Tag: Success

Beyond Rankings: Redefining University Success in the AI-Era
- By Somayeh Aghnia, Co-Founder and Chair of the Board of Governors at the London School of Innovation.
University rankings have long been a trusted, if controversial, proxy for quality. Students use them to decide where to study. Policymakers use them to shape funding. Universities use them to benchmark themselves against competitors. But in an AI-powered world, are these rankings still measuring what matters?

If we’ve learned anything from the world of business over the last decade, it’s this: measuring the wrong things can lead even the most successful organisations astray. The tech industry, in particular, has seen numerous examples of companies optimising for vanity metrics (likes, downloads, growth at all costs) only to realise too late that these metrics didn’t align with real value creation.

The metrics we choose to measure today will shape the universities we get tomorrow.

The Problem with Today’s Rankings

Current university ranking systems, whether national or global, tend to rely on a familiar set of indicators:
- Research volume and citations
- Academic and employer reputation surveys
- Faculty-student ratios
- International staff and student presence
- Graduate salary data
- Student satisfaction and completion rates
While these factors offer a snapshot of institutional performance, they often fail to reflect the complex reality of the world. A university may rise in the rankings even as it fails to respond to student needs, workforce realities, or societal challenges.

For example, graduate salary data may tell us something about economic outcomes, but very little about the long-term adaptability or purpose-driven success of those graduates or their impact on improving society. Research citations measure academic influence, but not whether the research is solving real-world problems. Reputation surveys tend to reward legacy and visibility, not innovation or inclusivity.

In short, they anchor universities to a model optimised for the industrial era, not the intelligence era.

Ready for the AI paradigm?

Artificial Intelligence is a paradigm shift that is changing what we value in all aspects of life including education, especially higher education, how we define learning, what we want as an outcome, and how we measure success.

In a world where knowledge is increasingly accessible, and where intelligent systems can generate information, summarise research, and tutor students, the role of a university shifts from delivering knowledge or developing skills to curating learning experiences focusing on developing humans’ adaptability, and preparing students, and society, for uncertainty.

This means the university of the future must focus less on scale, tradition, and prestige, and more on relevance, adaptability, and ethical leadership. These are harder to measure, but far more important.
This demands a new value system. And with that, a new approach to how we assess institutional success.

What Should We Be Measuring?

As we rethink what universities are for, we must also rethink how we assess their impact. Inspired by the “measure what matters” philosophy from business strategy, we need new metrics that reflect AI-era priorities. These could include:

1. Adaptability: How quickly and responsibly does an institution respond to societal, technological, and labour market shifts? This could be measured by:
- Curriculum renewal cycle: Time between major curriculum updates in response to new tech or societal trends.
- New programme launches: Number and relevance of AI-, climate-, or digital economy-related courses introduced in the last 3 years.
- Agility audits: Internal audits of response times to regulatory or industry change (e.g., how quickly AI ethics is integrated into professional courses).
- Employer co-designed modules: % of programmes co-developed with industry or public sector partners.
2. Student agency: Are students empowered to shape their own learning paths, engage with interdisciplinary challenges, and co-create knowledge? This could be measured by:
- Interdisciplinary enrolment: % of students engaged in flexible, cross-departmental study pathways.
- Student-designed modules/projects: Number of modules that allow student-led curriculum or research projects.
- Participation in governance: % of students involved in academic boards, curriculum design panels, or innovation hubs.
- Satisfaction with personalisation: Student survey responses (e.g., NSS, internal pulse surveys) on flexibility and autonomy in learning.
3. AI and digital literacy: To what extent are institutions preparing their staff and their graduates for a world where AI is embedded in every profession? This could be measured by:
- Curriculum integration: % of degree programmes with AI/digital fluency embedded as a learning outcome.
- Staff development: Hours or participation rates in AI-focused CPD for academic and support staff.
- AI usage in teaching and assessment: Extent of AI-enabled platforms, feedback systems, or tutors in active use.
- Graduate outcomes: Employer feedback or destination data reflecting readiness for digital-first/AI-ready roles.
4. Contribution to local and global challenges: Are research efforts aligned with pressing societal needs amplified with advancements of AI such as social justice, or the AI divide? This could be measured by:
- UN SDG alignment: % of research/publications mapped to UN Sustainable Development Goals.
- AI-for-good projects: Number of AI projects tackling societal or environmental issues.
- Community partnerships: Active partnerships with local authorities, civic groups, or NGOs on social challenges.
- Policy influence: Instances where university research or expertise shapes public policy (e.g. citations in white papers or select committees).
5. Wellbeing and belonging: How well are staff and students supported to thrive, not just perform, within the institution? This could be measured by:
- Staff/student wellbeing index: Use of validated tools like the WEMWBS (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) in internal surveys.
- Use of support services: Uptake and satisfaction rates for mental health, EDI, and financial support services.
- Sense of belonging scores: Survey data on inclusion, psychological safety, and campus climate.
- Staff retention and engagement: Turnover data, satisfaction from staff pulse surveys, or exit interviews.
These are not soft metrics. They are foundational indicators of whether a university is truly fit for purpose in a volatile and AI-transformed world. You could call this a “University Fitness for Future Index”, a system that doesn’t rank but reveals how well an institution is evolving, and as a result its academics, staff and students are adapting to a rapidly changing world.

