal practice but a collective force. When one person shows up bravely, others are more likely to do the same.

    Takeaway: Courage is contagious. When leaders remove their armor and lead with vulnerability, they create more inclusive, trusting and human-centered workplaces.

    Further reading: Learn why leadership development is essential in higher ed and how it strengthens engagement, inclusion and institutional resilience.



    Source link

  • Beware Illusions of Campus Normalcy This Spring (opinion)

    Beware Illusions of Campus Normalcy This Spring (opinion)

    It’s nearing the end of the academic year at Harvard University, where I teach in the Graduate School of Education. Students are preparing for final exams and finishing up capstone projects. Awards ceremonies are being held and celebrations, formal and informal, have begun. The weather has finally warmed up in Cambridge, and the outdoor tables at restaurants and coffee shops are crowded. The women’s tennis team clinched the Ivy League title.

    It all feels normal. Yet it all feels discordant, like a scene in a M. Night Shyamalan movie that infuses the quotidian with a barely detectable feeling of dread.

    This discordance is of course especially powerful at Harvard, the current epicenter of a ferocious and lawless attack on higher education that might make Viktor Orbán blush. But it is not unique to Harvard. At colleges and universities across the country, classes continue, clubs meet and Frisbees are being tossed even as the government sows fear and confusion by revoking, then restoring, then warning that it might again revoke the visa statuses of more than 1,800 international students.

    Lawyers continue to do what lawyers do, while large firms are essentially signing on to be instruments of the government, individuals are being targeted because the president of the United States holds a grudge, bigly, and court orders are being ignored.

    Doctors continue to treat patients while billions of dollars of funding for medical research and experimental trials are being withheld and the secretary of Health and Human Services is declaring that autism is preventable and the measles vaccine is maybe, sort of OK.

    We get in our cars or on our bicycles and go off to work while the government is pressing before the courts an argument that would allow it to send anyone, citizen or noncitizen, to a foreign prison without cause or legal recourse.

    When many of us think about authoritarian takeovers, we imagine military coups and declarations of martial law. But the truth is that the most powerful tool of the aspiring authoritarian is not shock, but normalcy. How bad can things be if we can still shop at Costco or take our families out for Italian food? How bad can they be if we can still download Maya Angelou onto our Kindles or watch Jimmy Kimmel Live!? How bad can they be if I can still publish a piece like this one, critical of the federal government?

    Look around not only at the campuses, but at the streets and bars and hardware stores in any city or town in America and it appears to be the same as it was last year and the year before. The NBA playoffs have begun and there’s a new film starring Michael B. Jordan. Normal.

    Except it is not, in ways of which we are vaguely aware but unable or unwilling to fully credit.

    For most people—the ones not scooped off the street by men in masks or ousted from their jobs with the federal government without cause or forced to stop their research because of the loss of National Institutes of Health funding—life feels more or less the way it did when we were a reasonably functional democracy. This is the way it works: Keep 99 percent of the lives of 99 percent of the people undisturbed for as long as possible so that they will remain unaware of or indifferent to what is happening at the margins. By the time they recognize that the edges of normalcy have drawn closer, it will be too late to do anything about it because the guardrails will have been destroyed.

    Begin with the least sympathetic targets. Who will shed tears for the fate of Venezuelan gang members (real or imagined)? Does anyone really like Big Law? Government employees are the problem, not the solution. Harvard, with its giant endowment and Ivy League arrogance, is rarely anyone’s idea of an underdog. Why should we concern ourselves with any of this on the way to McDonald’s or Starbucks? I work at Harvard and most of the time I find it difficult to take seriously the reality that the federal government is trying to destroy a private university simply to prove that it can and because its appetite for both control and chaos appears to have no limits.

    Be sure to cite rules and regulations that few people care to understand. What is 501(c)(3) status anyway? “Indirect costs” seem sort of like a scam. The “Alien Enemies Act” sounds like something pulled from the latest Marvel movie. Then cloak it all in the guise of causes to which it seems difficult to object—fighting antisemitism, because Donald Trump and the party of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the Proud Boys are the first things that come to mind when one thinks about protecting Jews. Or perhaps national security, given the threat to the republic posed by international students co-authoring op-eds for the campus newspaper.

    Above all, lie. Constantly, relentlessly, shamelessly lie. Since most people don’t spend a majority of their time lying about a majority of things, they appear to find it difficult to recognize when other people do. It’s hard to question a time-tested strategy.

