Tag: Student

  • A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    Authored by Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.

    The loss of a student to suicide is a profound and heartbreaking tragedy, leaving families and loved ones devastated, while exposing critical gaps in the support systems within higher education. Each death is not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic failure, underscoring the urgent need for higher education institutions to strengthen their safeguarding frameworks.

    Recent government data revealed that 5.7% of home students disclosed a mental health condition to their university in 2021/22, a significant rise from under 1% in 2010/11. Despite this growing awareness of mental health challenges, the higher education sector is grappling with the alarming persistence of student suicides.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a rate of 3.0 deaths per 100,000 students in England and Wales in the academic year ending 2020, equating to 64 lives lost. Behind each statistic lies a grieving family, unanswered questions and the haunting possibility that more could have been done. These statistics force universities to confront uncomfortable truths about their ability to support vulnerable students.

    The time for piecemeal solutions has passed. To confront this crisis, bold and systemic reforms are required. One such reform – the introduction of an opt-out consent system for welfare contact – has the potential to transform how universities respond to students in crisis.

    An opt-out consent model

    At present, universities typically rely on opt-in systems, where students are asked to nominate a contact to be informed in emergencies. This has come to be known as the Bristol consent model. Where this system exists, they are not always invoked when students face severe mental health challenges. The reluctance often stems from concerns about breaching confidentiality laws and the fear of legal repercussions. This hesitancy can result in critical delays in involving a student’s support network at the time when their wellbeing may be most at risk, leaving universities unable to provide timely, life-saving interventions. Moreover, evidence suggests that many students, particularly those experiencing mental health challenges, fail to engage with these systems, leaving institutions unable to notify loved ones when serious concerns arise.

    Not all universities have such a system in place. And some universities, while they may have a ‘nominated person’ process, lack the infrastructure to appropriately engage the mechanism of connecting with the emergency contact when most needed.

    An opt-out consent model would reverse this default, automatically enrolling students into a system where a trusted individual – such as a parent, guardian or chosen contact – can be notified if their wellbeing raises grave concerns. Inspired by England and Wales’ opt-out system for organ donation, this approach would prioritise safeguarding without undermining student autonomy.

    Confidentiality must be balanced with the need to protect life. An opt-out model offers precisely this balance, creating a proactive safety net that supports students while respecting their independence.

    Legislative provision

    For such a system to succeed, it must be underpinned by robust legislation and practical safeguards. Key measures would include:

    1. Comprehensive communication: universities must clearly explain the purpose and operation of the opt-out system during student onboarding, ensuring that individuals are fully informed of their rights and options.
    2. Defined triggers: criteria for invoking welfare contact must be transparent and consistently applied. This might include extended absences, concerning behavioural patterns or explicit threats of harm.
    3. Regular reviews: students should have opportunities to update or withdraw their consent throughout their studies, ensuring the system remains flexible and respectful of changing personal circumstances.
    4. Privacy protections: institutions must share only essential information with the nominated contact, ensuring the student’s broader confidentiality is preserved.
    5. Staff training: university staff, including academic and professional services personnel, must receive regular training on recognising signs of mental health crises, navigating confidentiality boundaries and ensuring compliance with the opt-out system’s requirements. This training would help ensure interventions are timely, appropriate and aligned with legal and institutional standards.
    6. Reporting and auditing: universities should implement robust reporting and auditing mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the opt-out system. This should include maintaining records of instances where welfare contact was invoked, monitoring outcomes and conducting periodic audits to identify gaps or areas for improvement. Transparent reporting would not only enhance accountability but also foster trust among stakeholders.

    Lessons from the organ donation model

    The opt-out system for organ donation introduced in both Wales and England demonstrates the effectiveness of reframing consent to drive societal benefit. Following its implementation, public trust was maintained and the number of registered organ donors increased. A similar approach in higher education could establish a proactive baseline for safeguarding without coercing students into participation.

    Addressing legal and cultural barriers

    A common barrier to implementing such reforms is the fear of overstepping legal boundaries. Currently, universities are hesitant to breach confidentiality, even in critical situations, for fear of breaching trust and privacy and prompting litigation. Enshrining the opt-out system in law to include the key measures listed above would provide institutions with the clarity and confidence to act decisively, ensuring consistency across the sector. Culturally, universities must address potential scepticism by engaging students, staff and families in dialogue about the system’s goals and safeguards.

    The need for legislative action

    To ensure the successful implementation of an opt-out consent system, decisive actions are required from both the government and higher education institutions. The government must take the lead by legislating the introduction of this system, creating a consistent, sector-wide approach to safeguarding student wellbeing. Without legislative action, universities will remain hesitant, lacking the legal clarity and confidence needed to adopt such a bold model.

