Tag: Universities

43% of England’s universities face deficits

The latest report from the Office for Students (OfS) paints a stark picture of mounting financial pressures across the higher education sector.

The analysis suggests that 43% of institutions now forecast a deficit for 2024/25, in contrast with optimistic projections made by institutions that had looked to an improvement in financial performance for the year.

The key driver is lower-than-expected international student recruitment, according to Philippa Pickford, director of regulation at the OfS.

“Our independent analysis, drawn from data institutions have submitted, once again starkly sets out the challenges facing the sector. The sector is forecasting a third consecutive year of decline in financial performance, with more than four in ten institutions expecting a deficit this year,” she said.

“We remain concerned that predictions of future growth are often based on ambitious student recruitment that cannot be achieved for every institution. Our analysis shows that if the number of student entrants is lower than forecast in the coming years, the sector’s financial performance could continue to deteriorate, leaving more institutions facing significant financial challenges,” said Pickford.

We remain concerned that predictions of future growth are often based on ambitious student recruitment that cannot be achieved for every institution
^{_{Philippa Pickford, Office for Students}}

Total forecasts continue to predict growth of 26% in UK student entrants and 19.5% in international student entrants between 2023/24 and 2027/28. However, in its report, the OfS said that “at an aggregate level, providers’ forecasts for recruitment growth continue to be too ambitious”.

Speaking to The PIE News on the topic, David Pilsbury, secretary to the International Higher Education Commission (IHEC), said that university target setting is, and has been for many years, “disconnected from reality”.

“There are not enough people that really know what their recruitment potential really is and how to deliver it, not enough people who push back on finance directors and university executive groups that see overseas recruitment as a tap that can simply be turned on to fill the funding gap, and not enough people developing the compelling business cases that put in place the infrastructure necessary to deliver outcomes,” he said.

IHEC recently released a landmark report urging action across several areas of UK higher education, including international student recruitment.

Pilsbury described the need to build “coalitions of the willing” between universities and with private providers – of data, admissions services, recruitment and beyond – to drive innovation, execute new models and establish different outcomes for the UK sector. The IHEC report warned that “failing to secure the future of international higher education in the UK would be an act of national self-harm”.

Data for 2023/24 from the UK’s Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reflects the uncertain environment for international students lately, caused by tightened dependant rules, uncertainty about the UK’s Graduate Route and unwelcoming messaging from the previous Conservative government.

Total international student enrolment in the UK fell from 760,000 in 2022/23 to 730,000 last year. Currency devaluations in markets such as Nigeria and Ghana contributed to the decline, with Nigerian student levels dropping most dramatically by 23%.

Pickford does not expect to see multiple university closures in the short-term, but said that the “medium-term pressures are significant, complex and ongoing”.

“Many institutions are working hard to reduce costs. This often requires taking difficult decisions, but doing so now will help secure institutions’ financial health for the long term. This work should continue to be done in a way that maintains course quality and ensures effective support for students,” she said.

“Universities and colleges should also continue to explore opportunities for growth to achieve long-term sustainability. But some superficially attractive options, such as rapid growth in subcontractual partnerships, require caution,” Pickford warned.

Against a challenging operating environment, the OfS said it welcomes the work of Universities UK’s taskforce on efficiency and transformation.

The taskforce was announced earlier this year and was set up to drive efficiency and cost-saving across universities in England through collaborative solutions, including the exploration of mergers and acquisitions.

The report comes as UK stakeholders brace for the government’s imminent immigration white paper which is expected to include restrictions on visas from some countries and also changes to the Graduate Route.

Source link

May 9, 2025
Ripple effects of US DEI backlash: What should UK universities do?
- By Stephanie Marshall, Vice Principal (Education), Queen Mary University of London. She is the author of the forthcoming Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education (3rd edition, Routledge).
Warner Bros., Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Disney, Deloitte, Amazon, and Google – these are just some of the companies that have scaled back their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives or changed their language around such programs since Trump’s inauguration. This list, as we know, continues to grow more than three months into his administration. Meanwhile, universities around the world have anxiously watched the US Department of Education threaten to withdraw funding from institutions that consider race in their decision-making, with institutions like Columbia University under the axe.

