Tag: system

Australia eases risk ratings amid calls to scrap system

According to reports, a brief note issued by the Department of Home Affairs through the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), which oversees international student data, confirms that evidence levels have been updated.

“The September 2025 evidence level update for countries and education providers (based on student visa outcome data from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025) has taken place, effective for applications lodged on or after 30 September 2025,” read a statement by the DHA on the PRISMS website.

Consultants and universities in Australia are able to work out these levels through the government’s document checklist tool, which reveals a provider’s risk standing based on the requirements triggered when paired with a student’s country of origin.

Reports suggest that level 1 (lowest risk) includes Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; level 2 (moderate risk) includes India, Bhutan, Vietnam, China, and Nepal; and level 3 (highest risk) includes Fiji, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Colombia.

Although India and Vietnam, both prominent source markets for Australia, improved from level 3 to level 2 on the back of stronger grant rates, China slipped from level 1 to level 2, possibly due to a surge in asylum applications from Chinese nationals, particularly students, as some reports suggest.

While education providers in Australia registered under CRICOS (Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students) are assigned an evidence level, each country is also given one based on its past performance with student visas, particularly visa refusals, asylum applications, and breaches of conditions.

Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements
_{Ravi Lochan Singh, Global Reach}

The combination of provider and country levels determines the documents required for an international student’s visa application.

Stakeholders have highlighted the lack of transparency in assessing country risk levels, particularly as students from countries with reduced risk ratings may still arrive in Australia under precarious conditions.

“Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements. There are also whispers that certain operators may encourage students to apply for protection visas,” stated Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach.

Visa prioritisation is already tied to intended caps, with applications processed on a first-in, first-out basis until a provider reaches 80% of its allocation, explained Singh.

With almost all universities now streamlined for visas and the majority promoted from level 2 to level 1, lowest risk, and almost none remaining in level 3, the evidence-level system appears unnecessary to some.

“The concept of ‘streamlining’ (and then the development later of the SSVF) took place at a time where there was a whole-of-government focus on growing international student numbers and increasing the value, while maintaining integrity, of the highly important international education sector,” shared Mike Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University.

According to Ferguson, a former DHA official, “English and financial requirements were streamlined as part of the visa process, based on a risk assessment, given the other safeguards in place – obligations enforced by TEQSA and ASQA in terms of providers ensuring students have sufficient English proficiency and the use of the GTE requirement to consider a student’s holistic economic circumstances.”

However, with international student numbers rising since the early 2010s, “times have changed” and the focus has shifted to managing enrolments and ensuring sustainable growth, explained Ferguson.

“My view is that all students should provide evidence of funds and English with the visa process. That would align with community expectations, support enhanced integrity and potentially help to some degree with some of the course hopping behaviour we are seeing (though the latter requires a range of measures),” he contineud.

“DHA could still determine the degree to which they scrutinise the funds submitted but that would be based on a more holistic and granular risk assessment – not just based on country and provider.”

Evidence levels of select Australian institutions, showing whether they have remained steady, been upgraded, or downgraded, as shared by Ravi Lochan Singh. Correction: Deakin University was previously categorized under risk level 2 (not 1) and has since been upgraded to 1.

Singh further stated that concerns around visa hopping and attrition could be exacerbated, as international students may now enter Australia through universities and then transition to higher-risk, non-university sectors without needing new visa applications, especially since Australia has yet to mandate linking study visas to the institution of initial enrolment, unlike neighbouring New Zealand.

Moreover, Singh pointed out that when students arrive without adequate financial backing, it can increase visa misuse, which may lead authorities to tighten risk classifications again.

“The document checklist tool provides a clear framework for assessing the risk level of a university. However, it raises concerns about the recent trend of promoting the application of visas without financial funds, as suggested by the document checklist tools. While these visas may be approved, this approach could potentially lead to the return of the country to risk level 3 in the future,” stated Singh.