    Legislation is the only way to ensure every student, regardless of where they study, receives the same high standard of protection, ending the current postcode lottery in safeguarding practices across the sector.

    A call for collective action

    Universities, however, must not wait idly for legislation to take shape. They have a moral obligation to begin addressing the gaps in their welfare notification systems now. By expanding or introducing opt-in systems as an interim measure, institutions can begin closing these gaps, gathering critical data and refining their practices in readiness for a sector-wide transition.

    Universities should unite under sector bodies to lobby the government for legislative reform, demonstrating their collective commitment to safeguarding students. Furthermore, institutions must engage their communities – students, staff and families – in a transparent dialogue about the benefits and safeguards of the opt-out model, ensuring a broad base of understanding and support for its eventual implementation.

    This dual approach of immediate institutional action paired with long-term legislative reform represents a pragmatic and proactive path forward. Universities can begin saving lives today while laying the groundwork for a robust, consistent and legally supported safeguarding framework for the future.

    Setting a New Standard for Student Safeguarding

    The rising mental health crisis among students demands more than institutional goodwill – it requires systemic change. While the suicide rate among higher education students is lower than in the general population, this should not be a cause for complacency. Each loss is a profound tragedy and a clear signal that systemic improvements are urgently needed to save lives. Higher education institutions have a duty to prioritise student wellbeing and must ensure that their environments offer the highest standards of safety and support. An opt-out consent system for welfare contact is not a panacea, but it represents a critical step towards creating safer and more supportive university environments.

    The higher education sector has long recognised the importance of student wellbeing, yet its current frameworks remain fragmented and reactive. This proposal is both bold and achievable. It aligns with societal trends towards proactive safeguarding, reflects a compassionate approach to student welfare and offers a legally sound mechanism to prevent future tragedies.

    The loss of 64 students to suicide in a single academic year is a stark reminder that the status quo is failing. By adopting an opt-out consent system, universities can create a culture of care that saves lives, supports grieving families and fulfils their duty to protect students.

    The time to act is now. With legislative backing and sector-wide commitment, this reform could become a cornerstone of a more compassionate and effective national response to student suicide prevention.

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: Student ombudsman Sarah Bendall – Episode 153

    HEDx Podcast: Student ombudsman Sarah Bendall – Episode 153

    The new First Assistant Ombudsman in the Office of the National Student Ombudsman, Sarah Bendall, has a plan to hold universities to account.

    Six days into this new role, she sat down with Martin Betts to outline the background to the office and role, and how she plans to provide a route for students to ensure they have a safe, fair and secure experience.

    Coordinator of Welcoming Universities Cate Gilpin joined the conversation to ask Sarah what her short and long term priorities are and how she expects to action key reform areas outlined in the Universities Accord.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • US Congress urged to crack down on student overstays

    US Congress urged to crack down on student overstays

    Over 7,000 of these student and exchange visitors that overstayed their visas came from India, house representatives heard in a committee hearing on immigration enforcement in the US on January 22.  

    “Thirty-two countries have student/exchange visitor overstay rates of higher than 20%,” Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the anti-immigration think-tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, told the committee.  

    However, sector leaders have argued that Vaughan’s testimony contained “some serious and inaccurate generalisations” and relied on “faulty statistics for her claim about the student visa overstay rate,” according to NAFSA‘s director of immigration policy, Heather Stewart.  

    “International students are the most tracked non-immigrants in the US and a clear and comprehensive understanding of student visa misuse is needed if the field is to arrive at effective and appropriate solutions,” said Stewart.  

    After India, Vaughan highlighted China, Colombia and Brazil as each having more than 2,000 of their citizens overstay student/exchange visas in 2023, urging Congress to eliminate OPT and impose penalties for institutional sponsors, among a host of regulations.  

    “The F and M visa categories have [the] highest overstay rates of any of the broad categories of temporary admission,” Vaughan told committee members, with F visas used for academic study and M visas for vocational study.  

    According to recent DHS figures, the total overstay rate for student and exchange visitors in 2023 was 3.67% with a suspected in-country overstay rate of 2.86%, dropping slightly to 2.69% solely for F-1 students, with all metrics excluding Mexico and Canada.  

