Tag: University

  • Higher education postcard: Falmouth University

    Higher education postcard: Falmouth University

    Falmouth is a long way from nearly everywhere else, if you’re travelling by land. This is a very salient fact. It means that if you’re in Falmouth, then Falmouth is where you first look for anything.

    And so the Falmouth School of Art, which looks to have started sometime in 1867 or 1868, must have been very welcome to the town and the county.

    The classes, which had been held in the municipal offices as part of a school of art and science, had outgrown their space and in 1901 the foundation stone was laid for a new building, in Arwenack Avenue. This would house just the art school.

    The observant amongst you will have noticed by now that the postcard is a general view of Falmouth. This is an occupational hazard when trying to find a #HigherEducationPostcard of an institution in a picturesque place, or one with other famous buildings. It is why, for example, its hard to find a postcard of SOAS, when UCL and Senate House are nearby. But, the card does include Arwenack Avenue, on which the new school was located: it is, I think, somewhere in the red circle in the image below:

    The school was a private venture, and it was not until 1938 that the local education authority took over running the school. (Needless to say, this is a very unusual situation: pretty much all of the other similar schools I’ve looked at were brought into local authority control in the late 1890 or early 1900s.) The school was initially under the control of the principal of the Truro School of Art: not a merger, but one person running two schools.

    In the 1950s the college moved to new premises just up the hill from Arwenack Avenue. This was Kerris Vean, a large house built in 1875. It also had room to expand, and is still part of the university’s Falmouth campus today.

    In the 1960s the school had about 120 students, although many of these were part time. This did not prevent it being accepted (after a reassessment) as a suitable location for the National Advisory Council for Art Education’s diploma in art and design, which was the primary qualification available at that time. Teachers included Barbara Hepworth; the school also conducted entrance examinations for the Slade School at UCL and the Royal College of Art. Staff numbers increased to 25, and more space was provided by the local education authority.

    In the 1970s the CNAA recognised the school for a BA(Hons) in Fine Art. There was now residential accommodation for 57 students. And as anyone who has ever managed an institution with an art school will recognise, this scale was difficult – lots of space, not many students to fill it, a relatively high number of staff, and tight funding.

    The school faced down a threat of closure in 1984, and in 1987 it merged with Cornwall College’s art and design provision to become the Falmouth School of Art and Design. Its range of subjects broadened to include design and journalism, and in 1988 it became a corporation independent of the local authority.

    In 1995, recognising the breadth of its provision, the college became Falmouth College of the Arts, offering degrees validated by University of Plymouth. It became University College Falmouth in 2005; took over Dartington College of Art’s provision in 2008, and in 2012 became Falmouth University.

    Here’s as always, is a jigsaw of the card. The card has not been posted, so I can’t be sure, but I would guess that it dates from the 1960s.

    Why Falmouth University and not the University of Falmouth? I was asked last week whether there was a reason for “University of X” or “X University”. Looking at the legal names of universities in the UK (and some, for example Durham, have a trading name Durham University, and a legal name University of Durham) it seems that the pattern is as follows:

    • The norm is “University of X”
    • In Wales the default in English is “X University”, perhaps to match the preposition-less pattern in Welsh, where, for example, Cardiff University is Prifysgol Caerdydd (but nota bene University of South Wales, not South Wales University)
    • If a university is named after a person or a thing it is “X University” – for example Brunel University
    • If the place name is qualified in some way, it is “X University” – for example Buckinghamshire New University, Birmingham City University
    • If the place is small, it is “X University” – for example Cranfield University, Keele University
    • If the place is a sub-unit of a larger place, it is “X University” – for example Aston University – except when in London – for example University of Greenwich.

    Is this a firm set of rules? Probably not, unless the Privy Council office has some tucked away in a file. Is it universally true? Again, no: and one counterexample to the above is Falmouth University. And this is why I chose to do Falmouth this week.

    Also, notably, when I shared this analysis on social media, the most sensible response was that I was overthinking it. Which was probably true!

    Source link

  • Why Close Bucknell University Press? (opinion)

    Why Close Bucknell University Press? (opinion)

    In an Aug. 14 email, Bucknell University provost Wendy Sternberg notified the university community that Bucknell University Press would cease to exist at the end of the academic year. Without consulting BUP’s faculty editorial board, which oversees the press and falls under the auspices of the provost’s office, or Bucknell’s faculty or staff at large, the decision was rendered a fait accompli that blindsided the local Bucknell community as well as past, present and prospective BUP authors, editors and contributors.