Universities in the UK are not immune to the ideological shifts across the Atlantic. The Daily Mail, for example, has already drawn attention to DEI spending in UK higher education, with attention-grabbing headlines such as: ‘Spending on university campus diversity staff skyrockets to massive £28 million a year – with one boss on an eye-watering six-figure sum’.

Advocates of DEI have argued against such sentiments, emphasising that ethnic minorities are not the only ones to benefit from equitable and fair workplace policies and practices. The advantages of inclusion spread to first-generation learners, individuals with disabilities and others from underrepresented backgrounds. Proponents also remind us that social justice has a compelling business case. Yet even where a business case for DEI exists, it appears that ideological pressures are beginning to outweigh even commercial logic, let alone basic fairness.

The bigger picture

This pushback against DEI does not occur in isolation. It is part of a broader challenge to the values of openness, inclusion and global cooperation that have long underpinned and defined higher education. And as we have seen in the last few years in the UK, international students have become part of this debate.

The pressing question for university leadership is whether these trends will gain further traction in the UK. If so, what implications will they hold for the future of UK higher education – a sector that has prided itself on the collective efforts and advances made towards a more representative, inclusive offer?

‘The UK is not the US. That is a critical starting point for any approach we have’, Professor Tim Soutphommasane, Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Oxford, recently pointed out at a seminar hosted by the Higher Education Policy Institute.

This distinction is important, yet ongoing political developments suggest that the UK remains susceptible to US influence while facing similar pressures against openness from within its own borders. So, what are some of the risks and opportunities?

On the one hand, growing anti-DEI and anti-immigration sentiment poses a shared risk to universities worldwide.

Leading study destinations such as the US, Canada, the UK and Australia often have an interdependent, shared approach to international student policy. To elaborate, in 2021 – four years ago – fears over declining international student numbers led the UK and Canada to implement measures that attracted more applicants, ultimately allowing them to surpass pre-pandemic enrolment figures. Meanwhile, Australia struggled and lagged behind until it lifted its cap on working hours, offered visa refunds and extended post-study work permits. (I discuss these trends and their implications in greater detail in my forthcoming book, Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education, 3rd edition, Taylor & Francis.)

Roll forward four years, and we can see that restrictive policies in one country create lucrative opportunities for others.

With Australia now tightening visa rules, Canada reducing student permits, and the US signalling an ‘immigration crackdown’, the UK government has a unique opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to assert its stance on cross-border education and research while strengthening its position as a preferred destination. The British Council’s Annual Five Trends to Watch 2025 report highlights how Trump’s first term (2017-21) saw consecutive declines in international student enrolment in US universities, and it would come as no surprise to anyone if enrolment were to drop again during his second term in office.

Way forward

As global uncertainties persist, it is more important than ever for the UK to demonstrate its commitment to diversity and inclusivity, both domestically and internationally. From an economic perspective, and contrary to popular rhetoric, it is worth remembering, as Dr. Gavan Conlon of London School of Economics stated:,

International students contribute nearly ten times more to the economy than they take out, boosting both local and national economic well-being.

Education is indeed one of the UK’s greatest exports.

But continuing to attract international students is not just a pragmatic move for financial sustainability – it is also a powerful statement of the values of collaboration, inclusivity, and global engagement that define UK higher education. Moreover, if there are financial gains brought by international students, they must be utilised to strengthen our ability to protect institutional autonomy and uphold our principles in these difficult times. As culture wars intensify, UK universities must stand firm as internationally highly respected centres of partnership and exchange.
Source link
May 8, 2025
Universities Sue NSF Over Indirect Research Cost Policy

A coalition of universities and trade groups is suing the National Science Foundation over the independent federal agency’s plan to cap higher education institutions’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates at 15 percent.

In the lawsuit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the same day the NSF’s new policy went into effect, the coalition argued that a cut would risk the country’s standing “as a world leader in scientific discovery” and “the amount and scope of future research by universities will decline precipitously.”

It warned that “vital scientific work will come to a halt, training will be stifled, and the pace of scientific discoveries will slow” and that “progress on national security objectives, such as maintaining strategic advantages in areas like AI and quantum computing, will falter.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and 13 universities, including Arizona State University, the University of Chicago and Princeton University.