    Countries with highest student/exchange overstay rates by numbers (2023): 

    Country  Suspected in-country overstays  Total overstays  Total overstay rate 
    India   5,818 7,081 4.67%
    China 3,012 5,255 2.1%
    Colombia 2,792 3,223 8.29%
    Brazil 1,692 2,198 4.6%
    Source: US Homeland Security Entry/Exit Overstay Report FY 2023 

    While India, China, Colombia and Brazil recorded the largest numbers of student overstays in 2023, their overstay rate as a percentage of overall student populations in the US were relatively low.  

    It is perhaps unsurprising that India and China, whose combined student populations made up 54% of total international enrolments at US institutions in 2023/24, also saw the highest levels of visa overstays. 

    Country Total overstay rate
    Equatorial Guinea  70.18% 
    Chad   55.64%
    Eritrea  55.43% 
    Congo (Kinshasa)  50.06%
    Djibouti 43.75% 
    Burma 42.17% 
    Yemen  40.92% 
    Sierra Leone 35.83%
    Congo (Brazzaville)  35.14% 
    Togo  35.05% 
    Global (excl. Mexico + Canada) 3.67% 
    Source: US Homeland Security Entry/Exit Overstay Report FY 2023 

    Notably, the ‘in-country overstay rate’ refers to the percentage of individuals suspected to still be physically present in the US after their visa expired, while the ‘total overstay rate’ includes both those still in the country and those who may have eventually left after overstaying their visa, but were not recorded as departing. 

    Sector members have raised concerns about the “troubling” scale of the problem uncovered by the report, ranging from benign violations of legitimate students to “cases of wilful fraud”, said Eddie West and Anna Esaki-Smith, two leading US educators.  

    NAFSA, however, has disputed the figures as “unreliable”, claiming that the report “overstates” the issue and urged stakeholders to take caution when taking the figures out of context.  

    Indeed, DHS concedes that “infrastructural, operational and logistical challenges” in the exit environment make it difficult to identify students who do not depart via air or who transition from F-1 status to H-1B, legal permanent residency and other statuses.  

    What’s more, DHS data revealed a 42% decline in the suspected overstay rate for student and exchange visitors across a 15-month period ending in January 2024, indicating a lag time for the system to register students’ changing situations. 

    “Not only do visa issuance policies need to be adjusted and interior enforcement boosted, in addition Congress should amend the law in several important ways,” Vaughan told the hearing.  

    In a statement raising some concern about Vaughan’s testimony, she recommended that “the concept of dual intent should not apply to student visa applicants”. 

    Under current law, it does not.  

    While the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program has been widely proven to benefit American workers as well as international graduates, Vaughan blamed the initiative for spawning “an industry of diploma mills and fake schools”, calling for it to be eliminated or “much, much more closely regulated”.  

    Vaughan also recommended stricter regulations on H1-B specialty occupation visas, a move which Stewart warned would “immediately” make the US look less attractive to international students who “strongly consider” post-study employment opportunities when deciding where to study abroad.  

    During Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, he surprised some of the sector.

    The second-time US president spoke out in support of the H1-B visa during his presidential campaign amid a row about the work pathway among prominent Republicans.

    The US is the only one out of the ‘Big Four’ study destinations – US, UK, Australia and Canada – to publish data on international student overstay rates.

    Source link

  • ‘It’s different when they’re in their office’: the disconnect in student perceptions of academic meetings

    ‘It’s different when they’re in their office’: the disconnect in student perceptions of academic meetings

    by Stacey Mottershaw and Anna Viragos

    As we approach the five-year anniversary of the closure of UK university campuses for the Covid-19 pandemic, we thought it might be interesting and timely to reflect on the way that the sector adapted to educational delivery, and which innovations remain as part of our new normal.

    One key aspect of educational delivery which has remained to varying extents across the sector is the move to online student meetings. This includes meetings for academic personal tutorials, dissertation supervisions and other one-to-one meetings between students and staff. The Covid-19 lockdowns necessitated the use of online meetings as the only available option during this time. However, even post-lockdown, students and staff have continued to request online meetings, for reasons such as flexibility, privacy and sustainability.

    To explore this further, we conducted a small mixed-methods study with students from Leeds University Business School to consider their preferences for online or in-person meetings, utilising a faculty-wide survey for breadth and short semi-structured interviews for depth.

    We designed a questionnaire including questions on demographic (eg gender, home/international, whether they have caring responsibilities) and situational questions regarding their preference for face-to-face only, hybrid, or online meetings. We also included some questions around the ‘Big Five’ personality traits, to better understand factors that influence preferences.  We then distributed this online questionnaire, using the Qualtrics questionnaire software.

    Based on our findings, 15% of respondents preferred face-to-face only, 31% online only, with the remaining 54% preferring to have the option of either face-to-face or online.

