Tag: students

  • Professors fear DeepSeek “censorship” on students’ work

    Professors fear DeepSeek “censorship” on students’ work

    “Censorship” built into rapidly growing generative artificial intelligence tool DeepSeek could lead to misinformation seeping into students’ work, scholars fear.

    The Chinese-developed chat bot has soared to the top of the download charts, upsetting global financial markets by appearing to rival the performance of ChatGPT and other U.S.-designed tools, at a much lower cost.

    But with students likely to start using the tool for research and help with assignments, concerns have been raised that it is censoring details about topics that are sensitive in China and pushing Communist Party propaganda.

    When asked questions centering on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, reports claim that the chat bot replies that it is “not sure how to approach this type of question yet,” before adding, “Let’s chat about math, coding and logic problems instead!”

    When asked about the status of Taiwan, it replies, “The Chinese government adheres to the One China principle, and any attempts to split the country are doomed to fail.”

    Shushma Patel, pro vice chancellor for artificial intelligence at De Montfort University—said to be the first role of its kind in the U.K.—described DeepSeek as a “black box” that could “significantly” complicate universities’ efforts to tackle misinformation spread by AI.

    “DeepSeek is probably very good at some facts—science, mathematics, etc.—but it’s that other element, the human judgment element and the tacit aspect, where it isn’t. And that’s where the key difference is,” she said.

    Patel said that students need to have “access to factual information, rather than the politicized, censored propaganda information that may exist with DeepSeek versus other tools,” and said that the development heightens the need for universities to ensure AI literacy among their students.

    Thomas Lancaster, principal teaching fellow of computing at Imperial College London, said, “From the universities’ side of things, I think we will be very concerned if potentially biased viewpoints were coming through to students and being treated as facts without any alternative sources or critique or knowledge being there to help the student understand why this is presented in this way.

    “It may be that instructors start seeing these controversial ideas—from a U.K. or Western viewpoint—appearing in student essays and student work. And in that situation, I think they have to settle this directly with the student to try and find out what’s going on.”

    However, Lancaster said, “All AI chat bots are censored in some way,” which can be for “quite legitimate reasons.” This can include censoring material relating to criminal activity, terrorism or self-harm, or even avoiding offensive language.

    He agreed that “the bigger concern” highlighted by DeepSeek was “helping students understand how to use these tools productively and in a way that isn’t considered unfair or academic misconduct.”

    This has potential wider ramifications outside of higher education, he added. “It doesn’t only mean that students could hand in work that is incorrect, but it also has a knock-on effect on society if biased information gets out there. It’s similar to the concerns we have about things like fake news or deepfake videos,” he said.

    Questions have also been raised over the use of data relating to the tool, since China’s national intelligence laws require enterprises to “support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence efforts.” The chat bot is not available on some app stores in Italy due to data-related concerns.

    While Patel conceded there were concerns over DeepSeek and “how that data may be manipulated,” she added, “We don’t know how ChatGPT manipulates that data, either.”

    Source link

  • There’s nothing certain about the circumstances when a duty of care applies to students

    There’s nothing certain about the circumstances when a duty of care applies to students

    The Secretary of State for Education was recently asked in Parliament if she would meet with campaigners to discuss the “duty of care” owed by higher education providers to their students.

    Janet Daby – the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing in the Department for Education (DfE) responded on her behalf, and also outlined the department’s current view on the law for holding negligent institutions to account.

    At first glance, her response was unhelpful – arguing the department’s position is that a duty of care in higher education may arise in “certain circumstances”:

    Such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the specific facts and context of the case being considered, and will be dependent on the application by a court of accepted common law principles.

    It would be easy to argue that lawmakers, including Janet Daby and skills minister Jacqui Smith, should not simply defer to the courts on matters of law and institutional accountability.

    After all, lawmakers have the power to create laws – so overall responsibility doesn’t rest solely with judges and their judicial interpretation of common law principles.

    But perhaps Daby’s response was more helpful than it looked – because it directly confronts misleading statements that have persisted since 2023, particularly those made by former Minister Robert Halfon.

    Although some might view her answer as a cautious response, in reality, it was a breath of fresh air – a much-need step in addressing the confusion that has clouded our understanding of legal responsibilities in higher education.

    From Halfon’s Law to Daby’s Law

    To grasp the significance of Janet Daby’s correction, we must first revisit the origins of the confusion – what I’ll call here Halfon’s Law.

    Introduced by Robert Halfon in 2023, it laid the foundation for a misrepresentation of the legal duties owed by higher education providers to their students. Halfon’s Law is a belief that stemmed from a misunderstanding of online material, initially presented in a now-deleted AMOSSHE blog that was published in 2015.

    In responding to the 128,000+ registered voters who signed our parliamentary e-petition calling for a statutory duty of care, Halfon asserted his department’s belief that universities already owed their students a broad and generalised duty of care. He said:

    Higher Education providers do have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinarily competent institution and, in carrying out these services, they are expected to act reasonably to protect the health, safety and welfare of their students. This can be summed up as providers owing a duty of care to not cause harm to their students through the university’s own actions.

    At first glance, this might sound reasonable, but in truth, it was far from accurate. By conflating a general moral and legal principle – to act in a way that avoids causing harm to others – with a formal, court recognised duty of care that only arises in specific, legally-defined circumstances and relationships, Halfon introduced a dangerous oversimplification.

    It was a distortion used to justify dismissing the petitioners’ call for a statutory duty of care, effectively silencing important conversations about the protections that students need.

    Halfon’s Law, with the documented source having now been quietly removed from its original website, was a misstep in understanding the complexities of legal responsibilities in higher education. Its fall from grace is something to be celebrated.