They attest that the NSF violated numerous aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing Congress to unilaterally institute an “arbitrary and capricious” 15 percent rate cap and failing to explain why it’s only imposing the policy on universities.

The NSF awarded $6.7 billion to some 621 universities in 2023.

Indirect costs fund research expenses that support multiple grant-funded projects, including computer systems to analyze enormous volumes of data, building maintenance and waste-management systems. In 1965 Congress enacted regulations that allow each university to negotiate a bespoke reimbursement rate with the government that reflects institutional differences in geographic inflation, research types and other variable costs.

Typical negotiated NSF indirect cost rates for universities range between 50 and 65 percent, according to the lawsuit.

And while the Trump administration has claimed that indirect cost reimbursements enable wasteful spending by universities, the plaintiffs note that an existing cap on administrative costs means that universities already contribute their own funds to cover indirect costs, “thereby subsidizing the work funded by grants and cooperative agreements.” In the 2023 fiscal year, universities paid $6.8 billion in unrecovered indirect costs, the lawsuit read.

The NSF is the third federal agency that has moved to cap indirect research costs since President Donald Trump took office in January; federal judges have already blocked similar plans from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.

“NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons,” the lawsuit read, “and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies.”

Source link

May 7, 2025
How Labor can use its strong majority to support universities – Campus Review

The higher education sector is craving stability and investment after the policy changes, regulation warnings and instability of Labor’s last term.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

May 7, 2025
As universities embrace the civic, they must transcend activist/academic binaries

Everyone has their own expertise. For academics, that expertise leads to intellectual authority. Some happily choose to use that authority in the cause of activism. Others cringe at the thought, fearing the overtly political and a loss of actual or perceived objectivity.

The debate as to whether academics can be or should be activists is alive and well. But, as universities across the UK (re)discover their civic purpose, institutional spaces for overtly activist academic work are emerging.

One such space is that offered through activist-in-residence (AiR) schemes. Typically hosted by university research centres, these programmes invite activists to work alongside academics and students on projects with a social justice focus. The activists gain access to institutional resources, collaborating with their hosts through a wealth of mutually transformative and enriching encounters that may challenge traditional academic practices. Such schemes are relatively rare in the UK but more common in North American higher education institutions.

Oppositional or diplomatic activism?

Ronald Barnett has said that academic activism can lend itself to an array of stances. He suggests that activism in universities may be situated along two sliding axes – diplomatic/oppositional and individual/collective actions. Oppositional to the state, to the status quo, versus a diplomatic willingness to engage with powerful institutions.

But let’s face it, universities often are powerful institutions perpetuating the status quo. And anyway, can you really be activist within institutional structures? For some, it’s a clear “no”. When our Queer@King’s research centre at King’s College London launched a call for activists to join a pilot AiR scheme, several rejected the invite, concerned to connect their queer activism to oppressive institutional structures.

However, for those willing to accept such an invite, there’s the potential to become a (diplomatic) institutional irritant. Here, we view the work of AiR schemes as that of “collective diplomacy”. Residencies carve out institutional spaces for academics and activists to unite around a social justice cause, practising theory-informed activism and activism-informed theory.

Those engaged in AiR schemes might act as tempered radicals, working subtly to forge change, both within and beyond institutions. Quiet acts of rebellion, compared to the vocal stridency of their oppositional cousins.

Transcending the binary

Back in 2023, we launched four new AiR schemes in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at King’s College London. Since then, we’ve followed the journeys of the activists and academics involved as they walk the tightrope between conformity and rebellion.

The schemes, which involved four discrete research centres, have recently concluded. They spanned diverse areas – from decolonising wellness practices to challenging media narratives on race and migration, from reclaiming language justice to reframing the lived expertise of women with HIV. The communities engaged were equally diverse – French anti-racists, diaspora communities from East and Southeast Asia, movement artists, radical translators, poets, community organisers, a charity supporting women with HIV.

Despite thematic differences, what united the schemes was a commitment to co-creation, disrupting institutional norms, and centring knowledge that often remains undervalued or excluded from academia.