    As might be inferred, the decision to close a university press has wide-ranging implications for not only the home institution and its reputation within the academic community but for the pursuit of intellectualism and critical inquiry in academia and beyond.

    Established in 1968, BUP has operated continuously for nearly 60 years, publishing new work in the humanities and social sciences for specialists, students and general readers. Despite its relatively small size, operating only with 2.5 staff positions and publishing about 20 books per year, Bucknell’s press has continued to punch above its weight, as testimonials from BUP authors, editors and directors, past and present, affirm.

    Petitions to prevent BUP’s closure have circulated globally, such as those by the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies and the Goethe Society of North America, and the closure has been addressed by venues like Publishers Weekly, The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed. A petition on campus disseminated by members of BUP’s faculty editorial board gathered signatures from hundreds unaffiliated with the university, as well as more than 125 of the voting faculty members at Bucknell, in what assuredly was a signal to Bucknell administrators and the Board of Trustees to reconsider.

    But they have not.

    As Sternberg wrote, the university was compelled to close BUP to refocus “university resources on our student-centered mission.” The email moreover claims that BUP’s “primary mission supports the scholarly community, and not Bucknell undergraduates.”

    This rationale misunderstands the actual work of university presses, which have long trained students for careers in editing and publishing in academic presses, trade publishers and beyond—as noted by testimonials from Bucknell alumni published by The H-Net Book Channel. It likewise does not see our undergraduates as part of the scholarly community—a head-scratching implication given that Bucknell obtained the Carnegie classification system’s new Research Colleges and Universities designation this year because of its research activity, especially undergraduate research. Even more, it brazenly disregards the reality that faculty research informs classroom teaching.

    In the more than three months that have passed since Sternberg’s notice of closure, Bucknell University administrators, especially Sternberg and President John Bravman, have been flooded with personal letters and emails cautioning against this myopic decision. Peter M. Berkery Jr., executive director of the Association of University Presses, wrote to the administration in August extending an offer to collaborate on a press review. This offer has gone ignored. Berkery also noted in his letter that a number of universities that have announced their intent to close their presses in recent years ended up reversing course. (Notable reversals include the University of Akron Press, the University of Missouri Press and Stanford University Press, where the university administration threatened to withdraw the press’s $1.7 million annual subsidy before backing away from the plan.)

    Berkery added that “in still more cases—including Amherst College, Lever Press, West Point, University of Vermont, the University of Wyoming—institutions of higher education serving a wide remit of students and fields launched new university presses and university imprints, finding that this initiative served their students, faculty, and wider communities in direct and invaluable ways.”

    Bucknell administration, however, has remained steadfast in its determination to close BUP and impervious to outcry from the academic community and even alumni. In November, Bucknell faculty approved a motion, presented by myself and three other members of the faculty editorial board, that proposes to evaluate BUP’s future through channels of shared governance that were not previously consulted—even flouted. It calls for the establishment of an ad hoc committee, peopled by Sternberg, the BUP director and several faculty representatives, charged with “determin[ing] a future for the Bucknell University Press that balances fiscal concerns with intellectual and academic values.” The motion stipulates that the committee will present its findings at the February faculty meeting. Of course, the bindingness of these findings remains suspect, as does the future of shared governance nationwide.

    Towards the conclusion of Sternberg’s August notice, she wrote, “It is important to note that the door remains open to alternative paths forward for the Bucknell Press at this time. I believe there is great potential for the press to be reimagined in a way that supports undergraduate education — perhaps one that promotes scholarly accomplishments of Bucknell students and faculty and that offers professional preparation for students who seek a career in the publishing world. The academic planning process that is unfolding over this academic year will provide a venue for considering such possibilities.”

    While BUP already does these things (as alumni and faculty attest), and this reimagining seems to again misunderstand the premise and goals of a university press, the motion approved by the faculty seeks to make good on Sternberg’s claim to envisage “alternative paths forward” to keep BUP’s doors open, even if such a statement is merely administrative lip service.

    Though the prospective closure of BUP may appear a blip on the radar of a fast-changing landscape of higher education, it is yet another warning bell signaling the erosions of shared governance on campuses nationwide. Indeed, the American Association of University Professors’ Policy Documents and Reports (colloquially known as the Redbook) details how the “business-ification” of the university has caused ruptures within shared governance that have ultimately alienated faculty and pitted administrators versus faculty in what may appear a power vacuum: “The involvement of faculty in governance is not a grab for power, special pleading, or partisanship, but action in the best interests of the academic institutions themselves.”