    Enter Daby’s Law: Janet Daby’s response marks a shift towards legal clarity. A duty of care may arise in certain specific circumstances, but ultimately, it is the courts that will determine the existence and application of any such duty on a limited case-by-case basis – should lengthy and costly litigation ever actually occur.

    As it stands therefore, nobody truly knows what protections are in place, leaving students vulnerable, and institutions at risk of being punished for failing to do the right thing. As such, Daby’s position not only corrects the errors of Halfon’s Law, but also raises significant concerns, including the urgent need for a properly codified duty that both universities and their students can understand.

    The advocacy that led to Daby’s law

    Daby’s correction of the record didn’t happen by chance. It was the direct result of relentless behind-the-scenes efforts from advocates, especially ForThe100, who recognised the need to dismantle Halfon’s contention? – since it was a significant barrier preventing meaningful progress.

    For too long, Halfon’s Law and its sweeping and factually incorrect statements had clouded the conversation around student safety and wellbeing, effectively stopping us from moving forward and pushing for the protections students desperately need. Too many policymakers thought it true – and so dismissed the need for a dedicated duty.

    The subtle shift in content and tone, while preferable to outright inaccuracy, introduces its own set of challenges. Without clear or codified guidance, students, families, and institutions are left to navigate a murky and uncertain legal landscape.

    That vagueness is deeply problematic. It means widespread confusion about rights and responsibilities, leaving institutions uncertain of their obligation, and exposed to unforeseen legal liabilities – while students are left unsure of the protections they can depend on.

    Worse, the lack of clear, direct, and upfront standards is a reactive rather than proactive system, shifting the burden onto individuals to seek legal recourse only after harm has occurred.

    This approach neither prioritises prevention nor ensures accountability, leaving gaps in a system meant to put students first.

    It is now crucial that the government corrects the public response to our petition without delay. Halfon’s Law remains embedded in the official narrative, and its continued presence in government communications perpetuates confusion, and blocks meaningful progress.

    More importantly, for over five decades, students have been without adequate legal protection, and this gap continues to undermine their safety and wellbeing.

    Nobody should be reassured by a duty that arises in “certain circumstances” where those circumstances would be a matter for “the courts to decide”. Students and universities need instead to know where they stand – with the same sort of clarity on offer for the duty of care that universities as employers owe to their staff.

    The next step is for the government to act – taking concrete steps toward enacting statutory reform that holds higher education institutions accountable for their acts and omissions with regard to student safety and wellbeing, and giving students and their families the confidence that when they enrol into a university, they know the minimum “duty of care” that they can actually expect.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Protection, visas, commuter students

    Podcast: Protection, visas, commuter students








    By submitting you agree to our terms and conditions

    Source link

  • Interest in QuestBridge students on the rise

    Interest in QuestBridge students on the rise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Extending Recruiters’ Reach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • Fairness and protection for students is coming – but not for those that need it now

    Fairness and protection for students is coming – but not for those that need it now

    As well as a new condition of registration on governance (covered elsewhere on the site by my colleague David Kernohan), the Office for Students (OfS) has announced a new approach focussed on providers “treating students fairly”.

    There will be a new condition of registration – replacing existing ones on consumer protection guidance and student protection plans – aimed at institutions providing students with clear, easy to access information about what will happen if changes are made to their course, and fair processes for refunds and compensation and complaints.

    Broadly, OfS will shift from expecting providers to pay “due regard” to guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority towards itself making judgements – both about compliance with consumer law, and some of its own higher standards for fairness.

    It says that students have told the regulator that they want to receive a high quality education that reflects their financial investment and the experience they were promised, and that they want to be treated fairly – but that while many students do not explicitly refer to their experiences as consumers, words such as “fairness” and “honesty” are often used when they describe specific experiences and promises that have not been met.

    As cuts continue across the sector, a heavy focus on financial sustainability both inside providers and the regulator almost certainly means an enhanced risk that students will feel unfairly treated when their courses or wider experiences shoulder the burden of savings reductions. Often those feelings will be legally justified.

    But the jaw-to-the-floor astonishing thing – given OfS’ positioning as a risk-based regulator – is that none of the new proposals in this area will apply to currently regulated providers:

    We recognise that proposing to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for students of providers registered under [new] proposed initial condition C5 would mean that different arrangements would be in place for different groups of students, depending on when their provider was registered.

    Changes to ongoing regulatory requirements for registered providers are not within the scope of the current consultation. However our ultimate aim is to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for all students at all OfS-registered providers. In doing so, we would aim to align ongoing requirements for all registered providers, and we therefore envisage that having different requirements for different providers would be an interim position.

    Proposals to achieve this alignment, and to ensure that all students are treated fairly on an ongoing basis, would form part of a future consultation on ongoing requirements for currently registered providers.

    That’s right – well over five years since the bones of its new approach were set out in a paper to its board, in a context where the risks to students in this space have intensified significantly, better protecting students inside providers already on the register is parked as an “ultimate aim” with an unspecified date. And so for some, what follows below shifts from “need to get across” to “of mild passing interest for the time being”.

    Doing so much harm, doing so much damage

    The main thrust of the new approach to “fairness” – telegraphed by Director for Fair Access and Participation John Blake last summer – has a couple of key components.

    First, rather than relying on the Competition and Markets Authority, or the courts, or National Trading Standards to take action or make a judgement over an issue, it’s taking that in-house.

    And to go alongside that, it’s taking existing legislation – mainly consumer protection law, but there’s other bits too – and adding to it to form a new mega-definition of what it considers to represent “fairness”, partly to address the cat-nip nature of the “consumer” nomenclature.