    The fight against our current level of inertia is painfully difficult because the allure of the normal, the desire to believe that things are just fine, is so powerful. A tank in the street is hard to ignore. A steady eroding of legal and ethical norms just beyond the limits of our daily vision is easy to miss.

    Our greatest hope might be the tendency of authoritarians and those without any moral compass to overreach. If they can change life by 1 percent without much resistance, why not five or 10 or 20? If they can, through executive actions, free hundreds of convicted felons and strip away environmental protections, why not impose arbitrary and irrational tariffs? What made the reaction to tariffs different and what has, at least for the moment, slowed their progress is the fact that they tore a hole in the illusion of normalcy. Plummeting retirement accounts and worries about the cost of groceries will disrupt the normal in a way that canceling student visas or defunding Harvard will not. It was a mistake, and they will, out of arrogance and stupidity, make more.

    The set of demands sent to Harvard, for instance, which Harvard refused to comply with, resulting in headlines around the globe, was apparently sent in error. You could make that up, but no one would believe you.

    Meanwhile, I wonder whether we can afford to wait. Is it sufficient to hope that they will make things abnormal enough for a large enough group of people to provoke resistance, or do we have to do the difficult work of wrenching ourselves, somehow, out of the reassuring comforts of familiar routines? David Brooks, hardly a radical, has called for a “comprehensive national civic uprising” to counter the war being waged on our national civic fabric. Do people, organizations and institutions in the United States, so certain for so long about the permanence of its democracy, even have the energy or the will? Can that happen here or is it something that happens in Seoul or Istanbul and is shown on CNN?

    Meanwhile, I have laundry to do and a class to teach this week. Maybe I’ll catch something on Netflix. Pretty normal stuff.

    Brian Rosenberg is president emeritus of Macalester College, a visiting professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education and author of Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change in Higher Education (Harvard Education Press, 2023).

    Source link

  • Spring 2025 Inclusive Growth and Racial Equity Thought Leadership Lecture Series (Howard University)

    Spring 2025 Inclusive Growth and Racial Equity Thought Leadership Lecture Series (Howard University)

    Scheduled for Feb 20, 2025. The Spring 2024 Inclusive Growth and Racial Equity Thought Leadership Lecture Series will feature a fireside chat with Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities, Professor of History, Director of the BU Center for Antiracist Research, and National Book Award-winning Author.

     


     

     

    Source link

  • Tennessee State University could run out of cash this spring without help

    Tennessee State University could run out of cash this spring without help

    Dive Brief:

    • Tennessee State University is looking for help from state lawmakers as it tries both to stay afloat and to revamp its operations and finances for the long term.
    • The public historically Black institution is on pace to run out of cash by April or May, Interim President Dwayne Tucker said Tuesday at a meeting hosted by Black Caucus members in the state Legislature. 
    • TSU intends to present a five-year turnaround plan to the Legislature. Operations through the first year of the plan could be financed by removing restrictions on roughly $150 million out of $250 million the state previously set aside for university infrastructure, Tucker noted.

    Dive Insight:

    TSU’s financial troubles are steep and immediate. An FAQ page on the university’s website acknowledges that the financial condition has reached crisis levels stemming from missed enrollment targets and operating deficits. This fall, the university posted a projected deficit of $46 million by the end of the fiscal year. 

    The university identified inefficient processes in financial aid, advising and enrollment systems, that contributed to its woes. It also said those problems were exacerbated by 2024’s messy federal rollout of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. 

    Additionally, and perhaps most damaging, the university launched a full scholarship program for some students without a plan to fund it throughout students’ journey to graduation. It paid $37 million toward the scholarship in fiscal 2022 using federal pandemic emergency funds. When that money ran dry, TSU had to issue tens of millions of dollars in institutional financial aid, causing it to heavily discount its tuition. 

    The scholarship helped attract students, with fall enrollment hitting 8,198 students in 2023, compared to 7,774 in 2018. But the university couldn’t ultimately afford to maintain those aid levels.

    Taking aim at the university’s management, Tennessee lawmakers last March passed a Republican-led bill to replace all of the university’s trustees and restructure its board, over the objection of Democrats. 

    Emergency state funding last fall kept the institution operating, but Tucker said TSU will need more to not just turn around — but to stay open. 

    “It’s a fact that we can’t pay our bills,” Tucker said, noting also that the university would likely not be open today without state help. 

    But Tennessee also owes TSU money, according to a federal assessment. 