    Shared governance, the Redbook continues, promises to be a “potential force for fairness and equity for parties that are too often assumed to be at odds.” But fairness and equity can only be achieved at places like Bucknell if shared governance is preserved and stakeholders are consulted and considered in good faith.

    Even more, as the motion passed by the faculty makes clear, while some may believe a university press to be a bespoke ornament, BUP has long been integral to the service and scholarship completed by Bucknell faculty and deeply connected to the institution’s intellectual history. And this is to say nothing of the ways that BUP has dedicated itself to supporting the intellectual and creative careers of academics around the globe for the last 60 years. In a moment in time marked by the determination to unravel both shared governance and academic freedom on college campuses, BUP can’t help but seem part of a larger zeitgeist of academia’s uncertain, seismic shifting.

    Yet there’s something distinct about the Bucknell situation in that it is entirely self-inflicted. Bucknell is not buckling under pressure from the federal government; neither has it been singled out for an ultimatum/gilded carrot (depending on how one sees it) like those extended under the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” It has not suffered higher taxes on its endowment, nor the retraction of large-scale federal funding. The austerity mentality hawked by the administration is one based on a larger trend in which humanistic and social scientific inquiry is deprivileged and the ethos of the liberal arts abandoned, even at those places that seek to brand themselves as such. BUP has become the sacrificial lamb that was meant to succumb to its slaughter silently.

    If BUP had represented an insolvent or derelict agent on campus or within the academic community, perhaps the publicity arising from its intended closure would not set about such shock waves. However, that is not the case. Instead, the intention to shutter BUP is a thermometer, if not a klaxon (to mix metaphors), that lays bare a reality in which university presses and the intellectual enterprises they champion are repeatedly under threat. We must not acquiesce to these demanded erasures.

    Jeremy Chow is the National Endowment for the Humanities Chair in the Humanities and associate professor of English at Bucknell University and chair of the Bucknell University Press faculty editorial board.

    Source link

  • The Great American University Shakedown

    The Great American University Shakedown

    With each new resolution agreement, it becomes clearer that the Trump administration intends to base the government’s relationship with higher education on extortion. In its recently cut deal, Northwestern University will pay the Treasury $75 million in exchange for about $800 million in congressionally approved research funding it had already secured. NU now joins Columbia on the list of institutions that have paid fees to the federal government—Columbia’s deal included a $200 million payment to the Treasury over three years.

    In the grand scheme of things, $75 million is chump change for Northwestern. It’s a fraction of the research funding that was at risk and barely makes a dent in the institution’s $14.3 billion endowment. It’s less than two months’ worth of the up to $40 million the institution said it was paying every month to supplement lost research funding. The payment was, according to interim president Henry Bienen, “the best and most certain method to restore our federal funding, both now and in the future.”

    Part of that is likely true. Litigation would have taken years and cost many more millions. But nothing in the agreement precludes the government from leveraging federal research funding to extract certain political wins from the university again. The government didn’t even need evidence Northwestern violated any federal laws to revoke its federal funding. Officials offered no conclusions from the three investigations into antisemitism on campus the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services launched. With the punitive withholding of federal funds, the institution is being punished before it’s proven guilty. As Andrew Gillen, a scholar at the Cato Institute put it, “Much like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland who said, ‘Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’”

    Before this administration, rarely did OCR investigations require institutions to pay money to the government. The resolutions focused mainly on training and improving processes at the university in question. By contrast, the agreements the Trump administration has reached with elite, research-focused universities harm the institution as well as the country. Northwestern, Columbia, Brown and others might have their funding back, but they’re now weighed down by even greater compliance burdens.

    Northwestern has to report admissions data on every student who applies, is admitted and enrolls; socialize international students on the norms of campus life; and make sure nobody is wearing a face mask to conceal their identity. After cutting more than 400 jobs in July, Northwestern now has fewer people around campus to take over additional reporting duty. This is how the administration wants our leading research institutions to spend their time. And while U.S. institutions process paperwork and fight to have funding restored, China sprints ahead in artificial intelligence, robotics and innovation.

    Precedent for paying fines in government settlements exists for other sectors, but those partly fund solutions to problems. Purdue Pharma, for example, paid local and state governments to fund opioid treatment, prevention and recovery services. In its multibillion-dollar settlement with the U.S. government over cheating on emissions tests, Volkswagen paid billions of dollars to fund clean energy initiatives and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Even Columbia in its settlement agreed to pay an additional $21 million to compensate employees who may have experienced antisemitism on campus after Oct. 7, 2023. Northwestern’s millions simply disappear into Treasury’s coffers and do nothing to combat antisemitism in higher ed.