    As well as the engagement feedback it’s had from students, it’s doing this based on experience. Examples it has seen include omitting material information, like additional course costs or registration fees, leading students to make uninformed decisions.

    It says it’s come across providers withdrawing offers after acceptance due to over- or under-subscription, leaving students unable to secure alternative options and stuck with financial commitments like accommodation. It has also come across – and referred to trading standards – like contractual terms that limit providers’ obligations during staff industrial disputes that may prevent students from receiving adequate teaching or compensation.

    It’s also seen issues involving complaints processes that impose unreasonable barriers, like short submission windows, which hinder students from seeking redress and compensation.

    And it’s picked up on false or misleading advertising, including claims about financial aid, course accreditation, or a provider’s status as a university, that may mislead students into pursuing programs that fail to deliver expected outcomes – where as a result, students may complete courses only to find that their certificates lack the value or recognition they anticipated.

    One might ask, if it’s seen all of that in its current crop of registered providers, why it’s consulting on souping up its regulation only in newly registered providers for the time being.

    But you don’t wanna get involved

    But on the assumption (which, from experience, is a dangerous one) it gets there in the end, it’s worth looking at what it’s proposing in detail.

    First thing on fairness. Currently, providers have to demonstrate compliance with consumer protection law when they apply to be on the register – but are not required to show how they more broadly ensure “fair treatment” of students.

    This, it says, can result in situations where providers meet regulatory conditions but still have unfair policies or terms affecting students. So the proposed changes aim to better protect students by ensuring that providers’ policies and practices are fair and safeguard consumer interests consistently – avoiding a situation where students end up having to legally challenge unfair terms, and moving towards an approach of requiring providers to act fairly from the outset.

    In that lovely OfS way, it will then assess whether a provider treats students fairly through a requirement that identifies when a provider does not treat students fairly. The old “I don’t know what a seminar is, but a 100 people in a room isn’t one” is the vibe here.

    A bunch of negative behaviours will be set out, and assessments will evaluate whether providers meet the condition by identifying the presence or absence of those negative behaviours – a “streamlined process” that it says will result in a clear “satisfied” or “not satisfied” outcome.

    The specifics of that run like this. If actions (or omissions) either fall within one or more descriptions, which it proposes to set out in a separate “OfS prohibited behaviours list”, or give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student (except where reasonable in all the relevant circumstances), then the application gets the big red “unfair” stamp.

    The definition of unfair treatment it’s proposing draws on consumer protection law and CMA guidance, which it says are already familiar to higher education providers (notwithstanding that a whole chunk of it is changing, which I looked at earlier on the site here). The key bit is that OfS is aiming to offer an additional layer of protection beyond editing legal requirements – the proposed list of negative behaviours is not confined to those explicitly prohibited by law.

    And for consumer law fans, contract terms that may be regarded as unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the so-called “grey list”) will always be unfair in OfS-world – particularly over changes to courses, refund and compensation policies and contract terms and conditions:

    We are proposing to consider documents beyond those that may ordinarily have contractual effect and the condition therefore has a wider scope than consumer protection law. Our initial view is that this is appropriate because students may rely on a wider range of documents in practice.

    Some will regard that as overreach – others will feel reassured that the square peg/round hold of applying consumer law to the relationship between student and university will be properly addressed.

    The other thing in here for consumer law detail fans is that the draft condition proposes that a provider would not be regarded as treating a student fairly if, in OfS’s reasonable opinion, its actions or omissions (including those that are proposed or likely) give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student.

    That’s odd because, as I explained on the site a few days ago, consumer law and the way the CMA is proposing to apply it is moving away from a “detriment test” and towards banning some behaviours regardless.

    And excuses will be available – whether it is reasonable to argue that the course of action proposed or taken is, or was, necessary in the circumstances; whether those circumstances are, or were, in the control of the provider; and whether the provider is doing, or has done, everything possible to limit the extent of any detriment. That opens up all sorts of “what ifs” – including those on “but we were about to collapse and you told us not to collapse” – that OfS officials will doubtless be fielding on webinars in the coming weeks.

    One curious aspect of the proposal – at least as it’s set out here – concerns the difference between an “initial” condition and an “ongoing” condition of registration. OfS is proposing new C5 on fairness explicitly here as an “initial” condition – so it’s principally proposing to look at a bunch of documents and policies before it lets a provider onto the register.

    Of course not only can those policies change, it’s often the way they’re implemented (or not) and interpreter that matters more – the consultation is oddly silent on whether new C5 will also become an ongoing condition of registration that OfS could intervene on later.

    In fact it feels like OfS is under pressure to get registrations going again, isn’t quite ready on this fairness stuff, and so has half slipped it into an announcement on new registrations for the time being.

    I know you wanna live yourself

    This being OfS, you actually have to fish your way to page 72 of the consultation document at Annex D to see what it’s proposing as prohibited behaviours – and it’s in seven sections, covering key documents, descriptions relating to conduct and omissions, the clarity and legibility of key documents and other information for students, policies on changes to courses, complaints processes, refund and compensation policies and fake reviews.

    The first of those picks up much of the casework that it’s been referring to National Trading Standards – clauses that deny students the ability to offset payments due to provider failures, clauses that allow providers to withdraw offers at their discretion, particularly due to oversubscription, penalties for withdrawing or unmet obligations, and those that give universities the ability to terminate contracts or define terms at will.

    There’s also stuff on contracts that limit students’ access to legal recourse or impose restrictive dispute resolution processes, those that allow providers to transfer their obligations to other entities without student consent, and ones that allow a provider to determine whether the services supplied conform with the contract.