Activists have, quite rightly, long been wary of universities’ historical tendencies to extract knowledge without genuine reciprocity. Our AiR schemes attempt to shift this, striving for shared authorship and long-term relationship-building over transactional engagements. Academics, meanwhile, began questioning their own positionality. Several noted how the process helped them to see the activist within. Someone who takes a different approach from big marches or picket lines. Someone who instead, operates in a different sphere, with different tools from conventional protest.

A core element of the schemes involved deep conversations in which participants explored different ways of “being”, “doing”, and “knowing”, navigating creative tensions that ignited activist potential. Engagement in transformational dialogue demanded a rethinking of traditional academic hierarchies.

A striking outcome was the impact on identity. Many participants shifted from seeing themselves as strictly ‘academic’ or ‘activist’ to occupying a hybrid space—the activist-academic or the academic-activist. As one participant put it:

I’ve learned to see myself as an academic-activist, rather than assuming that activism is something distinct from what I do as a researcher.

Others reflected on how their roles had become more fluid, disrupting rigid institutional scripts about who generates knowledge, and how.

The schemes were not without tension. Bureaucratic barriers, power imbalances, and institutional inertia were recurrent frustrations. Activists were often faced with institutional red tape, while academics navigated the challenge of validating non-traditional forms of knowledge in spaces structured around rigid frameworks. Yet, the schemes demonstrated that universities could serve as incubators for new forms of activism and collaboration – if they are willing to do the hard work of structural change.

The future of AiR schemes

AiR schemes must be more than symbolic gestures. Universities must actively dismantle the barriers that limit their potential: from rethinking funding structures that exclude grassroots activists to challenging rigid research output models that fail to recognise activist knowledge production. And of course, always ensuring that sustained funding is made available.

As universities embrace their civic role, they should go beyond the activist/academic binary. The most powerful insights from AiR schemes come not from forcing these categories into opposition, but from allowing them to blur, evolve, and co-exist.

For the academic hesitant to embrace activism, AiR schemes provide a pathway for engaged scholarship. For the activist wary of academia, they offer a chance to disrupt from within. And for the university itself, they provide a critical mirror, one that reveals its complicity, its contradictions – but also, its potential as a site of radical possibility.

Source link

May 5, 2025
What are professors of practice, and why are universities hiring more of them? – Campus Review

/Workforce/What are professors of practice, and why are universities hiring more of them?

Workforce

Stuart Orr explains how the Professor of Practice role is changing in the higher education sector

Professors of Practice have featured in Australian universities for nearly three decades, drawing on models developed earlier in Europe, the UK and the US.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

May 5, 2025
How does UK research support Government’s five missions, and should universities align with them?

Earlier this year, HEPI, with support from global information analytics company Elsevier, hosted a roundtable dinner on how UK research and innovation should support the government’s five missions.

This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from that discussion.

The Labour government has made clear that five missions drive its decisions on policy. These are: kickstarting economic growth, an NHS fit for the future, safer streets, breaking down barriers to opportunity and making Britain a clean energy superpower. In October 2024, it announced a £25 million R&D Missions Programme to address specific challenges involved in meeting these missions and to help turn scientific advances into real-world benefits.

How well do the UK’s research strengths already map to the missions, and how much capacity exists to do more? For global information analytics company Elsevier, this was worth interrogating. It set to work, drawing on its Scopus database of research publications and the Overton index of policy documents, clustering papers into topics and using artificial intelligence and large language models to link them to the missions.

This allowed it to track what share of UK research carried out between 2019 and 2023 relates to the missions the government has identified and how this compares to other policy areas, including how it has varied over time. Elsevier has also been able to make comparisons with the research strengths of other countries in these areas. The process involved developing a methodology that matched huge datasets to the narrative national goals set out in Labour’s manifesto.

The role of R&D in supporting government priorities was the subject of a roundtable dinner, informed by this analysis, hosted by HEPI in February and attended by policymakers and senior leaders from across the higher education sector. The discussion was held under the Chatham House rule, by which speakers express views on the understanding that they will be unattributed.