    In a letter to Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee in 2023, then-U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the institution had been hurt by “longstanding and ongoing underinvestment” as a public land-grant HBCU. By their estimate, inequitable funding gaps led Tennessee State to miss out on $2.1 billion over 30 years. 

    Tucker dismissed the idea of suing the state for the $2.1 billion, arguing that the legal process could take years — while the university’s financial needs are immediate. Legal action could also potentially anger the legislators whose support TSU needs to help provide funding. Moreover, the institution could lose a legal challenge, he added. 

    Tucker — the university’s second interim president in less than a year — argued for focusing instead on the state funding gap identified by the Legislature in 2021. That gap amounts to over $540 million. 

    Since identifying the amount, Tennessee lawmakers lined up a one-time $250 million sum for the university to invest in infrastructure. Tucker said the university could use a portion of those funds to keep it afloat through the first year of a five-year plan. 

    Along with state help, TSU and its board are considering financial exigency, a restructuring process that allows an institution experiencing budgetary distress to lay off tenured faculty and shut down academic programs. 

    In a special meeting of TSU’s board on Jan. 31, a consultant with the National Association of College and University Business Officers presented a detailed workshop on how exigency works.

    Tucker said Tuesday that officials were considering exigency but that it wasn’t in the university’s immediate plans. 

    Source link

  • HESA Spring 2025: staff | Wonkhe

    HESA Spring 2025: staff | Wonkhe

    HESA Spring 2025 kicks off in earnest with a full release of the staff data for 2023-24.

    Unlike in previous years, there’s been no early release of the headlines – the statistics release (which provides an overview at sector level) and the full data release (which offers detail at provider level) have both turned up on the same day.

    Staff data has, in previous years, generally been less volatile than student data. Whereas recruitment can and does lurch alarmingly around based on strategic priorities, government vacillation about student visas, and the vagaries of the student market – staff employment tends to be something with a merciful degree of permanency. Even if it isn’t the same staff working under the same terms and conditions, it does tend to need broadly the same number of people.

    With the increasing financial pressures felt by universities you would expect 2023-24 to be a deviation from this norm.

    Starters and leavers

    We’ll start by looking at the numbers of starters and leavers from each provider. This chart shows the change in academic staff numbers year on year between your chosen year and the year before (as the thick bars) and the total number of full and part time staff in the year of your choice (as the thin bars). Over on the other side of the visualisation under the controls you can see total staff numbers, broken down into full and part time as a time series – mouse over a provider on the main chart to change the provider focus here. You can filter by year, and (for the main chart) mode of employment.

    [Full screen]

    What’s apparent is that across quite a lot of the sector academic staff numbers didn’t change that much. There were some outliers at both end – Coventry University had 585 less academic staff in 2023-24 than 2022-23, while Cardiff University has 565 more (yes, the same Cardiff University that confirmed plans for 400 full time redundancies yesterday).

    If you’ve been following sector news this may surprise you – last year saw many providers announce voluntary or compulsory redundancies. The Queen Mary University of London UCU branch has been tracking these announcements over time.

    Schemes like this take time for a university to run – there is a mandatory consultation period, followed (hopefully) by some finessing of the scheme and then negotiations with individual staff members. It is not a way to make a quick, in year, saving. Oftentimes the original announcement is of a far higher number of staff redundancies than actually end up happening.

    Subject level

    If you work in a university or other higher education provider, you’ll know that stuff like this very often happens across particular departments and faculties rather than the whole university. I can’t offer you faculty level from public data, but there is data available by cost centre.

    [Full screen]

    Cost centres are usually used in financial data, and do not cleanly map to visible structures within universities. Here you can select a provider and choose between cost centre groups and cost centres as two levels of detail. I’ve added an option to select contract type – in the main I suggest you leave this as academic (excluding atypical).

    Zero hours

    I’m sure I say this every year, but not all providers return data for non-academic staff (in England they are not required to), and an “atypical” contract usually refers to a very short period of work (a single guest lecture or suchlike). There is a pervasive myth that these are “zero hours” contracts – even though HESA publishes data on these separately:

    Here’s a chart showing the terms of employment and pay arrangements related to zero hours contracts for 2023-24. You can see the majority of these are academic in nature, with a roughly even split between fixed term and open-ended terms. The majority (around 4,075) are paid by the hour.