From Status to Substance

Universities must now face the uncomfortable but necessary task of redefining their identity and purpose. Those who focus solely on preserving status will struggle. Those who embrace the opportunity to lead with substance – authenticity, impact, innovation – have a chance to thrive.

AI will not wait for the sector to catch up. Students, staff, employers, and communities are already asking deeper questions: Does this university prepare me for an unpredictable future? Does it care about the society I will enter after graduation? Is it equipping us to lead with courage and ethics in an AI-powered world?

These are the questions that matter. And increasingly, they should be the ones that will shape how institutions are evaluated, regardless of their position in the league tables.

It’s time we evolve our frameworks to reflect what really counts, that increasingly will be defined by usefulness, purpose, and trust.

A Call for Courage

We are not simply in an era of change. We are in a change of era.

If we are serious about preparing our learners, and our society, for a world defined by intelligent systems, we must also be serious about redesigning the system that educates them.

That means shifting from prestige to purpose. From competition to contribution. From reputation to relevance.

Because the institutions that will lead the future are not necessarily those that top today’s rankings.

They are the ones willing to ask: what truly matters now and are we brave enough to measure it?
Source link
July 1, 2025
It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

The industrial strategy is not only an economic document it is also a roadmap for how the country will be governed.

At its heart is a simple premise. Places know what is best for people locally and power should be devolved to them. Not all powers, because some things like defence have to be coordinated at a national level, and certainly not lots of fiscal policy like taxation, but powers over things like spatial planning (where the government allows it), investment, and some parts of the R&D ecosystem.

The ideal body for distributing these powers is the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA). These are the collection of councils in one area, usually a city, that work together to achieve more than they could alone. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority are just two examples

Process not an event

In 1997 then Secretary of State for Wales Rob Davies called devolution “a process not an event”, and he was right. Powers are not spread evenly through the UK, London has quite a lot and a local town council has very few. And the propensity for government to operate through pots of money that local government bid for to do stuff is unusual by international comparisons. This level of financial control limits many places to being the delivery arm of government more so than independent decision makers in their own right.

This patchwork approach also means higher education providers have a mixed relationship with the devolution story.

Solely through an academic lens research intensive universities have done well out of (even if they do not like it) how centralised the UK is. The REF just isn’t interested in geography. It follows quality, impact, and environments wherever they may be. Previous research pots like the Regional Innovation Fund which apply a funding multiplier to places underserved by research funding are the exception not the norm.

The industrial strategy is different in that it at least attempts some kinds of rebalancing in acknowledging that if the government funds the same things in the same places the same kinds of research outputs will be produced. The fact there is some money behind it is even better. As DK noted in his review of research in the industrial strategy:

The £500m Local Innovation Partnerships Fund is intended to generate a further £1bn of additional investment and £700m of value to local economies, and there are wider plans to get academia and industry working together: a massive expansion in supercomputer resources (the AI research resource, inevitably) and a new Missions Accelerator programme supported by £500m of funding. And there’s the Sovereign AI Unit within government (that’s another £500m of industry investments) in “frontier AI”. On direct university allocation we get the welcome news that the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is here to stay.

The places that are located outside of major cities without large research portfolios have more reason to be sceptical about devolution. Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has called for local leaders to “fill in the map” of devolution but this is easier said than done. Places have distinct histories, geographies, and can’t as easily be accommodated into MCAs as places like Greater Manchester.

While there has been interest in towns from time to time, the Towns Fund provided some funding to some places on some research projects, they risk being left behind within a devolution system that prioritises larger conurbations.

The universities problem

Let’s take the government’s proposals at face value and assume it is going to implement the full version of the devolution agenda it is proposing. This would mean local government has more funding to buy land, freeports and investment zones will be streamlined to provide even more business incentives, the British Business Bank (among other funders) will release and coordinate capital aligned to regions and the eight industrial strategy priorities, a further £200m will be spent on further education in England, and a series of growth funds will run directly through mayors.There are more announcements to come on skills, local economic regulation and infrastructure.

Universities are not losers in any of these measures but nor are they inevitably complementary to everything the governments wants to do. Former universities minister David Willetts, who had some reservations about the draft strategy, has softened his tone writing:

Most of the key industries set out in that visual [the one explaining the industrial strategy priorities] are heavy users of higher education. Universities will play a crucial role in the strategy. One of the biggest risks to delivering it is the financial fragility of these core institutions. It is good to see them getting a vivid illustration as well – on page 73. But the Government has not yet taken the decisions needed to ensure they can thrive and continue to be such a national asset.

This is the core problem. It is possible to imagine how industries may rely on universities but it is more difficult work out how universities, specifically, can deploy their capacity in the most effective ways. Universities cannot expect government money for everything they do but it is also true that if they fall over the industrial strategy will fall with them.

Philosophically, the industrial strategy neither supports enormous state intervention nor is it a hands off document of supply-side reform. It sees the state as an enabling force which can reduce risks to business, catalyse investment, and reconfigure the public sector. The industrial strategy does not tell universities what to do, or even what they might do in great detail, because that is not what it is designed to do. It gives an approach and it is for universities to choose whether and how they follow it.