“For instance, if a country’s risk level is 3 (such as Pakistan), and Home Affairs requires financial and English requirements to be attached to the visa application, the university’s risk level is inferred to be 2. If the Home Affairs tool waives this requirement, the risk level is reduced to 1.”

The PIE has requested comment from the DHA and is awaiting a response.

Australia’s reported changes to country evidence levels come just a month after the government announced an additional 25,000 international student places for next year, raising the cap to 295,000.

Source link

October 3, 2025
Back to the Future? What could system reform of higher education look like?
Author:

Mike Boxall

Published:

30 September 2025
This HEPI blog was kindly written by Mike Boxall, writing in a personal capacity.

According to the latest survey by PA Consulting, over 90% of university vice-chancellors endorse a call for ‘fundamental system reforms’ to secure the survival of their sector against what they universally regard as an unprecedented combination of existential threats and challenges. Yet the responses seen from across the sector to date have been distinctly conventional and, in a literal sense, conservative: cost-cutting, portfolio rationalisation, recruitment freezes and redundancies, and forgone investments. While undoubtedly necessary in some cases to stave off short-term financial crises, such measures hardly represent transformational innovations; indeed, almost half the survey respondents predicted that their institutions would look and feel much the same in ten years’ time as today. As one vice-chancellor put it:

We have been propping up a 20^th-century system that is no longer fit for the purposes of the early 21^st century

Meanwhile, policymakers in the Department of Education and the Office for Students are busily preparing contingency measures against the heightened risk of multiple institutional failures and institutions plan for continued retrenchment. Big questions remain unanswered: Why might ‘fundamental system reforms’ be needed? What could (or should) a fundamentally reformed higher education system look like? And how might it be brought about in an era of continued fiscal and policy austerity?

Unlike just about every other sector facing seismic shifts in their markets and operating environments, universities have remained uniformly committed to what many regard as self-limiting and increasingly outdated business models:

Reliance on providing essentially similar subject-based courses to limited cohorts of school-leavers, largely neglecting the more diverse learning needs of much larger populations of in-career professionals and their employers.

Adherence to misleadingly named ‘full-time’ study schedules typically limited to 30 weeks a year or less, with single annual entry points and campuses and facilities largely empty of students and staff for almost half the year.

A deficit-based business model in which devolved expenditure plans are set (and spent) separately from confirmed earnings, often resulting in unexpected year-end shortfalls and relying on cross-subsidies from international student fees to balance budgets.

Over 150 autonomous and self-determining universities competing with one another for shares of largely fixed or even shrinking markets and funding sources, with success judged more in terms of reputational standings than by the quality and social value of their services.

It must be acknowledged that, despite these self-imposed limitations, the current university system has defied repeated prophesies of its demise. It has survived largely intact for many decades, with few provider closures or even forced mergers, and continues to recruit almost 1.5 million domestic and international students each year, generating over £55 billion in revenues. A handful of global institutions with annual incomes exceeding £1 billion or more may be considered too big and important to fail, and indeed these few continue to do relatively well, often at the direct expense of less-favoured rivals. However, many, perhaps even most, others face a future of chronic struggles to cover inexorably rising costs and to protect their shares of markets eroded by new competitors and alternative options for students, employers, knowledge users and public programmes. Survival for these providers through continued efficiency drives might be possible, but it won’t be fun; nor will it be sufficient to secure the pivotal roles of universities in educating and informing an increasingly complex and precarious world.