    [Full screen]

    This represents a small year-on-year growth in the use of this kind of contract – in 2022-23, there were 3,915 academic staff on a zero hour contract

    Subject, age, and pay

    I often wonder about the conditions of academic staff across subject areas, and how this pertains to the age of the academics involved and how much they are paid. This visualisation allows use to view age against salary (relating to groups of spine points on the standard New JNCHES pay scale used in most larger providers).

    [Full screen]

    As you’d expect, overall there is a positive correlation between age and salary – if you are an older academic you are likely to be paid more. This is particularly pronounced in design, creative, and performing arts: where staff are likely to be older and better paid on average. Compare the physical sciences, where more staff are younger and spine points are lower.

    This chart allows you to select a cost centre (either a group or individual cost centre), and filter by academic employment function (teaching, research, both…) and contract level (senior academics and professors, others…). There’s a range of years on offer as well.

    Ethnicity

    The main news stories that tend to come out of this release relate to academic staff characteristics, and specifically the low number of Black professors. There is some positive movement on that front this year, though the sector at that level is in no way representative of staff as a whole, the student body, or wider society.

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • Roundup of select spring university press titles (opinion)

    Roundup of select spring university press titles (opinion)

    Johns Hopkins University Press/MIT Press/University Press of Kentucky/Duke University Press/Princeton University Press/University of Minnesota Press/University of California Press

    More catalogs from university presses started arriving almost immediately after the last roundup of spring titles appeared—and in going through them, a couple of topical clusters of books struck me as notable. Here is a quick overview. Quoted passages come from material provided by the publishers.

    What do ant colonies, online subcultures, the publishing industry and the device you are using to read this all have in common? Each is, in some sense, a network embedded in still wider networks. They, like myriad other phenomena, can be depicted in geometric diagrams in which the components of a system (“vertices”) are connected by lines (“edges”) representing interactions or relationships.

    Researchers across many disciplines understand how systems and processes can be conceptualized as networks. The lay public, on the whole, does not. Anthony Bonato’s Dots and Lines: Hidden Networks in Social Media, AI, and Nature (Hopkins University Press, May) aims to bring nonspecialist readers up to speed on elements of the network perspective. Everything from “Bitcoin transactions to neural connections” and “political landscapes to climate patterns” can be mapped via dots and lines. The author’s use of demotic labels seems well-advised, given that “Vertices and Edges” seems much less commercially viable as a title.

    Some networks make it a priority to remain diagrammable, of course. Isak Ladegaard’s Open Secrecy: How Technology Empowers the Digital Underworld (University of California Press, May) looks into the “military-grade encryption, rerouting software, and cryptocurrencies” enabling “shadowy groups to organize collective action.” Examples include dark-web markets for illegal drugs, the activities of online hate groups and the efforts of Chinese citizens to remain connected to parts of the internet blocked by the Great Firewall. In each case, those running stealth networks “move through cyberspace like digital nomads, often with law enforcement and other powerful actors on their tails.”

    Leif Weatherby’s Language Machines: Cultural AI and the End of Remainder Humanism (University of Minnesota Press, June) offers “a new theory of meaning in language and computation” applicable to the production of texts by artificial intelligence based on large language models.

    Generative AI “does not simulate cognition, as widely believed,” he argues, “but rather creates culture” instead of just shuffling together fragments of it. (This is perhaps as good an occasion as any to issue my prediction that 2025 will see the first best-selling novel written by an AI algorithm.)

    On an altogether more dire note, Daniel Oberhaus’s The Silicon Shrink: How Artificial Intelligence Made the World an Asylum (MIT Press, February) warns that the use of AI in psychiatry has shown “vanishingly little evidence” of improving patient outcomes. The problem is not one of engineering but of programming: The algorithms incorporate “deeply flawed psychiatric models of mental disorder at unprecedented scale,” posing “significant risks to vulnerable people.”

    In old-school psychodynamic therapy, what’s said during the consultation does not leave the room. The author warns that a “psychiatric surveillance economy” is emerging, one “in which the emotions, behavior, and cognition of everyday people are subtly manipulated by psychologically savvy algorithms.”

    Doubling down on a strictly defined and vigilantly enforced understanding of sex and gender as binary is high on the MAGA cultural agenda. A few books out this spring insist on the ambiguities and complexities, even so.

