Tag: University

  • Eight things to look for when we get the judgement on University of Sussex vs OfS

    Eight things to look for when we get the judgement on University of Sussex vs OfS

    The recent judicial review in the High Court of Justice (King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court – with Justice Lieven presiding) did not directly concern who was in the right and who was in the wrong regarding the substantive matter of Kathleen Stock’s experiences of a “chilling effect” at the University of Sussex.

    Rather – and by design – it examined the processes, powers, and principles relied upon by the Office for Students to come to the decision to make a regulatory finding of non-compliance with ongoing registration conditions E1 and E2, and thus to issue a record fine of £585,000.

    That’s what judicial reviews do. It’s not a matter of reworking the investigation – or making a substantive judgement on the merits or otherwise of any version of the Sussex Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement (TNBEPS) – it is a matter of procedure.

    It may sound like this would be deadly dull. Lawyers arguing at length as to whether particular letters have been appropriately adorned with dots and or crosses doesn’t sound like big box office.

    But the arguments and rebuttals presented by Monica Carss-Frisk for OfS, and by Chris Butler and Katy Sheridan for Sussex had a poetry of their own – and the entire three days made for compelling viewing.

    I can’t hope to cover everything that was said in a single article – likewise, I am no lawyer so I cannot offer any expert commentary. But these – to me – are the things that are likely to be particularly interesting for ministers and the whole sector when Justice Lieven releases her written judgement in a few weeks time.

    Does OfS actually have the power to make decisions concerning governing documents?

    So, on the face of it, ongoing condition of registration E1 (that the governing documents uphold the public interest governance principles) and E2 (adequate management of governance arrangements and complying with governing documents) give the Office for Students the right to get stuck into your university’s governing documents. Whether it is a matter of those documents having the right things in them about academic freedom, or of whether the measures to ensure decisions are taken properly are actually being followed, any deviation from what is right and proper has regulatory consequences.

    However, if you are in a university founded via a Royal Charter the common law position is that a named senior cleric, aristocrat, or – in many cases – King Charles III as monarch is the only person (they have “exclusive jurisdiction”) able to rule on whether or not your charter and statutes (the governing documents that constitute the “laws” of your university) are being correctly implemented.

    You might think that the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 sections 13 and 14 trump some relic of medieval governance processes, but you would be wrong. The usual test is that parliament can only replace common law if it explicitly says that is what it is doing at the time – generally on the face of the act, but any other public statement (a speech in the house, a consultation document) can suffice at a push. This is what happened when visitors lost the ability to deal with student complaints to the Office for the Independent Adjudicator in 2004 (Higher Education Act) and with employment issues (in the 1998 Education Reform Act).

    A trawl through the act, the green and white papers, and parliamentary debates about the bill do not help us – it really feels like nobody noticed this issue during the entire process of establishing OfS. And – to put it mildly – if the court rules that OfS does not in fact get to assess governing documents and how they are applied, it presents rather a problem for the way that the 51 universities who have visitors are regulated.

    What even are governing documents, anyway?

    So, I cited university statutes and university charters as “governing documents” – which feels pretty unarguable. But what else might be a governing document? The University of Sussex argues that the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement that OfS was so unhappy with was not a governing document, and thus not something ongoing conditions of registration E1 and E2 could apply to.

    OfS contends that the approach to this definition should be broad enough to include that kind of statement. In condition E1, it says:

    Depending on the legal form of the provider its ‘governing documents’ may include a Royal Charter, Statutes and Ordinances, articles of association, or Instruments of Government and/or a trust deed or deeds. They are also likely to include documents such as…the provider’s policies on matters such as…support for freedom of speech or academic freedom…

    It would be helpful at this point to point to a handy definition, in HERA, of the term “governing document” – something that would clearly draw a line around what does and does not count. And, of course there isn’t one. The E1 definition sets out what OfS thinks, not what Parliament intended when it asked OfS to look at governing documents.

    Again, we end up trawling through the debates on the bill to get a taste of what the ministerial intention might be. It turns out that, in the eighth sitting of the Commons Bill Committee, Wes Streeting attempted to widen the definition (to include “practices” as well as “documents”) in amendment 25. He got a response from the minister of the time, Jo Johnson:

    The introduction of the term “practices” through the amendment would risk changing the scope of the public interest governance condition to give it a much wider and more subjective application and imposing a significant and ambiguous regulatory burden on the OfS. That would stray outside our stated policy objective and beyond the OfS’ regulatory remit.