The roles and contributions of universities in today’s and tomorrow’s learning society are no less important than in the past, but they will be different. In particular, they have a unique responsibility for sustaining human and social intelligence in the face of impersonal AI and related technological advances. To fulfil this role, universities must move beyond the limitations of their legacy models, expanding their roles within national and localised ecosystems to promote:

Lifelong and continuous learning and professional development for all adults, from post-secondary to late-career stages, and from initial formation to periodic upskilling and personal renewal, facilitated and supported through the Lifelong Learning Entitlement and related schemes

Cumulative and personalised learning attainments, embracing the rounded acquisition and development of knowledge, competences, experience and personal development, incorporating micro-credentials and stackable awards on the lines proposed by the OECD

Variety and choice of accessible pathways through different modes of provision for useful learning as and when sought by individuals and employers, embracing universities, colleges, training providers and online services, as is being developed in Greater Manchester

Funding and economic structures based on the value and benefits of different modes of learning provision, shared equitably between individuals, employers, civic authorities and the State, on the lines explored by the UNESCO Innovative Funding for Education project.

While fully articulated and integrated learning and skills ecosystems built on these principles may seem a long way off, the examples cited show that prototypes can already be seen in localised initiatives and emerging proposals across the international tertiary formation landscape. A variety of models built around these principles might emerge, displaying the characteristics of complex adaptive systems: self-organising and dynamic networks of diverse partners and stakeholders, producing emergent results in response to changing experiences.

Unpredictable and sometimes surprising outcomes of these kinds cannot easily be planned or fitted into pre-determined blueprints. They are thus unsuited to the normal pattern of government policy interventions. Rather, the role of government should be to provide the enabling conditions and supportive frameworks (including funds) within which self-organising solutions can emerge. A good start would be to reduce the fragmentation of policy, funding and regulatory constraints to innovation and enterprise across existing learning and skills provision. The Commission on Tertiary Education and Research (Medr) in Wales offers a laudable start towards that end, now being emulated in the Republic of Ireland and in New Zealand.

System-wide reforms on this scale do not in any way diminish the importance or critical roles of universities in serving fast-changing national needs for advanced education and skills. What they would do would be to shift the debate on the health of higher education provision from its current focus on enabling universities to continue doing what they have always done, on their own terms, to redefining and consolidating their roles at the heart of sectoral or place-related advanced learning ecosystems. In spirit, if not in forms, this would represent returns to the principles on which most universities (both pre- and post-1992) were first established and which many would argue are needed even more today.
Source link
September 30, 2025
Texas Tech System Ends Class Discussions of Trans Identity

The Texas Tech University System has ordered all faculty to refrain from classroom discussions of transgender identity, The Texas Tribune reported.

In a letter to the leaders of the five universities in the system, Texas Tech Chancellor Tedd Mitchell wrote that the institutions must comply with “current state and federal law,” which “recognize only two human sexes: male and female.“ He cited Texas House Bill 229, which defines sex strictly as determined by reproductive organs, a letter from Texas governor Greg Abbott directing agencies to “reject woke gender ideologies,” and President Trump’s January executive order—which is not a federal law—declaring the existence of just two genders.

“While recognizing the First Amendment rights of employees in their personal capacity, faculty must comply with these laws in the instruction of students, within the course and scope of their employment,” Mitchell wrote.

The move follows a confusing week at Angelo State University—part of the Texas Tech System—where a new set of policies first seemed to prohibit faculty from engaging in any sort of pride displays but ultimately limited discussion and content only related to trans identity.

Mitchell’s letter provided little guidance for faculty about how to implement the new policy, suggesting it presents certain challenges.

“This is a developing area of law, and we acknowledge that questions remain and adjustments may be necessary as new guidance is issued at both the state and federal levels,” he wrote. “We fully expect discussions will be ongoing.”

Source link

September 27, 2025
The Next System Teach-Ins and Their Role in Higher Education
In a time when higher education grapples with systemic challenges—rising tuition, debt burdens, underfunding, and institutional inertia—the Next System Teach-Ins emerge as a powerful catalyst for critical dialogue, community engagement, and transformative thinking.

A Legacy of Teach-Ins: From Vietnam to System Change

Teach-ins have long functioned as dynamic forums that transcend mere lecturing, incorporating participatory dialogue and strategic action. The concept originated in March 1965 at the University of Michigan in direct protest of the Vietnam War; faculty and students stayed up all night, creating an intellectual and activist space that sparked over 100 similar events in that year alone.