Useful information

Sarah Main, vice-president, academic and government relations at Elsevier, told participants that the aim of the analysis was to be useful, for the research community and policymakers, in making the case for continued investment in R&D in the lead up to a tight spending review.

The work shows that a significant share of the UK’s published research relates to government priorities: for example, 11% relates to growth and around 35% to its aims around health. By making comparisons with research outputs in other countries, it also identifies possible future partnerships and collaborations.

But she pointed out that research output is only one way in which research and innovation supports the government’s missions; people, skills and infrastructure also play a part. Further work, she said, could help identify the key people, institutions and areas in which the UK has relevant strengths, as well as suggest emerging questions and themes.

Many of those attending the roundtable felt that it was useful to see how far universities are producing research that supports government priorities and to be able to demonstrate this to policymakers – and the Treasury. They particularly welcomed the chance to identify where relevant research was taking place internationally.

It was suggested that the tool would be useful in maintaining a dialogue between research and government priorities, identifying quickly the kind of work taking place and who was doing it and helping to build communities around research areas.

Potential problems

But there were reservations about aligning research too closely with specific policy areas. The fear was that what could be lost in the process was curiosity-driven work, which was a feature of the UK system and which could lead to valuable nuggets of knowledge that could go on to solve world problems. Another concern was that innovation strengths did not always translate into strengths around delivery.

Some questioned how much could be achieved without investment in supporting a healthy research environment for the long term. The recent decision to cut overseas aid in favour of increasing the defence budget was an example of how quickly government policies could change.

Research priorities could change too. One participant in the roundtable said it would be important not to ignore findings from further back in the past or for policymakers to forget the broader research agenda in favour of the latest exciting paper.

‘I look at the missions and I think the reason these are possible is because of R&D that was being done 25 years ago,’ said one delegate, who was worried that concentrating on where the government is looking now could be at the expense of developing capability in the missions of future generations and working out what these would be – learning to live with robots perhaps or addressing chronic loneliness.

Focusing exclusively on missions also ignores how ready the research community is for a shock like Covid or another existential challenge. And what about some of the nuances of where the UK’s research strengths are located, such as working with other disciplines, and how research feeds into growth in more general ways than through specific papers? Relevant skills training and universities’ educational role are also important.

Talking politics

Then, how much weight should be given to a government’s stated priorities? If last July’s election had elected a party with the mission to make Britain great again, would the research community want to find out how far the work it was doing supported it?

Also, how far are the government’s missions likely to persist, with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin doing everything they can to undermine them, as one delegate argued? Far more likely to determine whether the government gets re-elected will be progress on growth and healthcare, which have been consistent public concerns for decades. Even if, as Elsevier has found, 35% of research in the UK relates to health, ministers may respond by asking why, in that case, people are no healthier.

Some felt that universities needed to be more political and to understand better the channels by which research becomes policy and how to negotiate them. This could involve researchers considering the attitudes of the public as well as those of politicians.

The government may also need to give universities a clearer idea of what good looks like when it comes to universities, such as whether the amount of research related to healthcare that Elsevier has identified is good enough, where the government wants universities to be focusing and what resources will be available to them.

But spending too much time dabbling in politics could be dangerous. Instead, suggested one participant, universities should be engaging “at scale” with all sectors and everyone involved in the political process, giving advice to whoever needs it.

The public purse

Universities should also avoid dwelling on their own self-interest. One delegate noted that finding out how far they contribute to the government’s missions would be of little use if the sector collapses. But another suggested that focusing too closely on missions could encourage universities merely to highlight relevant work they are already doing and then make another request for money.

It is certainly the case that there will be plenty of other calls on the public purse over the next few months and years. In this context, it could be useful for the sector to stress the shorter-term wins relevant to the missions that management science or operational research can offer, as well as long-term gains such as new drugs. One delegate suggested that it would be useful to have clearer identification of where research has directly led to spin-out companies and economic growth.

The roundtable concluded that universities are clearly relevant to addressing the government’s missions, that they are already influencing policy and that the methodology under discussion could help inform strategy. But it recognised that outcomes – such as reduced crime and an efficient NHS – are what matter most to the public and these therefore should be the priority.