    Agustín Fuentes offers perhaps the most basic challenge to traditional assumptions with Sex Is a Spectrum: The Biological Limits of the Binary (Princeton University Press, May). Arguing on the basis of recent scientific research, the book “explain[s] why the binary view of the sexes is fundamentally flawed,” with “compelling evidence from the fossil and archaeological record that attests to the diversity of our ancestors’ sexual bonds, gender roles, and family and community structures.”

    The ability to survive and thrive in unwelcoming circumstances is a focus of the writings collected in To Belong Here: A New Generation of Queer, Trans, and Two-Spirit Appalachian Writers (University Press of Kentucky, April), edited by Rae Garringer. The term “two-spirit” refers to a nonbinary gender category recognized among some Indigenous peoples in North America. Contributors discuss “themes of erasure, environmentalism, violence, kinship, racism, Indigeneity, queer love, and trans liberation” in Appalachia, exploring “the writers’ resilience in reconciling their complex and often contradictory connections to home.”

    Transgender philosophy is covered at some length in an entry recently added to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Talia Mae Bettcher, whose work figures prominently in the entry’s bibliography, continues her work in the field with Beyond Personhood (University of Minnesota Press, March), presenting “a theory of intimacy and distance” that proposes “an entirely new philosophical approach to trans experience, trans oppression, gender dysphoria, and the relationship between gender and identity.”

    Engineering and programming enter transgender studies’ already interdisciplinary ambit with Oliver L. Haimson’s Trans Technologies (MIT Press, February), which draws on the author’s “in-depth interviews with more than 100 creators of technology” for trans people, showing “how trans people often must rely on community, technology, and the combination of the two to meet their basic needs and challenges.” From the book’s description and the author’s published articles, it seems that the technology in question tends to be digital: social networks, games, extended reality systems (akin to virtual reality but with additional capacities). The book also considers the factors shaping, and in some cases restricting, innovation in trans tech.

    To close this list, there’s The Dream of a Common Movement (Duke University Press, April), a collection of writings by and interviews with Urvashi Vaid (1958–2022) edited by Jyotsna Vaid and Amy Hoffman. Urvashi Vaid was a feminist and a civil rights advocate whose work “over the course of four decades fundamentally shaped the LGBTQ movement.” Her perspective that “the goal of any liberation movement should be transformation, not assimilation” seems compatible with an older principle, which holds that an injury to one is an injury to all.

    Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.

    Source link

  • Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 11, 2024

    On July 5, the Biden administration released the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Action (Regulatory Agenda), providing insights on regulatory and deregulatory activity under development across more than 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. The Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the first of two that will be released during the calendar year, and it sets target dates for regulatory actions in the coming months.

    CUPA-HR’s government relations team reviews each Regulatory Agenda that is released and has put together the following list of noteworthy regulations included in the current edition.

    Department of Education

    Office for Civil Rights – Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnicity in Response to EO 13899 on Combating Anti-Semitism and EO 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is targeting December 2024 for the release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OCR’s enforcement responsibilities for cases involving discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR is issuing this NPRM in response to a 2019 Trump Executive Order (EO) and a 2021 Biden EO.

    The NPRM has become a higher priority for OCR, given the recent political activity on campus related to the war in Gaza and related scrutiny from Congressional Republicans of higher education’s response to protests on campus. In the Regulatory Agenda announcement, OCR explains the need for this rulemaking by stating that they have “received complaints of harassment and assaults directed at Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other students based on their shared ancestry or ethnicity.”

    Office for Civil Rights – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Biden administration has pushed its final rule on transgender students’ participation in athletic programs to its “long-term actions,” with an undetermined date for when the final rule will be published. In the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda, the final rule was previously targeted for March 2024.

    OCR released an NPRM on this topic in April 2023. Under the NPRM, schools that receive federal funding would not be permitted to adopt or apply a one-size-fits-all ban on transgender students participating on teams consistent with their gender identity. Instead, the proposal allows schools the flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serves important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The department further explained that the eligibility criteria must take into account the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level of students participating, and the criteria would have to minimize harm to students whose opportunity to participate on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

    The move to push the final rule to “long-term actions” with an undetermined publication date is likely a result of recent challenges to the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule and the upcoming election. Shortly after the Title IX rule was published, over two dozen states joined lawsuits challenging the regulations, with many citing the inclusion of protections for gender identity and sexual orientation as top concerns with the final rule. Since then, the Title IX final rule has been blocked from going into effect on August 1 in 14 states.

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

    Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

    In December 2024, the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) anticipate releasing a final rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) on pay equity and transparency in federal contracting.