    In the actions and omissions bit, there’s claiming OfS registration or the right to use the term “university” without permission; offering degrees without appropriate authority or contracts; falsely asserting validation, accreditation, or endorsement by another body; displaying unauthorised logos, trust marks, or quality marks; and making definitive claims about future registration, university status, or authorisations that have not been granted.

    Pleasing to these eyes at least is also advertising or promoting courses, services, or facilities without disclosing reasonable doubts about the provider’s ability to deliver them; intending not to deliver what was advertised and/or planning to provide an alternative, and applying pressure to force immediate decisions, such as falsely claiming that an offer or its terms are available for a limited time only, depriving students of the opportunity to make an informed choice.

    There’s also communicating with prospective students in a non-English language without disclosing that services will be provided in English (!), presenting legal rights as unique features of the provider (!!) and using paid media content to promote services without clearly identifying it as advertising (!!!). It all goes on.

    In fact this list gets better as you move down it. Publishing false or inaccurate information about market conditions or competitors to induce students to sign contracts, offering prizes or rewards without delivering them or without disclosing associated costs, and falsely describing services as free when hidden costs exist are in there too – as well as making persistent, unwanted contact with applicants or students through various communication channels – defined partly in reference to harassment legislation.

    Maybe you work in a provider where you assume that the further down that list you get, the less likely it is that any of that happens. If you’re paying agents – either domestically or internationally – I can pretty much assure you that there’s a real iceberg below that tip.

    Clarity and legibility covers off documents that are hard to read or use unclear language, or fail to specify how they apply to different time periods or categories of students. Complaints unfairness includes strict time limits, no clear contact point, a lack of clear and reasonable timescales, and the one derisory mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s complaints scheme.

    And the section on changes hedges its bets a bit – there has to be clear stuff on the circumstances where changes may occur (like alterations to course content, qualifications, mode of study, teaching location, and fees), measures to address the needs of specific student groups, such as those with accessibility needs, and those policies must ensure that all students are treated fairly if such changes are implemented. Examples of where providers reserve too much of a right to make changes after the fact (“but all of those optional modules that you chose here for were not material”, and so on) are missing in action.

    Oh – and refund and compensation policies have to clearly outline the circumstances under which students are entitled to refunds or compensation (along with the methods used to calculate both!), and picking up some of that DMCC 2024 stuff, fake reviews are called out too – which include falsely claiming authorship by a student, concealing incentives provided for reviews, manipulating reviews by hiding or removing negative ones, and not taking reasonable steps to prevent or remove fake reviews.

    But could you forgive yourself

    Some other aspects of note. OfS expects all providers to comply with the law and as a starter any provider found not to have done so gets that “not fair” stamp. That includes consumer protection law, the Education Reform Act 1988 (unrecognised degrees), the Companies Act 2006 (failure to comply with a Secretary of State direction to change a company name, or a name giving misleading indication of activities).

    It’s also chucking in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to address circumstances where a provider imposes academic sanctions for non-payment of non-tuition fee debts, the thing that originally led the then Office for Fair Trading to start thinking about the way consumer law applied to students in the first place in the last decade.

    Of particular interest is scope. It covers relationships with current, prospective, and former students – the first and third of that list theoretically pick up rights that they often don’t have now. It obviously applies to all modes and levels of study, including online, face-to-face, or hybrid delivery. It naturally extends to providers operating through partnerships or intending to do so. But it also includes ancillary services and the provision of student information – including marketing and advertising.

    Ancillary services are defined here as services provided between a provider and a student as part of their higher education experience, including library services, disability support, scholarships, accommodation, and sports facilities:

    These services can influence a student’s decision on where to study and their overall higher education experience. Unclear or inaccurate information about these services may affect a student’s choice of provider or course, while unclear or unfair terms of service may negatively impact their experience.

    This is very good news for students who, from experience, are often told that stuff on or adjacent to that list can be cut because it’s not “part of the contract” or “on the CMA material information list” (it’s in the footnotes, actually). It should make it much harder to slash that intercampus bus, or cut 24 hour libraries down to 12.

    I stand in front of you

    What’s that you say? What happens to student protection plans? I’ve written extensively on the failure of that regime on the site before, suffice to say that the Higher Education and Research Act still mentions them, and OfS’ way around that is to argue that Condition C4, introduced in 2021, allows it to issue student protection directions if there is a material risk of a provider ceasing higher education provision – so C3 (have an SPP) is being deleted, and instead the suite of documents it will look at in pursuit of all of the above will, in effect, constitute a provider’s student protection plan.

    This makes lots of sense – SPPs were inconsistent, protections were assessed on OfS’ judgement of provider risk rather than the granularity pockets of students face in a large provider, and in theory means consistency from their point of view.

    So the silly SPP “risk assessment” goes – the one that right now probably says your university is swimming in cash as it announces a round of redundancies – and instead all of the above will have to appear on a single webpage to allow a “one stop shop” for students.

    You might also wonder where that strategy proposal has gone – the one that Jo Johnson proposed before OfS was born, and the one that Gavin Williamson proposed too – a “model contract” that sets out students’ rights and obligations, alongside the obligations of providers. It’s being parked for now as a potential addition:

    We may therefore explore development work in this area through further discussion and engagement with the sector, outside the current consultation process and alongside, rather than instead of, the introduction of a new initial condition of registration.

    On reflection, one glaring omission in here concerns what a provider can and can’t do when it comes to fee increases for continuing students – a cynic might argue that that’s controversial enough right now without OfS wading in and… protecting students. But given Ofcom has now banned in-contract price increases altogether, it does look like a huge hole.