    NU won’t be the last institution the government attempts to force into a settlement. This summer it demanded UCLA, a public institution, pay $1.2 billion as part of a settlement to unfreeze millions in research funds. Harvard’s heated legal battle for its funding rages on, and research funds remain frozen for Duke and Princeton.

    These resolutions are a strong indicator of how the administration wants its relationship with research institutions to be—politically self-serving, one-sided and fear-based. Institutions could choose to fight, but mounting expensive legal battles without millions of research dollars isn’t really a choice at all. The agreements might be an offer universities can’t refuse.

    Source link

  • Opening doors: how the University of Nottingham transformed access for care leavers

    Opening doors: how the University of Nottingham transformed access for care leavers

    This blog was kindly authored by Vikki Welch, Associate Director Student Living, University of Nottingham.

    It is the second blog in HEPI’s series with The Unite Foundation on how to best support care experienced and estranged students. You can find the first blog here.

    When the University of Nottingham (UoN) launched its Care Leaver and Estranged Student support package in 2022, the ambition was clear: to remove financial barriers and create a genuine sense of belonging for students who often arrive without the safety net of family support. Today, it provides a comprehensive wraparound system, anchored by a one-year accommodation bursary that has changed lives.

    Why accommodation matters

    For care-experienced and estranged students, the cost of living on campus can be a major obstacle. UoN’s analysis revealed that these students were disproportionately opting for cheaper, off-campus housing – often in poorer conditions and far from academic spaces. This not only isolated them from student life but also correlated with lower degree outcomes compared to peers who lived on campus.

    The solution was bold: cover 365 days of accommodation costs for the first year of study, whether in catered halls or self-catered options. By partnering with third-party providers and embedding strong support mechanisms, we were able to develop a comprehensive package of support for care experienced and estranged students. Critical to this was ensuring that the bursary was non-competitive and universally available to eligible students – we wanted to create the opportunity to welcome all care experienced and estranged students who met our eligibility criteria and wanted to study at the University of Nottingham. The goal was not just financial relief but a holistic transition into university life – setting our students up for success.

    Beyond the bursary

    The scheme goes far beyond paying rent. From pre-entry needs assessments and liaising with local authorities to welcome events and starter packs, we designed a programme that recognises the emotional and practical challenges care experienced and estranged students face. Initiatives like “NottingHome for the Holidays” during winter vacation and solidarity events during Estranged Student Week foster community and belonging.

    Support continues throughout the year: exam preparation, wellbeing interventions, and help with second-year housing – including covering costs for guarantor services. The summer BBQ for care experienced and estranged students is a joyful and emotionally rewarding event to see a cohort come together to celebrate their first year.

    This is underpinned by staff who really care and want the best for these students. None of this would be possible without such incredible people. The UoN models puts our people in theposition to make a difference.

    Impact on recruitment and retention

    The results speak volumes. Applications from care-experienced students have risen since the bursary’s introduction, and enrolment rates have improved significantly. Living on campus has been shown, through regression analysis by UoN’s Digital Research Service, to increase the likelihood of degree completion among bursary recipients. With a 92% increase in care experienced and estranged students choosing on campus accommodation we are confident in the success outcomes of these students once they graduate.  This mirrors findings from the Unite Foundation scholarship programme, reinforcing the transformative power of secure, inclusive accommodation.

    Financial stress remains a critical issue for care experienced and estranged students nationally – this was something we heard consistently in focus groups with this group of students. The recent analysis of HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey shows that this group of students work at least 2+hours more in paid work than their peers. At Nottingham, 98% of respondents said the bursary was essential to continuing their studies.

    One first-year student summed it up:

    I don’t have to worry about getting a job on top of my studies this year because of my accommodation bursary.

    Wellbeing and belonging

    The impact goes beyond numbers. Students report feeling part of campus life, joining societies, using sports facilities and building friendships. Reduced working hours mean more time for study and social engagement, which in turn supports mental health and academic success. UoN’s commitment was recognised with the NNECL Quality Mark, awarded “Exceptional” for both pre-enrolment support and student wellbeing.

    Lessons for the sector

    What can other universities learn from Nottingham’s approach? First, that accommodation is not a luxury – it’s a foundation for success. Second, that financial support must be paired with pastoral care and community-building. Finally, that schemes should be flexible, extending help to students who become estranged after enrolment.