    The joint agencies published a pay equity and transparency NPRM in January 2024. In the NPRM, the agencies propose to amend the FAR to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”), and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose on job announcements the compensation to be offered (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    As part of its justification for publishing the NPRM, the proposal noted that 21 states, 22 localities, and Washington, D.C., have put bans into place that prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary, and 10 states have pay transparency laws in place, with several other states working toward implementing such laws.

    Department of Homeland Security

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) anticipates releasing at least one more final rule to modernize the H-1B and F-1 visa programs in December 2024.

    In October 2023, USCIS issued an NPRM to simplify the application process for H-1B visas, increase the program’s efficiency, and strengthen the program’s integrity measures. In February 2024, USCIS issued a final rule to implement a new beneficiary-centric selection process for H-1B registrations, but it did not finalize all of the provisions that were originally included in the NPRM. When publishing the February 2024 final rule, DHS indicated that it planned to publish a separate final rule to address the remaining aspects from October’s proposed rule. The separate final action listed in the Spring Regulatory Agenda will likely be the remainder of the provisions from the NPRM.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates to these regulations and additional policies as they are introduced.



    Source link

  • My Aha Moments From the Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    My Aha Moments From the Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 8, 2024

    This blog post was contributed by Jennifer Addleman, director of human resources at Rollins College and 2024-25 chair-elect for the CUPA-HR Southern Region board.

    Spring had sprung in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the CUPA-HR Spring Conference, where more than 400 higher ed HR pros had the opportunity to connect with and learn from some of the brightest HR leaders in higher education. From three dynamic keynotes to 29 interactive concurrent sessions, the conference provided a platform to engage in meaningful discussions, network with peers and gain valuable knowledge to help navigate the dynamic profession of higher ed HR.

    The conference was full of aha moments, and here are some of my key takeaways:

    • Kris McGuigan, founder and principal owner of Professional Courage, kicked off the conference by sharing tips on leading with purpose and confidence. During her keynote, we had the opportunity to reflect on our own personal values and how they align with change, and reviewed the principle of A.C.E.: acknowledge change, connect to change and embrace failure. Reminding us that there is no perfect time to start, Kris stressed that not changing is still choosing.
    • During the first concurrent session, Washington State University’s Paul Fleming McCullagh and Laura Hamilton shared how they created a professional development program for all employees. “If you can dream it, do it!”
    • Kevin McClure, Murphy distinguished scholar of education and associate professor of higher education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, gave a thought-provoking keynote on creating the “caring university.” He warned against toxic positivity and emphasized that creating a culture of care is a shared responsibility of the entire institution, and we reviewed the U.S. Surgeon General’s framework for mental well-being in the workplace. Kevin also suggested that institutions should humanize policies for real people and not ideal worker norms.
    • The affinity group lunch provided an opportunity for folks to connect with HR professionals who have similar interests and skills. I met HRIS colleagues who shared their challenges and best practices with systems. Data, data, data!
    • Andy Brantley (president and CEO of CUPA-HR), Jazzmine Clarke-Glover (vice president of workplace culture and inclusion at Wagner College), and Helena Rodrigues (senior vice president and chief human resources officer at the University of Arizona) led a roundtable discussion regarding HR’s role in creating inclusive campus communities. How do we reinforce our institutional values by ensuring all employees feel connected and supported? Some comments shared by the group included focusing on outcomes, making your institution a great place to work for everyone, fostering a safe space for challenging conversations, encouraging employees to build relationships, and developing inclusive policies.
    • We had the opportunity to network, connect and sing karaoke at the Punch Bowl Social reception, where I learned that we have some talented singers among our profession!
    • Keynote speaker Amy Wrzesniewski, William and Jacalyn Egan Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, shared her research findings on job crafting and what makes our work meaningful. We were able to take a quiz to determine our career, calling, and job scores and how they impact our job satisfaction. Amy also shared that job crafting is an employee-driven activity but should be supported by managers. I left the session reflecting on the question, how I do I make the job my own?
    • John Whelan, vice president and CHRO at Yale University, and Michael Rask of Aon described the importance of a strategic plan for HR and how it’s like the sails on the organizational sailboat. They warned against committing to things we can’t deliver and shared that folks appreciate change when it is for them and through them, not to them.
    • This was my first time visiting Minneapolis, and I was pleasantly surprised by the art, culture and walkability. Thank you for the hospitality!
    • CUPA-HR continues to provide invaluable resources and conference experiences where everyone is willing to help each other and share their expertise. I feel energized catching up with friends I have come to know over the years and meeting new colleagues who share passion for what we do. Thank you to the CUPA-HR team, sponsors and presenters for a great event.
    • Finally, Andy Brantley summed up the Spring Conference well: “Your work matters. You matter more.”