Adapt or perish

This suggests a significant period of adaptation for universities. If more investment and political attention is flowing through their places then being involved in their places becomes significantly more important. Fundamentally, the industrial strategy is not an instruction manual but it is a guide to the things that the government will and will not fund.

There are lots of devolved things that universities would generally find unpalatable like top-slicing QR funds to MCAs. There are lots of things that universities could do and are doing to set an example which might one day be backed up by legislation. Organising regional bodies to coordinate the provision of education to meet local labour market needs. Forming joint research programmes and investment vehicles to form one front door for research in their area. Using their own research capacity to interrogate the best forms of devolution and devolved structures. And, perhaps most importantly, being embedded in the important but unglamorous business of transport and spatial planning.

The bigger mental shift is that the industrial strategy has two core centres of control. Its eight priority industries and regions and clusters within them. The challenge for universities, if they want to see sustained government support for their work, is to answer how what they do supports those two agendas. This is not a PR exercise but a careful interrogation of the limits and approaches of universities in their places and within those core industries.

In some places this might mean tweaking existing work, in others it might mean new partners or new projects, and in some it might mean a more fundamental reimagining of the shape of the education sector in a region. Given the perilous state of university finances it is the institutions that look like they have solutions that will do well in the era of uncertainty.

The industrial strategy does not leave universities behind, but it might. The opportunity is for universities to shape the settlement they want through being proactive in shaping their regions. This is not about another civic strategy but about creating the governance apparatus to support economic growth. Anything short of this risks an economic agenda which is done to universities rather than with them.

Source link

June 30, 2025
First-Year Registration Barriers Impact Student Success

An estimated 57 percent of college students cannot complete their degree on time because their institution does not offer required courses during days and times—or in a format, such as online—that meet their needs, according to data from Ad Astra.

A recently published study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that female students are more likely than their male peers to be shut out of a college course, which can have long-term implications for their success and outcomes.

The findings point to the role course shutouts can play in students’ major and career choices, with those unable to enroll in science, engineering, math or technology courses in their first term less likely to attempt a STEM course at any point during college.

The background: A common way for colleges to navigate budget cuts is to reduce course offerings or academic majors. But that can increase the number of students who are unable to enroll in, or find themselves shut out of, courses they want to take. Students at community colleges in particular are less likely to remain enrolled if they face a shutout, choosing instead to take zero credits that term or to transfer.

Federal funding cuts by the Trump administration have ramped up some institutions’ existing budget woes, requiring them to reduce program offerings. Some groups have advocated for minimizing costs via course sharing, which allows students to meet requirements and earn credits for their home institution while enrolling in a shared online course.

Methodology: The research, authored by faculty from Purdue and Brigham Young Universities, analyzed registration processes at Purdue in fall 2018, when first-year students were enrolled using a batch algorithm. Researchers considered a student shut out of a course in their first year if their primary request was not met or the student enrolled in a different, secondary course instead.

The data: Among the 7,646 first-year students studied, only 49 percent received their preferred schedule, meaning 51 percent were shut out from at least one of their top six requested courses. Eight percent of shutouts made it into their course eventually, according to the report.

Of the 241 courses that were oversubscribed, required English and communications courses were most likely to shut students out; the other overbooked courses represented a variety of subject areas.

The effects of a student not taking a preferred course in the first term were seen throughout their academic career. First-year students who were initially shut out from a course were 35 percentage points less likely to complete the course while enrolled and 25 percentage points less likely to ever enroll in a course in the same subject.

While a student’s first-term GPA was not impacted by the shutout, by senior year, students had a GPA two hundredths of a point lower compared to their peers who enrolled in their preferred classes. The study also found that each course shutout led to a 3 percent decrease in the probability of a student graduating within four years, which is economically meaningful but statistically insignificant.

Registration barriers also made it less likely that students would choose STEM majors, which researchers theorize could be due to a lack of substitution options to meet major prerequisites. Each shutout a student faced in a STEM course decreased the probability that a student majored in STEM by 20 percent.

The impact was especially striking for female students. For each course a female student was unable to enroll in during her first year, her first-semester credits dropped by 0.4, cumulative GPA by 0.05 and the probability of her majoring in a STEM field by 2.9 percentage points. The long-term effects extended into life after college: A shutout female student’s probability of graduating within four years dropped 7.5 percent and had an expected cost of approximately $1,500 in forgone wages and $800 in tuition and housing costs.

“In contrast, for male students, shutouts do not have a significant effect on credits earned, cumulative GPA, choosing a STEM major or on-time graduation,” researchers wrote.

Male students who didn’t get into their top-choice courses first semester were more likely to switch to a major in the business school and have a higher starting salary as well. “At this university, men are 19 percent more likely than women to major in business and this entire gender gap can be explained by course shutouts,” researchers wrote.

Researchers therefore believe finding ways to reduce course shutouts, particularly in STEM courses, can improve outcomes for women and others to widen the path to high-return majors.

Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

Source link

June 25, 2025
Embracing Credit Mobility for Student Success
Let me tell you about Andrew, a motivated student who graduated high school early with impressive dual-enrollment credits. After attending a private college for a year and taking some time to work, he rekindled his educational ambitions at a community college. With approximately 30 credits remaining for his bachelor’s degree, he applied to an R-1 university, ready to complete his journey.