    As higher education grapples with cost-of-living pressures, Nottingham’s model offers a template and example for meaningful change. By investing in accommodation and wraparound support, universities can turn access into success for some of the most vulnerable students in our system.

    You can find out more about accommodation scholarships and wider support for care experienced and estranged students through the Unite Foundation’s Blueprint framework – supporting your institution to in building a safe and stable home for care experienced and estranged students, improving retention and attainment outcomes.  

    Source link

  • New HEPI Policy Note: Views on University Governance

    New HEPI Policy Note: Views on University Governance

    Author:
    Professor Steven Jones on behalf of the Council for the Defence of British Universitie

    Published:

    HEPI’s new Policy Note finds striking consensus across the higher education community for more ethical, transparent and balanced university governance.

    Summarising responses to the draft Code of Ethical University Governance from the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU), this Policy Note finds that 81% of the 129 submissions received endorse the principle of a new ethical code. This signals a widespread recognition that governance structures must better reflect the educational and public missions that universities serve.

    The revised CDBU Code directly responds to the concerns raised in the consultation and offers practical ways to reduce power imbalances, avoid insular decision-making and bring greater transparency to governor recruitment.

    For anyone interested in how universities can strengthen trust and increase transparency, the report makes for important reading. You can find the press release and link to the full text of the policy note here.

    The author of this report, and the author of a second report HEPI is publishing on governance in the run-up to Christmas will be at a free webinar on governance issues running on Thursday, 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key issues.

    Source link

  • Federal Aid Conference Delayed, University Employees Lament

    Federal Aid Conference Delayed, University Employees Lament

    The Education Department and its Office of Federal Student Aid typically hold a conference the first week of December each year.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Caiaimage/Chris Ryan/iStock/Getty Images

    Each year during the first week of December, the Department of Education has historically hosted the Federal Student Aid Training Conference to provide university administrators with updated education on regulations and technical systems. That hasn’t happened this year.

    Now, many financial aid experts are expressing their frustrations on social media, attributing the lapse to the Trump administration’s major reductions in force and calling it a shortsighted mistake.

    “There is no conference. That’s what happens when you fire many of the staff who organized and conducted the training,” Byron Scott, a retired FSA staff member, wrote on LinkedIn. “Perhaps in ‘returning’ this Department of Education function to the states—where [it] never was—the Department forgot to tell the states about this new responsibility.”

    Department officials have neither announced the event’s cancellation nor clarified whether and when it might take place. The conference website, where logistical information is traditionally posted, only says, “Information coming soon.”

    One senior department official who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity said the conference is slated to occur in person in March.

    “The announcement was queued up but the shutdown got in the way,” the source wrote in a text message. “I think the plan [will be released] in the coming days.”

    An Education Department spokesperson did not respond to questions about the March date but blamed any delay on the government shutdown.

    “The Democrats shut down the government for 43 days, and as you can imagine, planning a conference is not an exempted activity,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll have more updates on this in the coming weeks.”

    If the conference is eventually held in person, it would be the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.

    The senior department official said they hope that “returning the conference to in-person will make the wait worth it.”

    But Heidi Kovalick, director of financial aid at Rowan University, responded to Scott’s LinkedIn post saying that right now is “a critical time.”

    Financial aid officers have a lot to adapt to; the One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandated major changes to the student loan system, and the department issued regulations outlining new standards for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, among other significant shifts since Trump took office.

    “Fin[ancial] aid administrators really need to hear from the experts,” Kovalick wrote. “Of course as others have mentioned, [it’s] kind of hard when they have been forced out. We miss you all.”

    Regardless of whether staffing shortages or the government shutdown played a role in the delay, Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said one of her greatest concerns is the tight timeline financial aid officers will face if the department does reschedule the conference for spring.

    “Truthfully, March is pretty soon—three months away. Institutional budgets are tight. People are going to have to book flights and hotels, and you know that that can be expensive,” she said. Still, the NASFAA president applauded the department for its effort to return the conference to an in-person event.

    “The last few were virtual, which had mixed reviews. The sessions had to be prerecorded. They weren’t always as timely. And there wasn’t an opportunity for interaction. But those are all the things that financial aid professionals prioritize,” she said. “If March is when they can do it, well, we’ll be happy to see it in March.”

    Source link

  • Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Given the likely media habits of Wonkhe’s astute and cerebral readership, you’ve probably had a good fill of Andy Haldane in recent days.

    The former chief economist of the Bank of England has hardly been off the news and current affairs shows. First describing the pre-budget speculation as a “fiscal fandango,” and then continuing his sharp critique by lamenting the prospects for economic growth following the announcement last week.