This model evolved through the decades—fueling the environmental, civil rights, and anti-apartheid movements of the 1970s and 1980s, followed by the Democracy Teach-Ins of the 1990s which challenged corporate influence in universities and energized anti-sweatshop activism. Later waves during Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter sustained teach-ins as a tool for inclusive dialogue and resistance.

The Next System Teach-Ins: Vision, Scope, and Impact

Vision and Purpose

Launched in Spring 2016, the Next System Teach-Ins aimed to broaden public awareness of systemic alternatives to capitalism—ranging from worker cooperatives and community land trusts to decentralized energy systems and democratic public banking.

These teach-ins were designed not just as academic discussion forums but as launching pads for community-led action, connecting participants with toolkits, facilitation guides, ready-made curricula, and resources to design their own events.

Highlights of the Inaugural Wave

In early 2016, notable teach-ins took place across the U.S.—from Madison and New York City to Seattle and beyond. Participants explored pressing questions such as, “What comes after capitalism?” and “How can communities co-design alternatives that are just, sustainable, and democratic?”

These gatherings showcased a blend of plenaries, interactive workshops, radio segments, and “wall-to-wall” organizing strategies—mobilizing participants beyond attendee numbers into collective engagement.

Resources and Capacity Building

Organizers were provided with a wealth of support materials including modular curriculum, templates for publicity and RFPs, event agendas, speaker lists, and online infrastructure to manage RSVPs and share media.

The goal was dual: ignite a nationwide conversation on alternative systemic models, and encourage each teach-in host to aim for a specific local outcome—whether that be a campus campaign, curriculum integration, or forming ongoing community groups.

2025: Renewed Momentum

The Next System initiative has evolved. According to a May 2025 update from George Mason University’s Next System Studies, a new wave of Next System Teach-Ins is scheduled for November 1–16, 2025.

This iteration amplifies the original mission: confronting interconnected social, ecological, political, and economic crises by gathering diverse communities—on campuses, in union halls, or public spaces—to rethink, redesign, and rebuild toward a more equitable and sustainable future.

Why This Matters for Higher Education (HEI’s Perspective)

Teach-ins revitalize civic engagement on campus by reasserting higher education’s role as an engine of critical thought and imagination.

They integrate scholarship and practice, uniting theory with actionable strategies—from economic democracy to ecological regeneration—and enrich academic purpose with real-world relevance.

They also mobilize institutional infrastructure, offering student-led exploration of systemic change without requiring prohibitive resources.

By linking the global and the local, teach-ins equip universities to address both planetary crises and campus-specific challenges.

Most importantly, they trigger systemic dialogue, pushing past complacency and fostering a new generation of system-thinking leaders.

Looking Ahead: Institutional Opportunities
- Host a Teach-In – Whether a focused film screening, interdisciplinary workshop, or full-scale weekend event, universities can leverage Next System resources to design context-sensitive, action-oriented programs.
- Embed in Curriculum – The modular material—especially case studies on democratic economics, energy justice, or communal models—can integrate into courses in sociology, environmental studies, governance, and beyond.
- Forge Community Partnerships – By extending beyond campus (to community centers, labor unions, public libraries), teach-ins expand access and deepen impact.
- Contribute to a National Movement – University participation in the November 2025 wave positions institutions as active contributors to a growing ecosystem of systemic transformation.
A Bold Experiment

The Next System Teach-Ins represent a bold experiment in higher education’s engagement with systemic change. Combining rich traditions of activism with pragmatic tools for contemporary challenges, these initiatives offer HEI a blueprint for meaningful civic education, collaborative inquiry, and institutional transformation.

As the 2025 wave approaches, universities have a timely opportunity to be centers of both reflection and action in building the next system we all need.