What should have been a seamless transition became an unexpected challenge. Despite submitting his transfer work in October and regularly checking in with his adviser, Andrew discovered in January—after classes had already begun—that he faced “at least three years of coursework” rather than the anticipated single year to graduation.

This isn’t a rare occurrence or some administrative anomaly. Rather, it is the norm for individuals who aren’t pursuing a four-year degree on the traditional timeline. Higher education talks endlessly about completion and student success while maintaining systems and policies that actively undermine these goals.

Andrew’s story represents a critical opportunity for higher education. While his family successfully advocated for a refund and found another institution that better recognized his prior learning, his experience highlights a fundamental challenge we must address collectively.

The Scale of the Challenge

We have 42 million Americans with some college credit but no degree. We have 200,000 military personnel transitioning to civilian life annually. We have an economy desperately needing upskilled workers. Yet higher education’s response to credit mobility remains anchored in outdated policies and processes that fail to serve today’s students, institutions or workforce needs.

Many institutions have made meaningful progress in supporting diverse student needs through childcare services, flexible scheduling and online options. These are important steps. Now we must extend this same commitment to the academic evaluation processes that directly impact students’ time to degree and financial investment.

The Disconnect

Transfer articulation agreements—where they have been struck—have created valuable pathways, but their implementation often lacks the consistency and transparency students deserve. When agreements include qualifying language without firm commitments, students can’t effectively plan their educational journeys or make informed financial decisions.

The contradiction is striking: We express concern about student debt and extended time to degree, questioning why students take 150 credits when they only need 120 to graduate. Meanwhile, our credit evaluation processes remain opaque, slow and often costly.

The current reality—where students frequently must apply, pay deposits or even enroll before understanding how their previous academic work will be valued—creates unnecessary barriers. We can do better—and, frankly, must. It’s like buying a car and finding out the price after you’ve signed the paperwork. In what other industry would this be acceptable?

The Opportunity

Consider the possibilities if we fully embraced credit mobility as a cornerstone of student success:
- Students could make informed decisions about their educational pathways before committing financially.
- Institutions could demonstrate their commitment to affordability by recognizing prior learning.
- Graduation rates would improve as students avoid unnecessary course repetition.
- The workforce would benefit from skilled professionals entering more quickly.
Addressing the Objections

The objections to credit mobility typically fall into three categories:
1. Faculty workload: Faculty are being asked to do more, and evaluating credits for prospective students can feel like an unnecessary burden. But what if more students could see that their learning had value, that their degree was within reach, that they didn’t have to retake classes they’ve already mastered? This shift in perspective could transform the evaluation process from a burden to an opportunity.
2. Lost revenue: The focus on enrollments often overshadows the reality that only 50 percent of students who start college actually finish within six years. What if our goal was to expand opportunities so more students could complete their degrees? What if students were taking classes that genuinely added to their experience and built their confidence rather than repeating content they’ve already learned?
3. Quality concerns: Quality is often cited as justification for delayed evaluation. In reality, transparent evaluation supports faculty’s desire to maintain academic standards. Clear processes allow for informed decisions and data collection that ensures the focus remains on student outcomes.
The AI Opportunity

The emergence of artificial intelligence presents a tremendous opportunity to enhance our credit-evaluation processes—addressing issues of time and cost while creating transparency for data analysis. A new study just released by AACRAO on the role of AI in credit mobility makes a compelling case as to why the technology could help unlock new ways of working. We can harness technology as a powerful tool to support faculty decision-making and administrative resource allocations. AI could:
- Identify potential course equivalencies based on learning outcomes.
- Highlight relevant information in transfer documentation.
- Streamline evaluation processes, allowing human experts to focus on complex cases.
- Provide leadership with insights into where credit mobility is operating effectively.
- Identify areas needing additional resources or training.
With proper implementation and training, AI can become a tool to achieve our goals of access and completion at scale—reducing both the cost and timeline to graduation.

The Path Forward

If we truly believe in access and completion, then credit mobility must become a shared priority across higher education. This means:
- Making course information, learning outcomes and sample syllabi readily accessible.
- Expanding recognition of diverse learning experiences, including microcredentials, corporate training, internships and apprenticeships.
- Establishing and honoring clear timelines for credit evaluation.
- Eliminating financial barriers to credit assessment.
- Providing updated articulation and equivalency tables in easy-to-find locations on admissions websites.
Andrew’s experience should be the exception, not the rule. Colleges and universities that embrace this challenge will not only better serve their students but will also position themselves for long-term sustainability in an increasingly competitive landscape. Those that resist change risk becoming irrelevant to the very students they aim to serve and perpetuating the cost and time-to-completion conundrum.

The Call to Action

The question before us isn’t whether credit mobility matters—it’s whether we have the collective will to make it a reality at scale, not just at a handful of institutions, but across systems and all institutions. We must recognize that our students are learning in new ways, on new timelines, and bringing knowledge that evolves faster than our curriculum. Our students deserve nothing less than our full commitment to recognizing their learning, regardless of where it occurred.

So I’ll ask: How committed are you to credit mobility at scale? Your answer says everything about how seriously you take college completion.