    Haldane is best known for his economic analysis but as the author of the Levelling Up white paper (RIP) he is also a thoughtful commentator on all things related to “place” and has taken a keen interest in the civic university agenda. If you are not feeling too over-saturated with Haldane content, it is worth revisiting his essay for the Kerslake Collection last year. In it he celebrated the impact of the civic movement within the sector and the great practice it has fostered, but politely pointed out that the Civic University Commission that Lord Kerslake chaired, and its aftermath, had very little impact on policy.

    A place to call home

    This government, like the last one, has often spoken about the importance of place. Whether we think of geographical inequality or “left behind places,” across the political spectrum it is recognised that this complex issue is behind much of the political instability we have seen over the last decade. When it comes to why this matters Cabinet Office minister Josh Simmons put it well the other day when he said “Everything we do in policy should focus on place. We all experience the world through where we live and who we live with.”

    Policy action has not always matched the rhetoric but to be fair to this government, while critics may argue there is a lack of much needed radicalism when it comes to place, there have been a range of welcome place-based initiatives announced during the budget and over the last few months including the Pride in Place strategy, place-based budget pilots, and local economic growth zones.

    For higher education policy specifically, the government has of course included civic engagement as one of its five priorities and the industrial strategy highlights universities as “engines of innovation and skills” that are key to driving economic growth. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that civic engagement is a priority the Whitehall machine is struggling to get to grips with. Universities are inherently policy-domain-spanning institutions – and yet policy ownership of their “civic mission” is restricted to one Whitehall department (Education), where the much more expansive role of universities in driving economic and social growth within their cities and regions is not considered alongside their role in skills and education.

    It is not just the fact universities are often thought of as “big schools” by government which limits their role in place-based policymaking, but, as the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA)/Civic University Network outlined recently there is a “profound fragmentation in both policy and place.” The siloed nature of government departments adds complexity and can limit ambition and potential for unlocking the role of universities in supporting their place. As the NCIA report outlines, the different layers of devolution also presents a fragmented landscape in which universities work.

    Civic 2.0

    So, what can we do about it? Following the NCIA programme we want to build on the success they have had in developing great practice in the sector. We are delighted that the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement has agreed to host the Civic University Network, convene a national community of practice, and maintain the assets of the Civic University Network and National Civic Impact Accelerator. This ensures continuity for the sector and provides a platform for sharing knowledge and accelerating civic leadership.

    In addition to sector-practice we want to start making a difference to policy and overcoming the Haldane critique! A group of universities and funders – the universities of Birmingham, Newcastle and Queen Mary alongside Midlands Innovation and the NCCPE – have got together to establish a programme to develop policies and ideas which would enable universities’ place-based role to grow.

    We are at the start of this journey but our intended approach is to be both ambitious and pragmatic. What this means in reality is that we do not anticipate a radical departure from the current system in the near or medium term. While we recognise the higher education market and the way research is funded is often at odds with the place agenda, the fiscal environment and challenges faced by government means there is little appetite for structural change.

    Instead, we want to identify significant themes universities could play a role in tackling, such as social cohesion and rebuilding institutional capacity in local communities, as well as a small number of policy shifts or ideas across different parts of Whitehall to ensure universities are enabled to be more active players in supporting local growth and civic engagement over the next few years.

    In turn this will also help us to provide the sector with additional momentum, leadership and representation on the civic/place agenda – ensuring greater visibility, highlighting excellent practice, developing spokespeople and case-studies for policy makers to engage with and to facilitate partnerships between university leaders, other sectors and national/ regional policymakers.

    We are starting out as a small group of universities and funders committed to the civic agenda, but we recognise there are many other institutions from across the country with different missions and specialisms who really care about the role they play in the places they are part of.

    We would welcome you to join our programme, with the intention that over time we will be able to build a sustainable entity which wouldn’t just look at “civic wins” for the medium term but could also explore the system changes we need to better serve our places for the decades to come.

    More information on the Civic 2.0 programme can be found here.

    Source link

  • In lawsuit, Pearland family blames hazing by University of Texas fraternity for son’s suicide (KHOU 11)

    In lawsuit, Pearland family blames hazing by University of Texas fraternity for son’s suicide (KHOU 11)







    Higher Education Inquirer : In lawsuit, Pearland family blames hazing by University of Texas fraternity for son’s suicide (KHOU 11)




    Source link

  • Making sense of specialisation: what the Post-16 White Paper means for university identity

    Making sense of specialisation: what the Post-16 White Paper means for university identity

    Over the weekend we published blogs on the art of reimagining universities and on why the TEF could collapse under the weight of DfE and the OfS’ expectations.