Source link

May 2, 2025
The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

Few will be unaware of Donald Trump’s antipathy towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the US. In February 2025, Trump issued executive orders and policy directives aimed at eliminating DEI programmes and removing references to “gender ideology” from federal agencies.

For those of us who know DEI as equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), there is concern about the ripple effects of Trump’s measures on UK universities, for research as well as teaching and learning.

One of the immediate impacts of this manoeuvre was to remove essential LGBTQ+ content from federal websites. Terms such as “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “pregnant person” were all banned. Decades of HIV data, contraception guidelines, and research on racial health disparities were suddenly inaccessible. For US researchers in higher education, such staggeringly blatant anti-EDI policies have disrupted the passage of critical research focused on improving health outcomes for marginalised groups.

Such censorship – to our minds at least – thoroughly undermines scientific integrity, limiting the study of complex health and social issues. Our colleagues in the US are now forced to work within these constraints, which threaten accuracy and inclusivity. Indeed, the politicisation of scientific terminology arguably damages public trust in research and, in the US, diminishes the credibility of federal agencies.

Implications for LGBTQ+ researchers

Trump’s anti-EDI stance is a menace to any form of university research seeking to address inequalities and build inclusion for seldom heard population groups, and the effects of these decisions will have wide-reaching and intersectional repercussions.

As committee members of a university’s LGBTQ+ staff network, our focus is understandably on the impact for our colleagues working on LGBTQ+ issues. US-based researchers working on LGBTQ+ themes now face obstacles in securing funding and publishing their work. And this has a knock-on effect on wider LGBTQ+ population groups. The suppression of critical health information and the suspension of targeted research leaves LGBTQ+ communities bereft of vital support and resources.

More fundamentally, Trump’s policies send the signal that LGBTQ+ identities and needs are irrelevant from his agenda for US growth. It’s a quick step from this to the increase of social stigma and discrimination targeted at LGBTQ+ people. And this in turn worsens mental health and social marginalisation. To put it bluntly: the absence of LGBTQ+ representation in official communications sends a damaging message about the validity of these communities’ experiences.

Lessons for UK universities

To bring this back to the UK context then, a few things come to mind.

First, the UK has its own, depressingly recent, history of government-led suppression of LGBTQ+ communication, which we’d do well to remember. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools across England, Scotland, and Wales. Repealed in England and Wales in 2003, this act led to years of silence and marginalisation within educational settings.

Section 28 not only harmed students and staff at the time but also created a culture of fear and misinformation, curtailing inclusive teaching and research. To ensure the UK does not repeat such history, universities must prioritise legal advocacy and protection for all involved in higher education, to safeguard academic freedom and inclusivity. Being involved in the LGBTQ+ staff network as we are, we might also add that coalition building among universities, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and non-profits can also strengthen efforts to resist any potential policy shifts that might echo the restrictive measures of the past.

Second, Trump’s agenda also urges us to re-think our approach to US-UK research collaborations and student exchanges. There seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what the UK and US each consider to be worthy of research and funding.

Universities in the UK should assess how they foster links with other nations whose research agendas align more closely with UK priorities, to mitigate any potential funding losses. Moreover, UK universities should ideally review their reliance on external funding from the US to determine whether any existing projects might be impacted by shifts in US policy. Equally, with US suppression of data relating to LGBTQ+ issues impacting LGBTQ+ health and wellbeing, it’s vital that UK universities ensure that their research connected to LGBTQ+ issues is readily available.

Third, it seems crucial that UK universities futureproof their relationships with US students. The possibility of new limitations on exchange programmes, including restrictions on modules with extensive EDI content, could impact the accessibility of UK higher education for US students. Online programmes that currently enrol US students may also face scrutiny, raising concerns about whether course content is monitored or whether degrees will continue to be recognised in the US due to their inclusion of EDI principles.

Looking forward

UK universities have a pivotal role to play in responding to what’s happening in the US in relation to Trump’s anti-EDI stance.