Jesse Boeding is the co-founder of Education Assessment System, an AI-powered platform mapping transfer, microcredentials and prior learning to an institution’s curriculum to enable decision-making and resourcing.
Source link
June 18, 2025
NYU’s student success team talks AI – Campus Review

John Burdick, Marni Passer Vassallo and Holly Halmo lead the New York University student success team.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

June 18, 2025
Data Shows Attendance Improves Student Success

Prior research shows attendance is one of the best predictors of class grades and student outcomes, creating a strong argument for faculty to incentivize or require attendance.

Attaching grades to attendance, however, can create its own challenges, because many students generally want more flexibility in their schedules and think they should be assessed on what they learn—not how often they show up. A student columnist at the University of Washington expressed frustration at receiving a 20 percent weighted participation grade, which the professor graded based on exit tickets students submitted at the end of class.

“Our grades should be based on our understanding of the material, not whether or not we were in the room,” Sophie Sanjani wrote in The Daily, UW’s student paper.

Keenan Hartert, a biology professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato, set out to understand the factors affecting students’ performance in his own course and found that attendance was one of the strongest predictors of their success.

His finding wasn’t an aha moment, but reaffirmed his position that attendance is an early indicator of GPA and class community building. The challenge, he said, is how to apply such principles to an increasingly diverse student body, many of whom juggle work, caregiving responsibilities and their own personal struggles.

“We definitely have different students than the ones I went to school with,” Hartert said. “We do try to be the most flexible, because we have a lot of students that have a lot of other things going on that they can’t tell us. We want to be there for them.”

Who’s missing class? It’s not uncommon for a student to miss class for illness or an outside conflict, but higher rates of absence among college students in recent years are giving professors pause.

An analysis of 1.1 million students across 22 major research institutions found that the number of hours students have spent attending class, discussion sections and labs declined dramatically from the 2018–19 academic year to 2022–23, according to the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Consortium.

More than 30 percent of students who attended community college in person skipped class sometimes in the past year, a 2023 study found; 4 percent said they skipped class often or very often.

Students say they opt out of class for a variety of reasons, including lack of motivation, competing priorities and external challenges. A professor at Colorado State University surveyed 175 of his students in 2023 and found that 37 percent said they regularly did not attend class because of physical illness, mental health concerns, a lack of interest or engagement, or simply because it wasn’t a requirement.

A 2024 survey from Trellis Strategies found that 15 percent of students missed class sometimes due to a lack of reliable transportation. Among working students, one in four said they regularly missed class due to conflicts with their work schedule.

High rates of anxiety and depression among college students may also impact their attendance. More than half of 817 students surveyed by Harmony Healthcare IT in 2024 said they’d skipped class due to mental health struggles; one-third of respondents indicated they’d failed a test because of negative mental health.

A case study: MSU Mankato’s Hartert collected data on about 250 students who enrolled in his 200-level genetics course over several semesters.

Using an end-of-term survey, class activities and his own grade book information, Hartert collected data measuring student stress, hours slept, hours worked, number of office hours attended, class attendance and quiz grades, among other metrics.

Mapping out the various factors, Hartert’s case study modeled other findings in student success literature: a high number of hours worked correlated negatively with the student’s course grade, while attendance in class and at review sessions correlated positively with academic outcomes.

Data analysis by Keenan Hartert, a biology professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato, found student employment negatively correlated with their overall class grade.
Keenan Hartert

The data also revealed to Hartert some of the challenges students face while enrolled. “It was brutal to see how many students [were working full-time]. Just seeing how many were [working] over 20 [hours] and how many were over 30 or 40, it was different.”

Nationally, two-thirds of college students work for pay while enrolled, and 43 percent of employed students work full-time, according to fall 2024 data from Trellis Strategies.

Hartert also asked students if they had any financial resources to support them in case of emergency; 28 percent said they had no fallback. Of those students, 90 percent were working more than 20 hours per week.

Data analysis of student surveys show students who are working are less likely to have financial resources to support them in an emergency.

The findings illustrated to him the challenges many students face in managing their job shifts while trying to meet attendance requirements.

A Faculty Aside

While some faculty may be less interested in using predictive analytics for their own classes, Hartert found tracking factors like how often a student attends office hours was beneficial to helping him achieve his own career goals, because he could include those measurements in his tenure review.

An interpersonal dynamic: A less measured factor in the attendance debate is not a student’s own learning, but the classroom environment they contribute to. Hartert framed it as students motivating their peers unknowingly. “The people that you may not know that sit around you and see you, if you’re gone, they may think, ‘Well, they gave up, why should I keep trying?’ Even if they’ve never spoken to you.”

One professor at the University of Oregon found that peer engagement positively correlated with academic outcomes. Raghuveer Parthasarathy restructured his general education physics course to promote engagement by creating an “active zone,” or a designated seating area in the classroom where students sat if they wanted to participate in class discussions and other active learning conversations.

Compared to other sections of the course, the class was more engaged across the board, even among those who didn’t opt to sit in the participation zone. Additionally, students who sat in the active zone were more likely to earn higher grades on exams and in the course over all.

Attending class can also create connections between students and professors, something students say they want and expect.