    We also found that international students had a stronger preference for online meetings compared to non-international students. Whilst we had a relatively small sample of students on the Plus Programme (our institutional programme targeted to under-represented students); they had a stronger preference for in-person meetings. In terms of the Big Five traits, this student sample was highest on agreeableness and conscientiousness, and lowest on extroversion.

    In addition to the questionnaire, we ran seven one-to-one interviews with students from a mix of second year, the year in industry and final year, who had all experienced a mix of both online and face-to-face meetings throughout their studies.

    In reviewing the data, we identified five core themes of student preferences around meeting modes:

    • Connection and communication: Participants felt that the type of meeting affected connection and communication, with in-person meetings feeling more authentic.
    • Privacy/space: Participants felt that the type of meeting was influenced by factors including their access to private space, either at home or on campus.
    • Confidence: Some participants felt that the type of meeting could affect how confident they would feel in interactions with staff, with online meetings in their own environment feeling more comfortable than in spaces on campus.
    • Time: Participants discussed the amount of time that they had for each type of meeting, with online meetings deemed to be more efficient, due to the absence of travel time.
    • Flexibility: Participants demonstrated a strong preference for flexibility, in that they value having a choice over how to meet, rather than a meeting mode being imposed upon them.

    Through cross-examination of the core themes, we also identified something akin to a meta-theme, that is a ‘theme which acquire[s] meaning through the systematic co-occurrence of two or more other themes’ (Armborst, 2017 p1). We termed this meta-theme ‘The Disconnect’, as across each of the core themes there seemed to be a disconnect between student expectations of APT and what is typically provided, which ties in with existing literature (Calabrese et al, 2022).

    For example, one participant suggested that:

    It’s different when they’re in their office like popping there and asking a question for the lecture or even like the tutorials rather than having to e-mail or like go on a call [which] feels more formal.

    Whilst this comment seems to lean more towards other types of academic teaching (eg module leadership, lecture delivery or seminar facilitation), it can also translate to availability of staff more broadly. The comment suggests that students might expect staff to be available to them, on site, as and when they are needed. Yet in reality, it is unlikely that outside of set office hours academic staff will be available to answer ad hoc questions given their other commitments and particularly given the increased proportion of staff regularly working from home since the pandemic. This perspective also seems to contradict the perception that staff are much more available now than ever before, due to the prevalence of communications administered via email and online chat and meeting tools such as MS Teams. Staff may feel that they are more available as online communication methods increase in availability and use, but if students do not want ‘formal’ online options or prefer ad hoc on-site provision, then there may be a disconnect between student expectations and delivery, with all stakeholders feeling short-changed by the reality.

    Another disconnect between expectations and reality became apparent when another participant commented:

    […] online it was more rushed because you have the 30 minutes and you see the time going down and in the Zoom you will see like you have 4 minutes left to talk and then you’re rushing it over to finish it.

    Whilst this clearly relates to the core theme of time, it also seemed to be correlated with participant understanding of staff roles. It is difficult to understand how the time limitation for online and in-person meetings is different when the meetings are of the same duration, except that in the case of in-person meetings the student may be less aware of timings, due to not having the time physically visible on the screen in front of them. This might be reflected in the student-staff dynamic, where managing online meetings might be seen to be a joint and equal endeavour, with the responsibility for managing in-person meetings being skewed towards the staff member. Whilst it can be argued that staff should take responsibility for managing the meeting, in a time of increased narratives around student-led tutoring, it may be worth exploring the possible knock-on effects of students passively allowing the meeting to happen, rather than actively owning the meeting.

    Final thoughts

    A limitation of this study was the low response rate. At the point of dissemination, there were approximately 2,000 students in our faculty. However, we received just 198 survey responses (9.9%), and only seven people took part in the interviews, despite repeated calls for participants and generous incentives. Although this was a smaller sample than we had hoped for, we are confident that our study makes a timely and relevant contribution to discussions around delivery of APT, both within our faculty and beyond.

    As a starting point, future research could seek to generate responses from a broader pool of participants, through both a quantitative survey and qualitative methods. Based on our findings, there may also be scope for further research exploring student expectations of staff roles, and how these match to institutional offerings across the sector. Ultimately, universities need to do more to investigate and understand student preferences for educational delivery, balancing this alongside pedagogical justifications and staff circumstances.

    Stacey Mottershaw is an Associate Professor (Teaching and Scholarship) at Leeds University Business School and an EdD candidate at the University of Sheffield. Her research predominantly seeks to understand the needs of marginalised groups in higher education, with a particular focus on equitable and socially just career development. 