    Today’s blog was kindly authored by Nick Barthram, Strategy Partner at Firehaus and Merry Scott Jones, Transformation Partner at Firehaus and Associate Lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London.

    It is the tenth  blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the other blogs in the series here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

    The government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper sets a new tone for tertiary education in England. It is not just another skill or funding reform. It is a statement of intent about how universities, colleges, and employers should work together to build the country’s economic capability.

    The paper sets out a broad reform agenda built around stronger employer collaboration, higher-quality technical education, and a more flexible lifelong learning system. Initiatives such as Local Skills Improvement Plans and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement illustrate how the system is being reshaped to enable post-16 institutions to play distinct, complementary roles within a shared ecosystem of skills and innovation. All of this will unfold against a backdrop of constrained funding, uneven regional capacity, and growing regulatory pressure, making clarity of role more important than the White Paper itself acknowledges.

    While the paper avoids overt market language, the phrase comparative advantage does a lot of work. It invites universities to reflect on what they are best at and how that compares with others, without requiring them to openly compete. The intention is clear: to encourage institutions to define, and then demonstrate, their unique value. This is not new thinking. Advance HE, supported by a sector steering group including representation from AHUA, CUC, Guild HE and UUK, published a discussion paper last year on Measuring What Matters, exploring institutional performance and the importance of evidencing and communicating value creation.

    For some, that will mean sharper choices about subjects, audiences, partnerships, and purpose. For others, it will be about aligning their contribution to regional priorities. Not every university serves its region in the same way. The most prestigious universities will act as lighthouses, shaping national and international ecosystems through research and innovation. Others will play a more local role, deepening their community impact and supporting regional industry.

    The common thread is focus. Universities can no longer rely on breadth as a badge of strength. The challenge now is to identify what makes their contribution distinct and coherent, and to express that with clarity.

    From strategy to articulation

    Responding to the White Paper will be a demanding process. It will call for rigorous analysis, evidence-gathering, and an honest evaluation of institutional strengths and weaknesses. It will also require a sophisticated understanding of stakeholders’ and audiences’ needs. And of course, diplomacy will be required to manage the trade-offs that follow. Every decision will carry consequences for identity, culture, and relationships.

    In time, many universities will produce credible strategies: detailed statements of focus, lists of priorities, and maps of partnerships. But the real risk is stopping there. Institutional strategy alone will not create coherence.

    Universities often complete strategic work and then move straight to execution, adding imagery or campaigns before uniting everything around a purpose that aligns what you offer and who it’s for. The step that often gets missed is articulation – translating strategic intent into something people can understand, believe in, and act on.

    The White Paper calls for coherence across regions and the sector. Universities need to mirror that with coherence within their own walls. When purpose, culture, and communication line up behind a shared sense of direction, policy responses become practice, not just strategy. And this, fundamentally, is what the Government is seeking.

    The groundwork for meeting these changes is only just beginning, with many hard yards still to come. While covering that ground, there are lessons from outside the sector worth remembering.

    1. Specialisation  is relative
      A university’s strengths mean little in isolation. What matters is how those strengths stand out within the broader system of institutions, partners, and employers. Understanding where your work overlaps with others and where it uniquely contributes is essential. Knowing what not to do is often as important as knowing where to lead.
    1. Demand is defined by more than the UK Government
      The White Paper rightly highlights the importance of the national industrial strategy in shaping what is ‘in demand’. But universities should also consider the needs and motivations of their wider audiences: students, partners, and communities. Clarity about who your work matters to is as important as clarity about what that work is.
    1. Purpose must be expressed, not just defined
      Defining purpose is a strategic exercise; expressing it is an act of leadership. Purpose that remains on paper does not change behaviour, attract talent, or inspire partners. It must be made visible and tangible across everything the institution says and does, from how staff describe their work to how the university presents itself to the world.
    1. Perception matters as much as reality
      Universities are naturally driven by research and evidence. Yet specialisation is as much about being perceived as specialised as it is about being so in practice. The most successful institutions will work not only to build genuine expertise but also to occupy space in their audiences’ hearts and minds. Shifting perception requires consistency in both story and substance.
    1. Alignment is critical to success
      The institutions that succeed will be those that align intent, culture, and message. When leadership, staff, and students share a single understanding of what the university stands for, decision-making becomes simpler, collaboration easier, and communication more powerful. Alignment is not achieved through a campaign but through ongoing dialogue and consistent behaviour.