A May 2024 student survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 35 percent of respondents think their academic success would be most improved by professors getting to know them better. In a separate question, 55 percent of respondents said they think professors are at least partly responsible for becoming a mentor.

The SERU Consortium found student respondents in 2023 were less likely to say a professor knew or had learned their name compared to their peers in 2013. Students were also less confident that they knew a professor well enough to ask for a letter of recommendation for a job or graduate school.

“You have to show up to class then, so I know who you are,” Hartert said.

Meeting in the middle: To encourage attendance, Hartert employs active learning methods such as creative writing or case studies, which help demonstrate the value of class participation. His favorite is a jury scenario, in which students put their medical expertise into practice with criminal cases. “I really try and get them in some gray-area stuff and remind them, just because it’s a big textbook doesn’t mean that you can’t have some creative, fun ideas,” Hartert said.

For those who can’t make it, all of Hartert’s lectures are recorded and available online to watch later. Recording lectures, he said, “was a really hard bridge to cross, post-COVID. I was like, ‘Nobody’s going to show up.’ But every time I looked at the data [for] who was looking at the recording, it’s all my top students.” That was reason enough for him to leave the recordings available as additional practice and resources.

Students who can’t make an in-person class session can receive attendance credit by sending Hartert their notes and answers to any questions asked live during the class, proving they watched the recording.

Hartert has also made adjustments to how he uses class time to create more avenues for working students to engage. His genetics course includes a three-hour lab section, which rarely lasts the full time, Hartert said. Now, the final hour of the lab is a dedicated review session facilitated by peer leaders, who use practice questions Hartert designed. Initial data shows working students who stayed for the review section of labs were more likely to perform better on their exams.

“The good news is when it works out, like when we can make some adjustments, then we can figure our way through,” Hartert said. “But the reality of life is that time marches on and things happen, and you gotta choose a couple priorities.”

Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

Source link

June 13, 2025
Redefining Academic Success: Why Career Progression Must Look Beyond Research
- By Professor Isabel Lucas, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and outgoing Chair of the national Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG).
In higher education, prestige and promotion have long hinged on research output. But with growing numbers of academics focused on teaching, educational leadership and knowledge exchange, the old metrics no longer fit. A report by the European Association for Universities places academic career reform at the heart of its 2030 vision, highlighting the need to recognise impact beyond traditional research publications. This shift is not only about fairness – it’s about organisational effectiveness and employee wellbeing.

Research has long dominated academic prestige, promotions, and funding. Sterling et al. (2023) argue that current academic career frameworks are weighted heavily toward research, often sidelining innovative teaching and educational leadership. Yet, as the higher education sector evolves, so too must our understanding of what counts as impactful academic work.

The reality is already shifting. Data from HESA (2022) shows a 10% rise in teaching-only contracts between 2015 and 2022, balanced by a 9% decrease in research-related roles. This suggests a growing academic population for whom the current research-heavy promotion pathways simply don’t apply. However, ‘teaching-only’ staff (a problematic term as it is inevitably not only teaching) often find themselves ineligible – or unrecognised – within traditional academic progression systems. The lack of progression routes for these high-quality staff capable of transforming the education and student experience at a strategic level risks undermining job satisfaction and retention.

What’s more, staff on Professional Service contracts, including roles like educational developers and academic skills support tutors, are engaged in academic work without the benefits or recognition of an academic title. HESA’s own definitions blur the lines: academic function is tied to the contract, not necessarily the work performed. This disconnect creates a situation where talented, impactful educators are ‘othered’ – excluded from meaningful recognition and progression.

Key findings from sector analysis undertaken in 2024 via the Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG) showed some alarming disparities among middle managers with institutional responsibility for learning and teaching:
- Career Blockages:
  
  100% of academic contract holders in the study had access to promotion to Reader/Professor.
  
  Only 39% of Professional Service contract holders had similar access—even when doing the same academic work as peers on academic contracts.
- Misalignment of Identity and Contract:
  
  Staff whose professional identity did not match their contract type (e.g. self-identifying as academic but on a Professional Service contract) reported significantly lower satisfaction and empowerment scores.
- Promotion Criteria Gaps:
  
  Respondents noted they could meet academic promotion criteria, but were ineligible due to contract type.
  
  Job satisfaction scores were lowest where staff reported that promotion routes existed but were inaccessible due to the nature of their role.
So, how can HE evolve its career structures beyond research? Establishing clear, visible academic promotion routes to Reader/Professor that recognise leadership in education, curriculum innovation, and pedagogic research would be a good starting point. Making sure promotion frameworks include non-research excellence – impact on student learning, institutional strategy, and sector-wide education initiatives – would be even more inclusive. Neither of these things should pose a significant operational or cost challenge to universities and would reap significant rewards in staff retention and satisfaction.

Institutions that fail to adapt risk not just losing talent, but falling behind in impact, innovation, and reputation. It’s time to value all forms of academic excellence. The future of higher education, now more than ever, depends on it.
Source link
June 10, 2025
Housing Program Increases Student Success in Calif.

An estimated 20 percent of college students experience housing insecurity and 14 percent experience homelessness, according to fall 2024 data from Trellis Strategies. Yet many colleges are ill-equipped to address student housing concerns, particularly institutions with nonresidential campuses or those that serve adult learners.