We’ve focused particularly on the impacts of these political and policy shifts on LGBTQ+ research and culture in higher education. But they represent a more wholesale attack on initiatives seeking to safeguard the wellbeing of marginalised population groups. UK universities must continue to represent a safe space for education which upholds inclusivity, critical thinking, and academic integrity. This requires a strong coalition of organisations, advocacy groups, and academic institutions working together to resist the erosion of rights and the suppression of essential research.

Such a coalition of critically-minded parties seems all the more important given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which insisted on the binary nature of sex, which is determined by biology. As a result, this leaves trans women unable to avail themselves of the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act.

Universities, like other institutions, will need to review their policies accordingly and should do their utmost to continue to assert a safe and inclusive environment for trans people. But this decision, coming so soon after the Cass review, is also contributing to the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by LGBTQ+ people more broadly. With echoes between the US situation and recent UK developments, the direction of travel is concerning.

By standing together, we can safeguard the rights of all marginalised communities and ensure that the integrity of scientific research, human dignity, and social progress are protected.

Source link

May 1, 2025
European Governments Back Universities’ U.S. Recruitment Drive

European governments have sought to bolster their universities’ efforts to recruit international researchers, amid signs that an expected exodus in U.S.-based scholars is beginning.

On April 23, Norway’s education ministry announced the creation of a $9.6 million initiative, designed by the Research Council of Norway, to “make it easier to recruit experienced researchers from other countries.”

While the program will be open to researchers worldwide, the ministry said, research and higher education minister Sigrun Aasland suggested in a statement that the recruitment of U.S.-based scholars was of particular interest.

“Academic freedom is under pressure in the U.S., and it is an unpredictable position for many researchers in what has been the world’s leading knowledge nation for many decades,” Aasland said. “We have had close dialogue with the Norwegian knowledge communities and my Nordic colleagues about developments.

“It has been important for me to find good measures that we can put in place quickly, and therefore I have tasked the Research Council with prioritizing schemes that we can implement within a short time.”

The first call for proposals will open in May, Research Council chief executive Mari Sundli Tveit stated, with “climate, health, energy and artificial intelligence” among the fields of interest.

Last week, the French ministry of higher education and research launched the Choose France for Science platform, operated by the French National Research Agency. The platform will enable universities and research institutes to submit “projects for hosting international researchers ready to come and settle in Europe” and apply for state co-funding.

Research projects on themes including health, climate and artificial intelligence may receive state funding of “up to 50 percent of the total amount of the project,” the ministry said.

“Around the world, science and research are facing unprecedented threats. In the face of these challenges, France must uphold its position by reaching out to researchers and offering them refuge,” Education Minister Élisabeth Borne said.

The initiative follows efforts from individual French universities to recruit from the U.S.: The University of Toulouse hopes to attract scholars working in the fields of “living organisms and health, climate change [or] transport and energy,” while Paris-Saclay University intends to “launch Ph.D. contracts and fund stays of various durations for American researchers.”

Aix-Marseille University plans to host around 15 American academics through a Safe Place for Science program, announcing last week that almost 300 had applied. “The majority are ‘experienced’ profiles from various universities/institutions of origin: Johns Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Yale, Stanford,” the university said.

In Spain, meanwhile, Science Minister Diana Morant announced the third round of the ATRAE international recruitment program, with a budget of $153 million, which will run from 2025 to 2027.

The plan, designed to “attract leading scientists to Spain in areas of research with a high social impact, such as climate change, AI and space technologies,” offers scholars an average of $1.13 million to conduct research at a Spanish institution. Successful applicants currently based in the U.S., meanwhile, will receive an additional $226,000 per project.

“We are not only a better country for science, for those researchers who currently reside in our country, but we are also a better country for elite researchers who seek out the productive scientific ecosystem we have in Spain,” Morant said.

Source link

May 1, 2025
What does our future workforce look like – and how are universities responding?
- By Jamie Roberts, Policy Manager, and Aiste Viduolyte, PhD student intern at the Russell Group.
To achieve the government’s ambitious aims of increasing growth and productivity, the UK will need a skilled workforce to match.

All eight high-potential growth sectors identified by the government’s Industrial Strategy green paper will heavily rely on graduate skills – in particular the creative, digital and life sciences sectors, where over 70% of the workforce is made up of graduates. The government’s own forecasts show that the UK will need an additional 11 million graduates across the country by 2035, with 88% of new jobs being graduate-level.