    The other thing I’m surprised to see missing is the protection aspects of progression. There are plenty of providers that advertise a “BA in Wonkhe studies with an integrated foundation year” which technically and internally consists of an FY and a degree course – where the closure of the degree course seems to not trigger the same protections for those left high and dry as a second or third year disappearing. See also students who were “sold” a UG on the basis of progression to a vital PGT qualification.

    It’s also disappointing to see little mention of the sort of pressure that students can be under to make what the CMA, in its draft guidance on the DMCC, would call a “transactional decision” like agreeing to a (contract) variation. CMA’s definition of consumer vulnerability and its insistence than in practice, offering students the chance to exit a contract if they’re not happy with changes is not one most can make is a huge issue across the sector right now – and both is and will be a big driver of those “dishonesty” and “unfairness” perceptions that OfS leads the consultation off with. The lack of mention of the issues in the ongoing Student Group Claim – especially when OfS was pontificating about those issues during Covid – is wild.

    The single mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) is also one to ponder on – partly because it’s the OIA that has tended to take the lead on judging (conceptually at least) fairness for students. Even if we set aside the politics, it won’t help for two sets of guidance to be floating around on what “fairness” means in practice – and students surely deserve these two grown-ups getting in a room to reconcile their advice on rights.

    One other thing that continues to vex me about the proposals and the approach is the obsession with OfS’ powers over student power. Some of this sort of stuff is about providers doing the right thing – but so much of it is about students understanding their rights, so that when someone says “well all those optional modules aren’t contractual”, they can put up a fight.

    It really wouldn’t be hard for OfS to write in something similar to that which we saw in Poland recently – where it’s the law that SUs are given the support to tell students about their rights (and responsibilities) in a way that barely goes near the catnip of consumerism. Beyond the wording of policies, some students are going to be treated unfairly sometimes – steps that ensure they know it beyond a feeling are surely a precursor to effective regulation. It’s hard to ever accept OfS announcements about student focus or student empowerment without that shift in approach that other regulators seem to understand.

    As such, the framing of it all is a bit odd given, as I say, this is being proposed as an initial rather than an ongoing condition of registration at this stage – sat within this need to announce what it’s doing about a growing backlog of applications. Some of the wording only really makes sense in terms of what providers do in practice, not what some PDF says on a website. We’re left assuming that what’s in here will, at some later date, apply beyond the day OfS says yes or no to a new provider – but even critiquing that appears to be outside of the scope of the consultation.

    It’s certainly interesting for OfS to be consulting providers, SUs and students and students on stuff that won’t apply to most of them, but might, in a slightly different way, apply them at an unspecified future time.

    Overall, this looks like great news for students – finally, an education regulator properly thinking through the ways in which students are treated unfairly. But to return to the astonishing aspect of all of this – what is being proposed here is one set of rights for students in a new(ly registering) provider, and another set of much weaker ones for everyone else, all in the name of “fairness”, at just the point that providers are under pressure to not deliver on some of the promises they made to students.

    The lack of justification or explanation for that is alarming – and while I often do my best to not speculate or attribute motive, it would be hard for students braving a read of this to conclude anything other than OfS has resolved that the financial sustainability horse needs to have fully bolted before the regulatory framework stable door is closed in their interests.

    Source link

  • ‘Betraying an entire generation of students’? What do Trump University and Matt Goodwin’s excoriating new book tell us about universities today?

    ‘Betraying an entire generation of students’? What do Trump University and Matt Goodwin’s excoriating new book tell us about universities today?

    Browsing in a good bookshop sure beats scouring the internet for things to read. And when I was recently in my local independent bookshop (the Book House in Thame since you ask), I stumbled across a new biography of Donald Trump focusing on his pre-politics business career. Seeing that the book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump squandered his father’s fortune and created the illusion of success by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, included a section on Trump University, I snapped it up.

    Every leader’s weaknesses are clear before they rise to power if you look in the right places. We knew Gordon Brown’s seriousness could merge into tantrums long before the revelations about throwing phones at staff came to light, and we knew Boris Johnson’s joie de vivre hampered an eye for detail long before he caught the ball ‘from the back of the scrum’ and entered Number 10. If Nigel Farage ever makes it to the top job, as ever more people seem to be predicting, no one will be able to claim his destructive approach to politics was previously hidden.

    Similarly, this new biography of Trump written by two New York Times journalists proves the US President’s weaknesses were evident beneath the bluster throughout his long business career in hotels, casinos and golf courses. If the authors are right, Trump has long been prone to taking big risks on a hunch, to acting litigiously and to seeking credit for things that aren’t his doing. The title suggests he was a Lucky Loser, though perhaps that is just an uncharitable way of saying he was a big winner against the odds.

    As a businessman, the book shows how Trump began lucky, with ‘the equivalent of half a billion dollars from his father’, and ended lucky, with ‘another half billion as a reality television star’. These allowed him to take on huge debts, aided by paying as little tax as possible and reclaiming what tax he had paid whenever he could (as during Obama’s Great Recession recovery programme).

    Trump’s dollars from the TV show ‘The Apprentice’ came not so much from appearance fees as from his right to half the profits from any sponsorship deals and from lending his name to all sorts of businesses attracted by his TV success, from health supplements to early video phones. These enabled him to keep afloat. But there were many lows to Trump’s business career and a number of his big projects declared bankruptcy in the 1990s and 2000s, leading the two authors to conclude, ‘He would have been better off betting on the stock market than on himself.’