The state of California created an initiative in 2020 to provide housing and short-term support to students who were experiencing housing insecurity while enrolled at one of the three public systems—the California State Universities, California Community Colleges or the University of California.

A recently published analysis of the state’s College Focused Rapid Rehousing (CFRR) program identified promising practices and lessons learned from the pilot. The study—authored by the Center for Equitable Higher Education (CEHE) at California State University, Long Beach—found that students who participated were more likely to remain enrolled and graduate compared to their peers, and a majority had established stable housing one year later.

The background: Passed in July 2019, Assembly Bill 74 allocated funding for college-focused rapid rehousing programs, which give students rental subsidies, moving assistance, wraparound supports, case management and emergency grants. The community college system received $9 million, CSU $6.5 million and UC institutions $3.5 million to invest in long- and short-term initiatives, depending on each system’s unique student needs.

According to 2023 data included in the report, over half of CSU students and 65 percent of CCC’s who receive financial aid experience housing insecurity. One-quarter of CCC students and 11 percent of CSU students experienced homelessness during the 2022–23 academic year.

The CEHE study evaluated the program over three years at eight CSU campuses and two community colleges. In total, 639 students participated in CFRR across the 10 institutions, and 3,949 received short-term assistance—often in the form of an emergency grant—from spring 2020 to spring 2024. Approximately 540 students fell into both categories, receiving short-term support before enrolling in CFRR.

Some historically underserved populations were more likely to participate in CFRR: Black students and former foster youth were heavily overrepresented relative to the general population, and first-generation, transfer and returning students were also overrepresented to a smaller degree.

Addressing housing insecurity: The program was successful in its goal of mitigating homelessness for enrolled students. After engaging with CFRR, participants experienced substantial housing stability, with an average of nine consecutive months of housing.

In addition, a majority of students who left the program graduated (27 percent) or reached permanent housing (27 percent), while 15 percent failed to meet academic requirements, which is a common barrier to sustaining housing assistance.

The greatest share of students (37 percent) were placed in stable housing in less than six months, though one-third took over 12 months to get housing from a community partner. The breakdown highlights the challenges in placing students in viable housing options, according to the report. However, two-thirds of surveyed students (n=181) said they believe they had been housed relatively quickly.

One year after exiting the program, a majority of participants indicated that they were residing in an apartment or home that they directly leased or owned. Eighteen percent lived with a family member.

Students credited the program with supporting their long-term success; 71 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their current housing situation was better because of the assistance they received.

However, many still struggled with financial insecurity. Sixty-two percent said it was difficult to pay increased rent in the first year after exiting the program, and 25 percent underpaid or missed at least one rent payment during this period. Three in 10 said they had to move more than twice due to financial difficulties, and one-quarter of program graduates reported at least one episode of homelessness.

Impacting student success: In addition to meeting students’ basic needs, the program had a demonstrated effect on persistence and attainment rates.

Participants were more likely to remain enrolled or graduate (56 percent) compared to students receiving short-term housing assistance (47 percent). At CSU, CFRR students graduated within four years at higher rates than the broader CSU population (43 percent versus 35.5 percent), as well.

Data also pointed to the impact housing crises can have on students’ academic performance, with housing-insecure students reporting their lowest GPA the semester they engaged in support interventions and the semester following.

A graph showing the average GPA of CFRR participants compared to their peers who received short-term assistance from their institution.

Twelve months after receiving assistance, CFRR students were significantly less likely to stop out of school compared to their peers who received just a short-term housing subsidy. Survey data showed students were more likely to engage in school activities, but a majority (70 percent) still held jobs to pay for college, working an average of 25 hours per week. Eighty percent of CFRR participants said they had difficulty balancing school and life responsibilities.

Program participants were also more likely to be employed six months after entering housing (70 percent) versus three months before entering the program (56 percent).

Housing insecurity can damage students’ mental health and in turn affect their persistence in higher education. At intake into CFRR, 76 percent of participants said they felt lonely, but that number dropped to 63 percent in follow-up surveys. Just under half of housing-insecure students experienced serious psychological distress at intake, while closer to one-third indicated distress at follow-up. These numbers remain elevated compared to the total student population at CSU, where 20 percent experienced serious psychological distress.

The program also increased students’ emotional and mental resilience. Students rated their ability to handle personal problems higher after securing housing as well, from 33 percent to 52 percent during follow-up.

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

Source link

June 6, 2025
Cross-Functional Marcomm Teams Drive Strategic Success

During my first foray into marcomm leadership, every project seemed on fire. If the project was due at 3 p.m., the first draft was ready at 2 p.m., giving little time for adjustments. I noticed this happened with almost every project. As I did some research into the production calendar, I realized there were more projects than time. That meant if one project got behind, there was a ripple effect that continued to impact more and more projects the team was working on.

An initial strategy to address this involved offloading projects that were not the best use of marcomm’s time. The second strategy looked at increasing capacity through student workers and approved freelance partners. Despite implementing both, the team still struggled to accomplish all the tasks, finding many delays in the back-and-forth process with the campus partner. As I started exploring what would help the team, the idea of cross-functional teams emerged as a viable strategy to yield better alignment with key constituents, increase efficiency and create better products.