Sources
Source link
September 22, 2025
California Unions Sue Trump Admin Over Threats to UC System

The Trump administration has frozen more than $500 million in federal funding to UCLA.

A coalition of California education unions and faculty associations is suing the Trump administration to challenge what they say is “the illegal and coercive use of civil rights laws to attack the University of California system and the rights of their members,” the American Association of University Professors announced Tuesday.

The coalition comprises 19 groups—including the AAUP, the American Federation of Teachers and 10 University of California campus faculty associations—and is represented by the legal organization Democracy Forward.

“We will not stand by as the Trump administration destroys one of the largest public university higher education systems in the country and bludgeons academic freedom at the University of California, the heart of the revered free speech movement,” AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement. “We stand hand in hand to protect not only our individual rights to free expression, debate, and association, but also to safeguard the health, safety, and economic mobility of our communities—all of which is at risk.”

The Trump administration has issued a litany of demands to the University of California in exchange for restored federal funding, including unfettered government access to faculty, student and staff data; cooperation with immigration enforcement; a ban on gender-inclusive restrooms and locker rooms; an official statement that the UC does not recognize transgender identity; and over a billion dollars in penalties. So far, the University of California, Los Angeles, has borne the brunt of the demands, but university system officials fear that funding freezes could extend to the system’s other campuses.

On Sept. 4, University of California, Berkeley, officials notified 160 faculty, staff and students that their names appeared in documents given to the Trump administration as part of the administration’s investigation into alleged antisemitism on campus.

“UCLA [faculty association] is honored to stand with this coalition, which presents as an important reminder of what the UC really is—the people who day in and day out do the work on UC campuses,” Anna Markowitz, president of the UCLA faculty association executive board, said in a statement Tuesday. “Today, we join the people of the UC in standing up against federal extortion, job loss, bans on speech and expression—against any effort to dismantle core public values that have made the UC great.”

Source link

September 17, 2025
UC System Warns of Broader Risks in Federal Funding Fight

The Trump administration has already frozen $500 million in grant funding at UCLA.

The University of California system is warning state lawmakers that federal funding cuts could extend well beyond UCLA as tensions between the Trump administration and American colleges continue to rise.

UC president James B. Milliken wrote a letter to dozens of local elected officials Tuesday explaining that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.” The system’s 10 institutions could lose billions of dollars in aid, forcing its leaders to make tough calls about staffing, the continuation of certain academic programs and more, he said.

President Trump has already frozen more than $500 million in grants at UCLA, allegedly because the Justice Department accused the university of violating Jewish students’ civil rights. The president demanded the university pay a $1.2 billion fine to unlock the funds, and system officials are worried that more funding cuts are likely. California lawmakers have repeatedly urged the UC system not to capitulate.

In an August letter, State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat and chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and 33 other lawmakers told Milliken that Trump’s actions were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Milliken wrote in Tuesday’s letter that a loss in funding would “devastate” the system and harm students, among other groups.

“Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad,” he wrote.

If the UC system loses federal funding, it would need about $4 to $5 billion a year to make up the difference, Milliken added. “That is what fighting for the people of California will take.”

Source link

September 5, 2025
VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

DENTON, Texas, Aug. 28, 2025 — The University of North Texas system confirmed that it has lifted its “pause” on drag performances across its campuses, in response to a demand letter from civil liberties organizations informing the school that it was violating its students’ First Amendment rights.

On March 28, UNT System Chancellor Michael Williams issued a system-wide directive announcing an immediate “pause” on drag performances on campus. Williams’ directive came days after a similar drag ban from the Texas A&M University System was blocked by a federal judge following a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

On Aug. 14, FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas sent a letter informing Williams that his “pause” violated the Constitution for the same reasons.