To meet these needs on both national and local levels, Russell Group universities are building on their existing partnerships with colleges, businesses and local authorities to make sure education remains as relevant and responsive as possible for graduates and employers alike. Our latest briefing paper, Local Partnerships to Deliver Skills, looks in more detail at the ways in which our universities collaborate with industry, local government and education providers.

Here we explore three key characteristics of the UK future workforce – and how our universities are responding.

1. Workers’ skills must keep pace with employers’ rapidly evolving needs

The government is determined to get British business back to full health and has identified several growth-leading sectors in the Industrial Strategy green paper. These are likely to attract the most investment, but to generate productivity and deliver innovation, they will also need a workforce with the right set of skills – and these needs are evolving at speed.

Not only will we need new graduates with the latest skills and knowledge, but also existing workers who can be upskilled and reskilled to make sure the workforce’s capabilities keep pace with rapidly changing technological developments and industry practices. This is why Russell Group universities partner with industry to shape course content, ensuring education and training are agile and responsive to each sector.

Increasingly – now at 17 of our 24 universities – this includes degree apprenticeships, which give people opportunities to pivot or upskill at any stage of their career. Apprenticeships have become an essential pathway for delivering skills directly to industry at all levels, and almost 8,000 students enrolled on apprenticeships at Russell Group universities in 2023/24. At Queen’s University Belfast, for example, business partners such as PwC and construction firm Farrans are directly influencing apprenticeship course content and building talent streams in the areas where skills are most urgently needed, from digital software technology to civil engineering and building.

More and more, this also means partnering with Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which form the bedrock of the UK economy. At the University of Liverpool, the careers and employment service works with a network of local SMEs to support graduate recruitment and ensure that the university’s graduates are equipped not only with the specialist and technical know-how, but also essential soft skills to enhance what they can bring to local small businesses.

2. Local workforces must meet each region’s specific needs, strengths and skills gaps

Whether it’s fixing cold spots or supporting existing industry clusters, we can’t take a one-size-fits-all approach across the country. Local growth plans will be vital in shaping each region’s workforce needs.

That’s why universities, as important anchor institutions in their towns, cities and regions, must be at the heart of these plans. Our members are already in active collaboration with local and combined authorities to research, understand and address local workforce needs – as part of City Deals, Civic University Agreements, or university involvement in local skills networks.

In Manchester, the University has teamed up with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and four other regional university partners to develop the first ever city-region Civic University Agreement (GMCUA) in the UK. This model is transforming the relationship between the university sector and local government, allowing them to work together on mapping skills and opportunities, particularly in green skills, the creative sector, health and social care. Meanwhile in London, UCL’s partnership with the councils of Camden, Islington and Newham enables students to contribute to local research and policy, while granting residents access to data skills and literacy training to improve their employability and career prospects.

3. Every workforce benefits from multiple educational pathways to build the best combination of skills and experience

While growing the UK’s graduate workforce, it is important we remain cognisant of the wide variety of educational backgrounds and pathways in our communities, and maximise the strengths that different providers bring. We need to move toward a skills and education system that incentivises true collaboration. Partnerships between higher education and further education are invaluable and should acknowledge that further education colleges are not just feeder institutions. Building on existing collaboration will allow students the best of both worlds, while creating cohesive educational pathways that complement, rather than compete with each other.

Through a mixture of academic and vocational training, our universities’ partnerships with our further education colleagues offer a broad range of expertise, which can support a variety of career options and cover the multitude of skills needed in each region.

Working together makes sure we not only fulfil a broader range of skills and sectors but also support greater access to education for all. A co-ordinated system, where further and higher education are aligned, creates clearer pathways for people of all backgrounds and educational experiences to access higher-level qualifications. This generates more mechanisms by which we can upskill our workforce.

A sustainable, highly skilled workforce is of course reliant on a stable, well-funded university system. which is one of the reasons the sector has been so keen to make government understand the scale and urgency of the financial challenges we’re facing. Simply put, the UK won’t have the right workforce to achieve its growth ambitions without considering the role of its universities.
Source link
May 1, 2025