    If there’s one person responsible for Trump’s rise to the top, it is Mark Burnett, a British Falklands veteran who is now the United States Special Envoy to the UK. Burnett invented the TV programme ‘Survivor’ before creating an urban equivalent in The Apprentice (and later also creating ‘The Voice’). And if there’s one thing responsible for Trump’s rise it seems to be vanilla-and-mint Crest toothpaste as Proctor & Gamble were the first mass consumer company to do serious sponsorship of The Apprentice. They paid $1.1 million to get the contestants to come up with a new toothpaste, thereby drawing attention to the actual new vanilla-and-mint product sitting on shop shelves.

    Ostensibly, this all has little to do with higher education. But Trump University (also known as Trump U) is one of the most notable of all the current US President’s past projects and one of the ventures undertaken just before he stood for the Presidency for the first time. Trump not only lent his name to the project, he also invested millions of dollars in return for 93% of the business –like Victor Kiam, he liked it so much he bought the company. But the authors of this book conclude the whole thing was a disaster from start to finish.

    Beginning as a way to sell recorded lectures to small and medium-sized businesses, Trump University quickly moved into get-rich-quick in-person seminars. The Trump Elite Gold programme had a fee of $34,995 (about the same as the entire cost of a three-year degree in England or Wales). Prospective learners were told, ‘There are three groups of people … People who make things happen; people who wait for things to happen; and people who wonder, “What happened?”’ If you wanted to be in the first group, you were encouraged to open your wallet or else borrow the necessary fee.

    One failed applicant for The Apprentice, Stephen Gilpin, found himself tapped up to work for Trump U but later wrote an exposé that claimed, ‘the focus for Trump University was purely on separating suckers from their money.’ At the time, Trump said he hand-picked the instructors, but he did no such thing. The whole venture ended up in three major lawsuits, which were settled just as Trump became President for the first time.

    In the end, the story of Trump University confirms a truism: it is vital to protect the use of the term ‘University’ and to police it actively and in real time. The book serves as a reminder that – as Jo Johnson has argued persuasively on the HEPI blog – pausing new awards for University Title means the Office for Students is giving less attention to this area than it should.

    It is ironic that the global leader of right-wing populism should not only have sought to establish his own ‘University’ but that, having done so, it should embody in such exaggerated form all the negatives that populists tend to ascribe to traditional universities: poor value for money; an unoriginal curriculum taught by ill-trained staff; and insufficient personal attention to students. However, if a new book being published today attacking UK and US universities, Bad Education: Why our universities are broken and how we can fix them by Matt Goodwin, is any guide to populism more generally, then the failure of Trump U has not deterred the attacks on places that actually do have the legal right to call themselves a ‘University’.

    Goodwin starts with a chapter called ‘Why I decided to speak out’ though it could just have easily been called ‘The grass is always greener’ or ‘Looking back with rose-tinted spectacles’. The book’s core argument is that:

    the rapid expansion of the university bureaucracy, the sharp shift to the left among university academics and the politicization of the wider system of higher education have left universities in a perilous state.

    As a result, Goodwin argues, ‘our universities are not just letting down but betraying an entire generation of students.’

    He notes that, as the number of EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) champions has gone up, some types of diversity, such as diversity in academic thought, have gone down. But Goodwin is a political scientist rather than a historian and the problems he identifies are not as new as he makes out. Far-left students used to disrupt Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph and Leon Brittan when they spoke on campus; now they try and block Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix. The issue of whether such individuals should be allowed to speak even if some people on campus will be ‘offended’ are the same. The recourse to legislation in response is the same too: the rows of the 1980s led to the Education (No. 2) Act (1986) and the rows of today led to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (2023).

    Notably, Goodwin’s views seem to have changed even more over time than the institutions he criticises. Two decades ago, Goodwin was a progressive studying for a PhD under Professor Roger Eatwell, an expert in fascism and populism at the University of Bath, after which he moved to Manchester and Nottingham, where he worked with political scientists like Rob Ford and Philip Cowley, and thereafter to Kent. These days, Goodwin has not only given up his professorship but is found speaking at Reform UK meetings while accepting a job as a GB News presenter.

    And while Goodwin says his book has been 20 years in the making, it reads like it was 20 weeks in the writing. That is not meant to be rude for the piece is pacey, personal and polemical – and all the more readable for that. But while it is based in part on others’ research – including pieces of HEPI output – it generally draws from just one well: the place inhabited by Eric Kaufman, Jonathan Haidt and Niall Ferguson. The dust jacket includes endorsements from Douglas Murray, Claire Fox and Nigel Biggar among others.

    Goodwin’s pamphleteer-style of writing ensures his text has little in common with the meticulous research on recent university history by Mike Shattock or Roger Brown and Helen Carasso or Steve Jones (who will be writing his own review of the book for HEPI in due course). Nonetheless, whisper it quietly but – whether you like his general approach or not, whether you like his new acquaintances or not and whether you like his writing style or not – Matt Goodwin may have something of a point.

    Universities do not always welcome or reflect the full diversity of viewpoints in the way that perhaps they should, given their business is generating and imparting knowledge. It has been said many times before by others, so it is far from original, yet that doesn’t make it false. Goodwin quotes the US economist Thomas Sowell: ‘when you hear university academics talk about diversity, ask them how many conservatives are in their sociology department.’ It seems a fair question.

    But grappling with that is not easy. The best answer, Goodwin argues, is a muscular response. Rather than leaving it to the sector to resolve its own issues, he wants to see hard-nosed interventions from policymakers and regulators:

    only government action and new legislation, or pressure from outside universities, can change the incentive structures on campus. This means adopting a proactive rather than a passive strategy, making it clear that the individual freedom of scholars and students is, ultimately, more important than the freedom or autonomy of the university.

    At the very end, Goodwin even argues someone should ensure ‘all universities be regularly audited for academic freedom and free speech violations’, with fines for any that transgress. Yet that begs more questions than it answers: we don’t know who would do the audit or what the rules for it would be.