    Dr Anna Viragos is an Associate Professor in Organizational Psychology at Leeds University Business School, and a Chartered Psychologist of the BPS. Her research focuses on a variety of topics such as stress and wellbeing, creativity, and job design.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Revolutionizing storytelling with AI: Empowering ELLs

    Revolutionizing storytelling with AI: Empowering ELLs

    Key points:

    Imagine this: You assign your students a writing prompt, and while some eagerly begin crafting their stories, others stare at the blank page, muttering, “I have nothing to write,” or “I can’t think of a story.” For English Language Learners (ELLs), this scenario is even more daunting due to limited vocabulary or fear of making mistakes. In fact, studies show that a lack of confidence and linguistic resources often prevents ELLs from fully engaging in creative writing, despite their rich cultural and personal experiences.

    As educators, we constantly seek ways to help students overcome these barriers. Enter artificial intelligence (AI)–a powerful tool that transforms storytelling into an accessible and engaging experience for every student. By integrating AI into storytelling, we can empower students to generate ideas, build confidence, and create compelling narratives, all while developing their language skills.

    Getting started: Using AI to spark creativity

    A simple and engaging way to introduce AI in storytelling is by using a writing prompt and generating an example story opening with ChatGPT. For instance, you might ask: “Write the opening to a mysterious story about an abandoned lighthouse.”

    ChatGPT could respond: “The wind howled through the cracks of the abandoned lighthouse, carrying whispers of secrets long forgotten. The light, extinguished for decades, seemed to flicker faintly as if trying to tell a story no one had yet heard.”

    Students can take this opening and continue the story in their own words, expanding the scene, introducing new characters, or creating a plot twist. This method not only sparks creativity but also provides ELLs with a scaffold, building their confidence to dive into storytelling.

    To bring their stories to life, students can use AI image generators like DALL-E or tools like Canva to create visuals matching their narratives. For example, they could create an eerie image of the abandoned lighthouse with flickering light and stormy skies. This connection between words and visuals reinforces comprehension and engages students in the storytelling process.

    The final step is sharing stories and visuals with the class. Presenting their work allows students to practice speaking, gain confidence, and showcase their creativity.

    How AI enhances storytelling

    AI tools offer unique opportunities to support ELLs in their storytelling journey. When
    students struggle to come up with ideas, tools like ChatGPT can provide engaging prompts and vivid descriptions to spark creativity. For example, a student might request a description of a magical forest and receive a response like: “A forest bathed in golden sunlight, where trees tower like ancient guardians and the air shimmers with tiny, glowing orbs.” Such detailed imagery can inspire students to dive into their stories with greater confidence.

    In addition to idea generation, AI tools help expand students’ vocabulary. ELLs can use AI to explore synonyms or alternative ways to describe scenes, enriching their language repertoire.

    For instance, if a student wants to avoid repeating the word “beautiful,” the AI might suggest options like “stunning,” “captivating,” or “breathtaking,” enabling more nuanced and expressive writing.

    Visual storytelling is another area where AI shines. Tools like DALL-E or Adobe Express allow students to create images that align with their narratives, making their stories come to life. For example, a student writing about a mysterious glowing orb could generate a corresponding image, blending creative thinking with visual artistry.

    Once students have drafted their stories, AI-based writing assistants like Grammarly can help refine their grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. This process encourages independence and self-correction, teaching students to identify and address their mistakes while improving the overall clarity and polish of their work.

    Interactive platforms like Twine take storytelling to a new level by enabling students to create “choose your own adventure” narratives. For example, students might create a mystery where readers decide whether to follow a shadowy figure or stay hidden, leading to different outcomes. This fosters critical thinking and collaboration as students craft branching storylines and engage in problem-solving to connect various plot points.

    Classroom example: AI in action

    In a Grade 8 ESL classroom, students were given the prompt: “Write about a strange object you find buried in your backyard.” After brainstorming ideas with ChatGPT, one student created a story about a glowing orb that transported them to another dimension. They used DALL-E to generate an image of the orb, and Twine to develop a branching narrative where the reader decides whether to touch the orb or call for help. The result was an immersive storytelling experience that combined creativity with critical thinking.

    By incorporating AI tools, students not only created more engaging stories but also developed their language skills in a meaningful and enjoyable way.

    Making storytelling accessible and engaging

    Using AI in storytelling doesn’t just overcome barriers; it transforms the experience for students. Visual elements and interactivity keep learners engaged, while tools for grammar and vocabulary improvement build confidence. For ELLs, AI provides scaffolding and encouragement to take creative risks and express themselves authentically.