“UNT cannot justify banning an entire class of protected expression from campus performance venues on the basis that such expression might cause offense,” the letter read. “In the same way that some people may not appreciate UNT allowing students, staff, or visitors to engage in prayer on campus or wear t-shirts supporting rival universities, the fear that such speech may be ‘offensive’ to some is not a constitutionally permissible reason to ban it.”

Yesterday, the UNT Office of General Counsel responded to the FIRE/ACLU-TX letter and announced that in light of a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocking yet another drag ban in Texas — this time at West Texas A&M University — “the UNT System’s temporary pause on drag performances has ended.”

“If campus officials can silence expression simply because some find it ‘offensive,’ no one’s speech will be safe,” said FIRE Strategic Campaigns Counsel Amanda Nordstrom “Today it’s drag shows, but tomorrow it could be political rallies, art exhibits, or even bake sales. From West Texas to North Texas and any direction you look, the message is clear: drag is protected expression, and the show must go on.”

“UNT repealed its drag ban following public backlash and legal pressure,” said ACLU of Texas Attorney Chloe Kempf. “As we and the courts have repeatedly made clear, banning drag is plainly unconstitutional. Drag is a cherished source of joy and liberation for the LGBTQIA+ community — and this reversal ensures students can once again freely express and celebrate their identities on campus.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas: [email protected]

Source link

August 28, 2025
US proposes visa time limit rule to end “abuse” of system

The proposed rule, announced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on August 27, would upend the longstanding “duration of status” policy and enforce additional restrictions on students changing programs and institutions.

If finalised, the new rule would limit the length of time international students, professors and other visa holders can stay in the US, which DHS claims would curb “visa abuse” and increase the department’s “ability to vet and oversee these individuals”.

Trump initially put forward the proposal during his first administration, only for it to be withdrawn under Biden. In recent weeks, a rehashed version of the plans has been moving closer towards final approval.

Yesterday’s publication of the finalised proposal in the Federal Register was met with immediate denunciation by stakeholders who say it would place an undue administrative burden on students as well as representing a “dangerous government overreach”. Now the proposal is under a 30-day public comment period.

“These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status – leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” said NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw.

Under the rule, students could only remain in the US on a student visa for a maximum of four years and would have to apply for a DHS extension to stay longer.

The policy document reasons that 79% of students in the US are studying undergraduate or master’s degrees which are generally two or four-year programs, thus: “a four-year period of admission would not pose an undue burden to most nonimmigrant students”.

And yet, stakeholders have previously pointed out that the average time taken to complete an undergraduate degree – for both domestic and international students – exceeds four years, meaning that the majority of students would have to file for an extension to complete their studies.

Meanwhile, this reasoning does not consider postgraduate students on longer programs or the many students that go onto Optional Practical Training (OPT), who would have to apply for a visa extension as well as the work permit itself.

If finalised, master’s students would no longer be able to change their program of study, and first year students would be unable to transfer from the institution that issued their visa documents.

Alarmingly, the rule would hand power to the government to determine academic progress, with “a student’s repeated inability or unwillingness” to complete their degree, deemed an “unacceptable” reason for program extensions.

It would also limit English-language students to a visa period of less than 24 months, and the grace period for F-1 students, post-completion, would be reduced from 60 to 30 days.

Such far reaching provisions amount to “a dangerous overreach by government into academia,” said Aw, pointing out that international students and exchange visitors are already “the most closely monitored non-immigrants in the country.”

Government interference into the academic realm in this way introduces a wholly unnecessary and new level of uncertainty to international student experience

Fanta Aw, NAFSA

“For too long, past administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the US virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amount of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging US citizens,” DHS said in a statement.

Framing the issue as one of national security, the department said it had identified 2,100 F-1 visa holders who arrived between 2000 and 2010 and have remained in status, becoming what DHS called “forever” students “taking advantage of US generosity”.

Putting this in perspective, commentators have highlighted that in 2023 alone there were 1.6 million F-1 visa holders in the US.