    So there is a paradox at the heart of Goodwin’s critique. He ascribes the problems he sees to flaws in the ‘system’ whereby the number of university administrators, institutions’ central bureaucracy and the pay of vice-chancellors have all increased rapidly. But such changes have often reflected:

    1. external influences, such as the increase in the regulation of education (in response to scandals of the Trump U variety);
    2. the need to have flattering statistics (such as to present to the Treasury in the battle for public resources); and
    3. recognition that the old ways of working are not going to root out inappropriate behaviours (for example, sexual harassment).

    Perhaps making universities more accountable to regulators and policymakers will make them bastions of free speech in the way Goodwin hopes, but might it not just clog up the lives of academics even more?

    Reprinted with permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved.

    Source link

  • Encouraging first-gen students to study abroad

    Encouraging first-gen students to study abroad

    Study abroad is tied to personal and professional growth for college students, but crossing the border can be an enormous hurdle or feel unattainable for some learners.

    A new initiative at Bucknell University seeks to empower and support first-generation and low-income students who are interested in experiential learning and study away through workshops, financial aid and mentorship.

    In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader speaks to Chris Brown, Bucknell’s Andrew Hartman ’71 and Joseph Fama ’71 Executive Director of the Center for Access and Success, to learn more about the center and how it reduces barriers to student participation in high-impact activities.

    Listen to the episode here and learn more about The Key here.

    Read a transcript of the podcast here.

    Source link

  • Colleges promote media literacy skills for students

    Colleges promote media literacy skills for students

    Young people today spend a large amount of time online, with a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report noting teens ages 12 to 17 had four or more hours of daily screen time during July 2021 to December 2023.

    This digital exposure can impact teens’ mental health, according to Pew Research, with four in 10 young people saying they’re anxious when they don’t have their smartphones and 39 percent saying they have cut back their time on social media. But online presences can also impact how individuals process information, as well as their ability to distinguish between news, advertisement, opinion and entertainment.

    A December Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found seven out of 10 of college students would rate their current level of media literacy as somewhat or very high, but they consider their college peers’ literacy less highly, with only 32 percent rating students as a whole as somewhat or very highly media literate.

    A majority of students (62 percent) also indicate they are at least moderately concerned about the spread of misinformation among their college peers, with 26 percent saying their concern was very high.

    To address students’ digital literacy, colleges and universities can provide education and support in a variety of ways. The greatest share of Student Voice respondents (35 percent) say colleges and universities should create digital resources to learn about media literacy. But few institutions offer this kind of service or refer students to relevant resources for self-education.

    Methodology

    Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab polled 1,026 students at 181 two- and four-year institutions from Dec. 19 to 23. The margin of error is 3 percent. Explore the findings yourself  here, here and here.

    What is media literacy? Media literacy, as defined in the survey, is the ability or skills to critically analyze for accuracy, credibility or evidence of bias in the content created and consumed in sources including radio, television, the internet and social media.

    A majority of survey respondents indicate they use at least one measure regularly to check the accuracy of information they’re receiving, including thinking critically about the message delivered, analyzing the source’s perspective or bias, verifying information with other sources, or pausing to check information before sharing with others.

    A missing resource: While there are many groups that offer digital resources or online curriculum for teachers, particularly in the K-12 space, less common are self-guided digital resources tailored to young people in higher education.

    “Create digital resources for students” was the No. 1 response across respondent groups and characteristics and was even more popular among community college respondents (38 percent) and adult learners (42 percent), which may highlight students’ preferences for learning outside the classroom, particularly for those who may be employed or caregivers.

    Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism offers a free self-directed media literacy course that includes webinars with journalism and media experts, as well as exercises for reflection. Similarly, Baylor University’s library offers a microcourse, lasting 10 minutes, that can be embedded into Canvas and that awards students a badge upon completion.

    The University of North Carolina at Charlotte provides a collection of resources on a Respectful Conversation website that includes information on free expression, media literacy, constructive dialogue and critical thinking. On this website, users can also identify online classes, many of which are free, that provide an overview or a deeper level look at additional topics such as misinformation and deepfakes.

    The American Library Association has a project, Media Literacy Education in Libraries for Adult Audiences, that is designed to assist libraries in their work to improve media literacy skills among adults in the community. The project includes webinars, a resource guide for practitioners.

    Does your college or university have a self-guided digital resource for students to engage in media literacy education? Tell us more.

    Source link

  • Unifying supports for first-generation students on campus

    Unifying supports for first-generation students on campus

    First-generation students make up around 20 percent of the University of South Carolina student population.

    University of South Carolina

    While first-generation students are a growing population in higher education, they remain less likely to retain or complete a credential, compared to their continuing-generation peers.

    A new initiative at the University of South Carolina unifies assistance for students who are the first in their families to attend college to guide them through the university and provide a sense of belonging. The First-Generation Student Center is connected to a first-generation living-learning community and offers embedded academic and socioemotional support, which reduces the need for students to seek support independently.

    What’s the need: USC serves a large number of first-generation learners—one in five undergraduate students or around 6,000 individuals.

    “We know from our campus data on students in our long-standing TRIO program that they do not have the gaps in retention and graduation that our other first-generation students have,” says Shelley Dempsey, assistant provost for graduation and retention. “However, the program is at max capacity.  It was time for our university to provide additional options to serve students in a similar demographic who are not able to be a part of the TRIO program.”

    The center was designed to provide increased and more specialized services for learners in a physical space that promotes students’ feelings of belonging.