    Guiding responsible AI use

    While AI opens doors to creativity, teaching students to use these tools responsibly is
    essential.

    Students need to understand the concept of AI “hallucinations,” where AI generates
    inaccurate or entirely fabricated information. For instance, an AI might describe a historical event inaccurately or create a fictional fact that seems plausible. Educators should teach students to verify AI-generated information with reliable sources.

    Equally important is teaching students how to craft clear and specific prompts. For example, instead of asking, “What happens in a story?” they might ask, “Can you suggest a story idea about a character who solves a mystery in a small town?”

    Modeling this process helps students see how precise wording yields better results.
    Encouraging critical thinking is also crucial. Teachers can create opportunities for students to analyze AI-generated content by asking: “Does this make sense? Is it accurate? Can I verify it elsewhere?” Such discussions help students see AI as a helpful tool, but not an infallible one.

    Students should also learn that AI is a partner in creativity, not a replacement for their
    original thinking. They must guide the AI, evaluate its outputs, and make creative decisions to ensure their work remains authentically theirs. Additionally, students should be encouraged to credit AI-generated content appropriately to foster ethical use.

    Conclusion

    Storytelling is a cornerstone of language learning, offering ELLs opportunities to build
    vocabulary, practice grammar, and express their ideas. With AI, the storytelling process becomes more accessible, engaging, and impactful. From generating prompts to creating visuals and refining drafts, AI supports students in overcoming challenges and discovering the joy of storytelling.

    By integrating AI tools responsibly, educators empower every student to find their voice and share their unique stories with confidence. In the intersection of creativity and technology, AI has the potential to revolutionize the way we teach and learn storytelling

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs provide career insight and professional skill-building to students.

    SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey found 29 percent of students believe their college or university should prioritize or focus more on connecting students to alumni and other potential mentors.

    Colleges and universities often have connections to a wide range of successful graduates who can provide insight and support to current students, but creating organic relationships between the two groups can be a challenge.

    One initiative institutions have undertaken is establishing alumni-in-residence programs to offer career development opportunities for current students.

    How it works: Similar to a formal mentoring program, alumni in residence hold one-on-one conversations with learners to address the student’s career goals and answer questions related to work or life after college.

    The alumni-in-residence program, however, asks alums to serve in a variety of functions, including panel presentations, etiquette dinners and a networking reception, as needed.

    What’s the value: Alumni can offer specific insights into career pathways from their alma mater into their current role, helping highlight the student journey in a unique way. Involving former students in career services can also increase funding and support for the institution. A 2024 survey by Gravyty found alumni who have participated in a mentoring program say they are 200 percent more likely to donate in the future.

    Effective career services can also impact a student’s perception of their institution after graduation; 19 percent of alumni reported receiving strong career support from their institution, and those alumni are 2.8 times more likely to say their degree is worth the tuition, according to the 2023 National Alumni Career Mobility Annual Report.

    A 2025 analysis by Gravyty also found 46 percent of alumni rank career support and networking as the most valuable services their alma mater can provide, yet only 40 percent of engagement programs at universities include mentoring opportunities.

    Who’s doing it: Some of the institutions hosting an alumni-in-residence program include:

    Do you have a career prep tip that might help others encourage student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • West Point disbands student groups for women and minorities

    West Point disbands student groups for women and minorities

    The United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., has shut down a dozen student affinity clubs to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders to eliminate federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and ensure that no member of the military “be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed,” The Washington Post reported.

    The Asian-Pacific Forum Club, the National Society of Black Engineers Club and the Latin Cultural Club are among the campus groups ordered to shut down, according to a memo sent Tuesday from Chad Foster, deputy commandant at West Point, to the Directorate of Cadet Activities.

    The memo orders all the identified clubs to “permanently cease all activities” and “unpublish, deactivate, archive or otherwise remove all public facing content.” It also orders the dozens of other clubs at West Point to “cease all activity” until they have been reviewed to ensure compliance with Trump’s executive orders and guidance from the Army and the Department of Defense. 