    A catalyst for clarity

    The Post-16 White Paper is ultimately a call for focus. For universities, that means not only deciding where they fit but demonstrating that fit clearly and consistently to students, partners, and staff.

    Those who stop at strategy will adapt. Those who move beyond it — articulating their role with confidence, coherence, and conviction — will help define what a purposeful, modern university looks like in the decade ahead.

    Source link

  • The post-matrix university – trust, relevance, and the politics of plugging back in

    The post-matrix university – trust, relevance, and the politics of plugging back in

    Earlier this year the University of East London’s Child Online Harms Policy Think Tank, launched in the House of Lords. At that launch, I first properly heard a phrase I’d only half-registered before, but which I now can’t stop thinking about: “escaping the matrix.”

    For some young people, especially those immersed in online influencer culture, the phrase signals a rejection of conformity – a desire to think critically about the systems they’ve inherited. In its healthiest form, it’s scepticism. But in darker online spaces – the so-called “manosphere” – that questioning turns toxic. The “matrix” becomes a conspiracy; feminism is blamed for personal hardship; and traditional institutions, universities included, are dismissed as irrelevant or even hostile.

    Here’s the irony: many of the same influencers peddling these anti-institution narratives are running their own “universities” – online courses, masterclasses, mentorships. The hunger to learn hasn’t gone away. What’s being rejected isn’t learning – in fact, more 18-year-olds than ever entered higher education this year – but the institutions seen to control it.

    So, what should universities make of this moment? The answer is not to bend to the whims of misogynist influencers, but to reflect on why so many young people feel alienated from formal education. What is the role of higher education in a world where disaffection is marketed as enlightenment? And how might we create – and communicate – a post-matrix university that feels worth plugging into?

    Build a better matrix

    At UEL, we’ve been challenging ourselves on what “value” really means in a rapidly changing world. For us, that has meant a deep commitment to becoming a careers-first university. Over the last seven years, we’ve redesigned our curriculum and embedded employability into every aspect of the institution, aligning what we teach with the skills and opportunities our students need to thrive.

    By embedding careers throughout study; forging deep, value-adding partnerships with employers; breaking down the barriers between learning, innovation and work; and developing validated, leaner and more predictive-of-success recruitment pipelines, we have lifted graduate employment rates by 25 percentage points in just five years, the fastest rise in England. Our enterprise support tells a similar story, as we have driven the sector’s fastest increase in graduate start-ups, with a 1000 per cent increase in businesses still active after three years.

    This is not the only approach, nor the only vision for value. The government’s recent white paper encourages greater specialisation, and I have always believed that a diverse higher education sector is a strong one. But that diversity only thrives in a healthy ecosystem – not one pulling in all directions and competing for diminishing resources.

    If universities are to prove their continuing value to students, graduates, families, government, businesses, and communities, we must work together. Just not in the same old ways. That is where government can play a smarter role: not by propping up legacy systems or mandating mergers, but by rewarding genuine innovation and collaboration.

    Take employers

    Research launched by UEL and London Economics at this year’s Labour Conference found that 97 per cent of businesses want closer partnerships with universities. Nearly nine in ten back a national digital “front door” – a single online platform connecting graduates and employers, streamlining recruitment, and supporting lifelong professional development.

    Our students tell us they don’t just want a graduate job – they want a graduate career. Students are not just job seekers; they are job creators too. Meeting that ambition means building systemic partnerships that align degrees with the demands of a changing generation; innovative, connected investment in practice-based education; and giving employers confidence that universities are developing the higher skilled and enterprising talent they need.

    Graduate recruitment has become a hall of mirrors: AI-generated applications screened by AI filters, relying on crude, out-dated proxies for talent that do not predict new routes for success. Real, diverse potential is lost in this algorithmic echo chamber and the approach is – at least in part – contributing to a 59 per cent increase in applications per graduate vacancy in just one year. The current model is working for too few: graduates underemployed, employers frustrated, trust eroded.

    By listening to what students and businesses are telling us, even when those truths are uncomfortable, we can respond with something better: an education that is relevant, transformative, and visibly worth the investment of time, trust, and money; together with the collaborative recruitment practices that succeed both for future talent and the businesses that need them.

    That, to me, is the essence of the “post-matrix university”: one that closes the gap between institution and individual, between learning and livelihood, between aspiration and outcome. It’s a university that earns trust not through authority, but through authenticity – proving that education isn’t an escape from reality, but a way to change it.

    Source link