    Source link

  • Living Our Values: Courage, Care and Calling at CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    Living Our Values: Courage, Care and Calling at CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | May 2, 2024

    “Wherever we go, we are CUPA-HR.” That’s what CUPA-HR President Andy Brantley reminded members at the recent Spring Conference in Minneapolis. Though institutions differ in mission and scope and despite daily crises that threaten to divert attention from long-term goals, CUPA-HR members live their values every day.

    The keynote speakers struck a similar theme, encouraging attendees to align their internal values with work, tapping into courage, care and a sense of calling.

    The Courage to Embrace Failure

    In her opening keynote, Kris McGuigan, an author, executive coach and corporate trainer, emphasized the power of authenticity in helping to overcome fear. At some point in our lives, we have all allowed our fears — including of failure, inadequacy and uncertainty — to dictate our future. “How often do we identify that a path is not serving us, but we stay the course, we cling to the status quo?” But clinging to the status quo out of fear can lead to apathy and disengagement. This lack of motivation and confidence can be tied to the engagement crisis at work.

    Facing Down Fear of Failure

    McGuigan believes courageously embracing failure can help move employees past apathy and disengagement. One way to start embracing failure is by taking a cue from tech. In their relentless testing and pushing out new releases, tech adopts a model of “perpetual beta.” This allows for constant innovation, with failure built into the model. If something doesn’t work, it’s scrapped and fixed — think of your smart phone’s frequent software updates. McGuigan asked, how can higher ed leaders bring this model of embracing failure to their teams?

    Takeaway: Having the courage to embrace failure can increase engagement and satisfaction and decrease apathy and disengagement.

    Creating a Caring Campus

    In his keynote, Dr. Kevin R. McClure, Murphy distinguished scholar of education and associate professor of higher education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, drew from his forthcoming book, The Caring University, for which he interviewed staff, faculty and administrators. What he found will likely sound familiar. Higher ed employees were working tirelessly and generously, and frequently sacrificed their physical and mental health for their jobs. Consistent with CUPA-HR’s findings, McClure cited higher ed employees’ primary concerns as overwork, inadequate compensation, lack of recognition for their contributions, and lack of career pathways, among others.

    The Work “Just Kept Coming”

    McClure interviewed one higher ed staff member who said the work “just kept coming.” Her campus leaders talked about care, but there was no structural change to her workload, so she started looking for a new job. Many of his interviewees felt they were required to be superhuman — a worker without a body or personal life — who “exists only for the job.”

    Structural changes are needed in policies and procedures, he emphasized. What happens when practices like service awards and merit pay reward only ideal workers and not real people, or when leave policies don’t account for people’s caregiving or health needs? Employees will disengage and look for jobs elsewhere. HR has a crucial role to play in transforming the workforce, he says, and institutions need to empower HR as experts.

    Takeaway: Structural change is urgently needed to transform higher education into a workplace that values the well-being of its employees.

    Living your Calling Through Job Crafting

    In the closing keynote, Dr. Amy Wrzesniewski shared insights into what makes work meaningful for the individual. In her research, Wrzesniewski, who is William and Jacalyn Egan professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, identifies three main ways people understand their work: as a job, career or calling.

    Out of these, it is people who see their work as a calling who are more satisfied with the work and with their lives, tending to be absent less and engaged more. So how do people come to treat their work as a calling? That’s where “job crafting” comes in.

    Finding Purpose in Work

    Wrzesniewski interviewed members of a cleaning crew in a university hospital. This work is often stigmatized as non-meaningful, but employees who found a calling in the work were engaged in job crafting, often doing a different job than their job description, while still completing their required duties. For example, one cleaning crew member said that she tailored the cleaning schedule around patients who might be sensitive to the smell of cleaning chemicals. She made a tangible difference in the lives of others, even though she risked getting written up for doing so.

    Wrzesniewski argues job crafting has several benefits. It can increase satisfaction and commitment to the job, intensify happiness at work, boost job mobility, and even maintain or increase performance.

    Takeaway: Job crafting — the practice of living out your values by making work your own — can help make a work a calling, not just a job.



    Source link