    Below is the full list of disbanded clubs, including some with decades-long histories at West Point, according to the Post:

    • The Asian-Pacific Forum Club
    • The Contemporary Cultural Affairs Seminar Club
    • The Corbin Forum
    • The Japanese Forum Club
    • The Korean-American Relations Seminar
    • The Latin Cultural Club
    • The Native American Heritage Forum
    • The National Society of Black Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • The Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • The Society of Women Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • Spectrum
    • The Vietnamese-American Cadet Association

    Source link

  • VICTORY: University of Wyoming administrators reject student government’s proposal to slash media funding

    VICTORY: University of Wyoming administrators reject student government’s proposal to slash media funding

    Administrators at the University of Wyoming have agreed to cut student media funding by only 8.5%, repudiating a censorial student government proposal to punish student media by cutting the funding by 75% because students “don’t like” student newspaper the Branding Iron’s editorial choices. The change came after FIRE wrote to the university, explaining that the proposed funding cut was based on the content of the student newspaper, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.

    On Nov. 19, the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming passed a resolution recommending a drastic 75% cut to the fee that funds student media, including the student newspaper Branding Iron. The resolution, drafted by the Tuition Allocation and Student Fee Review Committee, cited staffing challenges, the quantity of advertising, and supposed “errors” in content as reasons for the cut. During the debate, several senators made their true motivations plain, tying their votes to personal distaste for the Branding Iron’s editorial choices, writing quality, and student opinions.

    When they distribute student fee funding, student government members exercise state power. The First Amendment bars the government, and the students to whom it delegates its power, from taking away resources based on the content of a media outlet’s expression. For good reason.

    Student media often have to write critical stories about their peers, administrators, and student government officials. So it goes when serving as a check on power, but that work would be nigh impossible without the First Amendment’s guarantee that citizens cannot be retaliated against for what they say. Cutting funding based on content impairs student journalists’ ability to confidently report on the world around them, and FIRE has beat back similar efforts across the country.

    Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.

    Though several student senators argued they had no “vendetta” against the student paper, their reliance upon opinions about the content of student media was enough to render their decision content-based. And any content-based restriction, however innocuous the stated motivation, must be regarded with a jaundiced eye lest those in power go unchecked.

    Thanks to FIRE’s efforts, student journalists at UW are back to covering events in their community and beyond.

    Having such dedicated staff on the local beat is especially important in places like Wyoming, where there are fewer outlets to cover local issues.

    “When we look at the University of Wyoming, and we consider that it is the only four year university in our entire state, our student media’s impact is so much more important,” said Branding Iron editor-in-chief Ven Meester. “We are a college campus in one of the reddest states in the nation. From student organizations, to speakers, to community events, we have an exceptional amount of political diversity.”

    Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.

    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link

  • Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    The Australian higher education sector continues to evolve rapidly, with hybrid learning,
    non-linear education, and the current skills shortage all shaping how universities operate.

    At the same time, universities are grappling with rising operational costs and decreased funding, leading to fierce competition for new enrolments.

    Amidst the dynamic landscape of higher education, the student experience has become a crucial factor in attracting and retaining students.

    The student experience encompasses a wide array of interactions, from how students first learn about an institution through to the enrolment process, coursework, social activities, wellbeing support and career connections. With so many student touchpoints to manage, institutions are turning to data and technology integrations to help streamline communications and improve their adaptability to change.

    Download the white paper: Why Unifying Data and Technology is Critical to the Success and Future of Universities

    Enhancing institutional efficiency and effectiveness
    Universities face an increasingly fragmented IT landscape, with siloed data and legacy systems making it difficult to support growth ambitions and improve student experiences.

    By integrating systems and data, institutions are starting to align digital and business strategies so that they can meet operational goals while providing more connected, seamless and personalised experiences for students.

    One of the most effective ways universities can achieve this is by consolidating disparate systems into a cloud-based Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution, such as Salesforce.

    Optimising admissions and enhancing student engagement
    In recent years, there have been significant fluctuations in the enrolment of higher education students for numerous reasons – Covid-19 restrictions, declining domestic student numbers, high cost of living, proposed international student caps, and volatile labour market conditions being just a few.

    To better capture the attention of prospective students, institutions are now focusing on delivering more personalised and targeted engagement strategies. Integrated CRM and marketing automation is increasingly being used to attract more prospective students with tailored, well-timed communication.

    Universities are also using CRM tools to support student retention and minimise attrition. According to a Forrester study, students are 15 per cent more likely to stay with an institution when Salesforce is used to provide communications, learning resources and support services.

    Streamlining communication and collaboration
    By creating a centralised system of engagement, universities can not only support students throughout their academic journey, but also oversee their wellbeing.

    For example, a leading university in Sydney has developed a system that provides a comprehensive view of students and their needs, allowing for integrated and holistic support and transforming its incident reporting and case management.