Cross-functional teams are groups of people from various areas in an organization who work together to achieve a common goal. I have used these teams with key university partners including enrollment, advancement and athletics. Each cross-functional team has several members from the marcomm team (usually a representative from communications, marketing, creative and web) and two or three members from the other unit. Together, these groups meet regularly and work as strategic partners to meet institutional goals.

Cross-functional teams are time-consuming but can have significant impact on outcomes, culture and organizational success when done well. Below are a few benefits of utilizing cross-functional teams when working with strategic campus partners.

Moving From Service Provider to Strategic Partner

One benefit of cross-functional teams is positioning marcomm teams as a strategic partner, not just an order taker. This shift allows marcomm to more meaningfully support institutional goals. Instead of executing someone else’s strategy, these teams can apply their individual expertise while collaborating on integrated strategies that support the partner and ultimately the organization. For example, the web team member can begin approaching the project thinking about the entire digital strategy, instead of just making a website pretty. This role’s shift helps improve relationships between the teams but ultimately drives results.

Operational Efficiency Creates Wins Faster

Familiar teams work faster. Less time is required to navigate procedural and relational decisions, such as who needs to review something or what the feedback process entails. In cross-functional teams, the members become comfortable with these aspects, allowing them to begin working faster. The speed comes not only from familiarity but also from intentionality. Shared institutional knowledge of the goals and the internal processes to complete tasks results in more thoughtful responses when adjustments are needed because of changes like enrollment shifts, market changes or budget adjustments.

Consistency Builds Brand Equity

Aligned teams also create consistent work. Regular collaboration leads to consistency in voice, tone and look on projects. For example, when cross-functional teams are collaborating on the goals for a piece, there is more likely to be synergy in the tactical execution of the piece or at a least a shared understanding of the approach. When there is no alignment, the teams may agree on the goal but are less likely to agree on the strategies and tactics, resulting in disjointed messaging and less effective outcomes.

Cohesive messages also build trust and recognition with external audiences, which is critical to support for university objectives. Ultimately, consistency across teams strengthens the university’s voice in the market and amplifies the impact of every communication.

Internal Alignment Supports Goals

One of the biggest benefits of cross-functional teams is how they strengthen internal alignment within marcomm. By collaborating closely with colleagues across disciplines, the marcomm team is better equipped to align its work with the goals and priorities of campus partners. For example, telling our story takes on an enhanced meaning when it is viewed through the lens of growing enrollment or raising private institutional support. In addition, this cross-functional collaboration fosters greater accountability and trust within the marcomm unit itself. From my experience, the team often internally aligns on the approach and presents a strategic (and united) front when pitching concepts or suggesting strategy shifts.

Empowered Teams Create Elevated Outcomes

Cross-functional teams facilitate learning from all members. Hearing new perspectives from other divisions creates new understandings, both within marcomm and outside of it. For example, web team members learn about graphic design and enrollment best practices. This occurs because cross-functional teams are collaboration-based, so all team members are empowered to contribute ideas instead of only giving feedback on their traditional roles. More broadly, the entire marcomm team benefits from cross-functional teams if there’s a way to share these learnings with the full group instead of just those in a specific meeting.

Working Toward Success

When I first stepped into marcomm leadership, the team was running full speed just to keep up, racing from one fire drill to the next with little time to pause, reflect or align. What initially seemed like a time-management problem turned out to be a deeper issue of structure, communication and partnership. Through the intentional creation of cross-functional teams, we began to shift from reactive executors to proactive strategic partners.

Cross-functional teams require time investment to create shared mission, collaboration frameworks and understanding of the work at hand. However, these teams generate shared ownership and strong trust, central to ongoing collaboration, partnerships and organizational innovation. Most importantly, the outcomes are usually a more agile, aligned and high-performing organization—better equipped to meet both immediate goals and long-term strategic priorities of the institution.

Carrie Phillips, Ed.D., is chief communications and marketing officer at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Source link

June 3, 2025
ASU Online: Where Success Is Accessible and Innovation Is Standard

What is your passion? What sparks your curiosity and brings you joy? Whatever it is, Arizona State University (ASU) will help you find it, study it, master it, and turn it into a rewarding career, regardless of your previous educational journey.

Casey Evans

Chief Operating Officer, EdPlus at ASU

For more than 15 years, ASU has offered high-quality programs online taught by the same world-renowned faculty that teach on-campus students, using the same rigorous curriculum. ASU offers more than 300 degree programs online, with over 100,000 graduates now working across nearly every industry, helping to strengthen the university’s reputation for educational excellence and career readiness. ASU graduates are highly recruitable, with ASU ranking No. 2 in the United States among public universities for the employability of its graduates, ahead of UCLA, the University of Michigan, and Purdue University.

ASU Online combines the exceptional resources and academic excellence of the nation’s most innovative university with a rigorous, world-class online learning experience. Students are supported every step of the way, ensuring they gain the skills and knowledge they need to thrive in their career, no matter where they are in the world.

“ASU’s rigorous coursework and knowledgeable instructors have been instrumental in preparing me for my career, equipping me with the skills to excel in my field,” said Evelyn M., ’24 BS in speech and hearing science.

To learn more, visit asuonline.asu.edu

Source link

June 1, 2025