As well as imposing significant burdens on students and intruding on academic decision-making, the proposal would also place strain on federal agencies and increase the existing immigration backlog, warned Miriam Feldblum, CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.

“International students deserve assurance that their admission period to the US will conform to the requirements of their academic programs,” said Feldblum, issuing a grave warning that the rule would further deter international students and “diminish” US competitiveness.

“At a time when the US is already facing declines in international student enrolment, we must do everything we can to keep the door open to these individuals, who are essential to our future prosperity,” she continued, alluding to recent falls in US visa issuance.

Since coming to office, a barrage of hostile policies from the Trump administration have erected unprecedented barriers for students hoping to study in the US, with a near-month long visa interview suspension earlier this summer still wreaking havoc on visa appointment availability around the world.

The latest government data revealed a 30% drop in student arrivals this July, with colleges bracing for a drastic drop in international student numbers for the upcoming year. If the decline continues, experts have warned of USD $7bn in damages to the US economy.

According to Aw, the proposed rule would “certainly” deter international students further, “without any evidence that the changes would solve any of the real problems that exist in our outdated immigration system”.

Appealing to Trump’s recent remarks pushing for a more-than doubling of the Chinese student population in the US, Aw urged the government to engage with the sector to ensure the US remained the “premier destination” for global talent while keeping the country “safe and prosperous”.

Source link

August 28, 2025
The Swedish higher ed system – Campus Review

Deputy vice-chancellor of cooperation and innovation at Sweden’s Halmstad University Kristian Widen explained how market forces like IKEA changed the country’s higher education system.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

August 25, 2025
University of Nebraska System offers buyouts to tenured faculty amid budget woes
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The University of Nebraska System is offering buyouts this fall to tenured faculty members eligible for retirement across its four campuses as the institution’s leaders look to shave $20 million from its budget.
- Buyouts will be available to tenured faculty who will be at least age 62 at their date of separation and have worked at least 10 years in the system. More than 500 faculty members will qualify, according to reporting from Channel 8 News.
- In a Friday message to faculty and staff, system Chancellor Jeffrey Gold said the buyouts would position the institution “for long-term strength and financial sustainability.” The system has made several rounds of cuts in the past few years in the face of rising costs and limited state funding increases.
Dive Insight:

Like many other higher education institutions, the University of Nebraska System has sought to lower its expenses amid myriad financial headwinds, including rising labor costs and state and federal funding challenges. In June, system leaders approved plans to cut $20 million from its budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year and raise tuition by an average of 5%.

Those moves come after system leaders slashed $11.8 million from the most recent budget and $30 million from two years prior. The system has also offered several waves of buyouts over the past 15 years, though the payouts have decreased, according to the Lincoln Journal Star.

In this case, those taking the buyouts will receive 70% of their annual base salary in a lump sum payment. In 2019, eligible faculty who took buyouts got 80% of their annual salary and in 2014 they received 90%, the Journal Star reported. In 2010, eligible faculty received 100% of their salary.

Faculty members who take the latest buyouts will separate from the university next summer.

However, not all faculty members who apply will automatically be approved. While the system plans to allow as many interested employees to participate as possible, an FAQ said “each campus reserves the right to limit the total number of participants in order to preserve the viability of programs and services, as well as to remain fiscally responsible.”

The news comes as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the system’s flagship campus, plans to slash $27.5 million from its own budget by the end of the year to remedy a structural deficit. The cuts could include eliminating or merging academic programs.

Earlier this month, UNL President Rodney Bennett said will review a planning committee’s recommendations for cuts and present final budget recommendations to Gold in October.

UNL officials also plan to grow extramural grants and contracts and boost revenue through higher enrollment and retention. They also hope to see increased revenue from the system’s tuition hike, which raised in-state undergraduate tuition from $277 to $291 per credit hour.

The other institutions in the Nebraska system are the University of Nebraska at Kearney, the University of Nebraska at Omaha and the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
Source link
August 12, 2025