    Fostering stronger alumni and industry relations
    Another area where CRM systems play a pivotal role is in building alumni and industry relationships. Alumni who feel valued by their university – through personalised engagement – are more likely to return when seeking upskilling, or to lend financial support.

    Personalising communication to industry partners can also help strengthen relationships, potentially leading to sponsored research, grants, and donations, as well as internships and career placements.

    University of Technology Sydney, for example, adopted a centralised data-led strategy for Corporate Relations to change how it works with strategic partners, significantly strengthening its partner network across the university.

    Unlocking the value of data and integration

    With unified data and digital technology driving personalised student interactions, university ICT departments can empower faculty and staff to exceed enrolment goals, foster lifelong student relationships and drive institutional growth.

    To learn more about the strategies and technologies to maximise institutional business value, download the white paper.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Second-generation student borrowers | SRHE Blog

    Second-generation student borrowers | SRHE Blog

    by Ariane de Gayardon

    Since the 1980s, massification, policy shifts, and changing ideas about who benefits from higher education have led to the expansion of national student loan schemes globally. For instance, student loans were introduced in England in 1990 and generalized in 1998. Australia introduced income-contingent student loans in the late 1980s. While federal student loans were introduced in the US in 1958, their number and the amount of individual student loan debt ramped up in the 1990s.

    A lot of academic research has analysed this trend, evaluating the effect of student loans on access, retention, success, the student experience, and even graduate outcomes. Yet, this research is based on the choices and experiences of first-generation student borrowers and might not apply to current and future students.

    First-generation borrowers enter higher education with parents who have either not been to higher education, or who have a tertiary degree that pre-dates the expansion of student loans. The parents of first-generation borrowers therefore did not take up loans to pay for their higher education and had no associated repayment burden in adulthood. Any cost associated with these parents’ studies will likely have been shouldered by their families or through grants.

    Second-generation borrowers are the offspring of first-generation borrowers. Their parents took out student loans to pay for their own higher education. The choices made by second-generation borrowers when it comes to higher education and its funding could significantly differ from first-generation borrowers, because they are impacted by their parents’ own experience with student loans.

    Parents and parental experience indeed play an important role in children’s higher education choices and financial decisions. On the one hand, parents can provide financial or in-kind support for higher education. This is most evident in the design of student funding policies which often integrate parental income and financial contributions. In many countries, eligibility for financial aid is means-tested and based on family income (Williams & Usher, 2022). Examples include the US where an Expected Family Contribution is calculated upon assessment of financial need, or Germany where the financial aid system is based on a legal obligation for parents to contribute to their children’s study costs. Indeed, evidence shows that parents do contribute to students’ income. In Europe, family contributions make up nearly half of students’ income (Hauschildt et al, 2018). But the role of parents also extends to decisions about student loans: parents tend to try and shield their children from student debt, helping them financially when possible or encouraging cost-saving behaviour (West et al, 2015).

    On the other hand, parents transmit financial values to their children, which might play a role in their higher education decisions. Family financial socialization theory states that children learn their financial attitudes and behaviour from their parents, through direct teaching and via family interactions and relationships (Gudmunson & Danes, 2011). Studies indeed show the intergenerational transmission of social norms and economic preferences (Maccoby, 1992), including attitudes towards general debt (Almenberg et al, 2021). Continuity of financial values over generations has been observed in the specific case of higher education. Parents who received parental financial support for their own studies are more likely to contribute toward their children’s studies (Steelman & Powell, 1991). For some students, negative parental experiences with general debt can lead to extreme student debt aversion (Zerquera et al,2016).

    As countries globally rely increasingly on student loans to fund higher education, many more students will become second-generation borrowers. Because their parents had to repay their own student debt, the family’s financial assets may be depleted, potentially leading to reduced levels of parental financial support for higher education. This is likely to be even worse for students whose parents are still repaying their loans. In addition, parental experiences of student debt could influence the advice they give their children with regard to higher education financial decisions. As a result, this new generation of student borrowers will face challenges that their predecessors did not, fuelled by the transmitted experience of student loans from their parents (Figure 1).

    Figure 1 – Parental influence on second-generation borrowers

    As the share of second-generation borrowers in the student body increases, the need to understand the decision-making process of these students when it comes to (financial) higher education choices is essential. Although the challenges faced by borrowers will emerge at different times and with varying intensity across countries — depending in part on loan repayment formats — we have an opportunity now to be ahead of the curve. By researching this new generation of student borrowers and their parents, we can better assess their financial dilemmas and the support they need, providing further evidence to design future-proof equitable student funding policies.

    Ariane de Gayardon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) based at the University of Twente in the Netherlands.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link