    Dempsey sees particular benefits with first-generation student support, including social capital growth and impacting future generations of their families. But Dempsey also notes improving processes and the student experience for first-generation degree attainment is a benefit for the institution as a whole.

    How it works: The First-Generation Center (FGC), which opened in fall 2024 within Maxcy College residence hall on campus, includes a variety of support services and resources.

    A dedicated director and assistant director support the center, as does a faculty director, who oversees the living and learning community for 151 first-generation students.

    Within the center, students can engage with an embedded mental health counselor for one-on-one in-person or virtual sessions, as well as group sessions on common themes like homesickness and exam anxiety. The Student Success Center has embedded staff presence for drop-in hours, and the FGC hosts other partners across campus, including financial aid, the career center and the meal card office, to provide insights into navigating higher ed.

    “The idea is that if we can have all of these offices have a presence in the FGC as a safe space, then we build comfort and confidence with the first-generation students to utilize them in their locations outside the FGC as well,” Dempsey says.

    This fall, the center hosted a series called First-Gen Connections that provided relevant information related to campus experiences and deadlines. Athletics staff led a discussion on how students can earn ticket priority for sporting events and offered students a behind-the-scenes tour of the football stadium, for example.

    How it’s going: Since launching the center, USC leaders have seen an increase in first-generation student involvement. The center was advertised through meetings, events and campus media including newsletters, but word of mouth has been the most effective marketing campaign.

    Several sections of University 101, USC’s first-year seminar program, also meet in the center, which helps raise awareness of the support offerings.

    This fall, efforts to include first-generation students were noticeable in mini-grant applications for research and creative projects alongside a mentor, with 55 percent of applicants being first-gen learners.

    “We want our first-generation students to know that they are just as capable, and sometimes that takes bringing the info to them in a designated space so that they don’t have to navigate the large university and unfamiliar lingo or jargon for themselves,” Dempsey says.

    What’s next: The current target is incoming and first-year students, with the hopes of continuing to involve them as they progress through the institution, but administrators hope to reach graduate students, as well.

    “We are in the process of conducting a needs assessment to know how to increase our supports going forward,” Dempsey says.

    The university will also track other student metrics including involvement in high-impact practices, GPA, DFW rates, campus involvement and leadership opportunities. Additionally, leaders will compare utilization of support services among first-gen students who engage with the center compared to their peers who are also first-gen but not associated with the center.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Is going to university still worth it? A widening participation student’s view

    Is going to university still worth it? A widening participation student’s view

    By David Lam, Activities Officer at the Students’ Union Bath.

    As a child, I always envisioned a very traditional educational journey. I would work my way through high school, do my A levels and then end up at a good university, graduating into a well-paid job. I think this is the journey most undertake or are pointed towards as we were told that university students almost always earn more than those without one. It’s a no-brainer, right?

    However, there have been recent conversations about the value of going to university and getting a degree. Being a student is tough right now, because:

    Despite these challenges, record numbers of students from TUNDRA 1 (lowest participation) backgrounds have made it to university. A remarkable stat! But why has this happened? I believe university opens so many more opportunities for you besides a good education and, for this reason, people would prefer to earn and learn rather than not doing it at all.

    Going to university allows you to access a whole load of new experiences through societies and sports clubs at a relatively low cost and without much commitment. At Bath, there are over 200 groups that you can join, ranging from common interests like football and board games to more niche ones like sailing and gliding. I am sure there are equally wide offers at other universities. Having gone to a state school, I never had the opportunity to try all these things while others from more privileged backgrounds did. 

    Studying at Bath meant I had access to a wide range of placements for my year in industry. Without the wonderful placement team showing me all the world had to offer, I would not have known where to start, nor would I have ever considered doing a placement.  I had always seen movies that involved people going for the best year of their life abroad in a sunny place, making friends for life and being temporarily free from studying. I decided I wanted that experience too, but then the Covid-19 Pandemic hit, meaning my opportunities suddenly shrank. Despite the setback of a global pandemic, I eventually found an opportunity and I ended up working in Madrid as a Physical Education (PE) teacher in an international school. It was the best year of my life, living the dream I’d seen on TV, thanks to my university’s placement team’s support.

    Attending university exposes you to people from diverse backgrounds. Coming from a small town in the Midlands, predominantly made up of white British residents, I was one of only three kids of colour in my entire primary school. So arriving in Bath and encountering people who looked like me was a strikingly different experience. Some of my closest friends come from all over the world and, yes, eventually when we all leave Bath, I will be visiting them at some point! The chances of me making such friendships would have been minimal had I stayed in my little town and I would have nowhere near as enlightened an understanding of other cultures as I have now.

    University is often the first real taste of freedom for many, marking the transition from life at home to living independently. You are no longer surrounded by an endless supply of clean clothes or home-cooked meals; instead, you are managing your own routine and life, all within the relatively safe university environment. This shift into the big wide world fosters resilience and builds people skills. You will inevitably encounter challenges, like that one housemate who never does their dishes. But part of the university experience is learning to handle these issues yourself, having the tough conversations and solving problems independently rather than relying on someone else to step in. Along the way, you will meet both amazing people and those who are not so great. While no degree teaches you how to interact with others, living with a diverse group of people forces you to learn those essential skills.

    For these reasons, I still believe there is value in going to university. While not everyone’s experience is the same, the underlying benefits remain. The university experience represents a beacon of opportunity and opens so many doors. It leads to things you would have never imagined doing, like living in another country for a whole year or writing a blog for a higher education think tank. Seeing the Office for Students turn its attention to the wider student experience, rather than exclusively to education, is welcome. I believe more places should be taking this holistic view and I look forward to seeing what their new strategy comes out with it.

    Source link