    The University of Sussex argues that this response outlines the intention that a “subjective application” (basically that OfS gets to decide what is in scope) is not what was intended, was not the government’s policy objective, and was beyond the OfS’ regulatory remit.

    If the court agrees, the OfS’ ability to say that something like TNBPES is in breach of conditions E1 and E2 is in serious doubt. Something that would apply to the University of Sussex findings, and to everything else that OfS has done or tried to do with E1 or E2.

    What does “nor” mean?

    Universities change and update their policies all the time – to iron out issues and to make them work better, or to ensure compliance with changing regulatory requirements. Sussex updated TNBEPS a number of times – and in 2023 it added a “safeguarding statement”:

    For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Policy Statement should be taken to justify sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or putting forward new ideas including controversial or unpopular opinions within the law, nor should this Policy Statement be taken to justify disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech.

    You’d think that a change like this, made towards the end of the long OfS investigation, might keep the regulator happy. However, OfS ruled that this version of the policy still breached E1 – it met the requirements for safeguarding academic freedom, but did not meet the requirements for safeguarding freedom of speech.

    As a layperson, this seems odd – it’s literally the same sentence! That is what Sussex argues – the use of the word “nor” implies that everything state applies to both free speech and academic freedom. The OfS position is that the tests for free speech and academic freedom are different, and the existence of the other parts of the policy (the stuff about not seeking to rely on harmful stereotypes of trans people, for instance) would still have the potential to have a chilling effect.

    Lawyers do spend a lot of time talking about the meanings of words – here the decision on the word “nor” will have a bearing as to whether the 2023 version of the policy was in breach of E1.

    Who made decisions about what to do with Sussex? And when? What was Arif Ahmed’s role?

    OfS presented a fascinating chronology of the many years that the investigation continued, and assigned key decisions to key people.

    For instance, the OfS Board had initially suggested that OfS needed to start using their powers on freedom of speech in the summer of 2021 – so when the issues at the University of Sussex hit the media in October of that year the OfS board discussed the case and decided it should be prioritised (of course, this would be an investigation into compliance with regulatory conditions – as OfS could not investigate an individual case).

    It was the OfS Director of Regulation – who was at that point Susan Lapworth – that put a preliminary analysis to the Provider Risk Committee. When she became interim chief executive in 2022, the day-to-day conduct of the investigation passed to David Smy and Hilary Jones, though Lapworth continued to have close supervisory oversight. It was the interim chief executive who wrote to Sussex to offer the opportunity to reach a settlement in 2022 (of which more later), and who wrote to Kathleen Stock to solicit a statement, which was taken in November 2023.

    On 6 July 2023, Lapworth established the board-level University of Sussex Compliance and Enforcement Committee (USCEC); appointing Martin Coleman as chair, and Elizabeth Fagan and Nisha Arora as members. USCEC was established as a decision making body, to respond to recommendations that would be made by the investigative team. Accordingly the committee met the investigation team on numerous occasions to discuss emerging findings and interim analyses.

    This led to the presentation of interim recommendations on 7 November 2023 – which became, following debate, the provisional decision that was communicated to Sussex on 21 March 2024. As was its right, the university responded with representations (totalling around 2,000 pages on 30 May 2024, including two additional witness statements on 7 June 2024).

    By this point one Arif Ahmed had been appointed OfS Director of Free Speech and Academic Freedom – he started work in August 2023, and joined the investigation team in the autumn of 2024. This presented an issue. The University of Sussex argues that when Ahmed joined the OfS he declared a possible conflict of interest in “cases involving gender” and cases related to Stock – whom he knew professionally. Beyond this, Ahmed had written and spoken publicly about the issue on a number of occasions.

    Initially (June 2023) Lapworth is on record as having said “I think he is conflicted”, a position that others involved in the investigation agreed with. This position changed on 15 October 2024 – with Lapworth appointing Ahmed to head up the investigation team – she argued that his “potential conflicts of interest” were not a “material concern” because the team’s views had already “crystallised” at that point and Ahmed was not a decision maker (though he did present the team’s recommendation to the decision-making committee).

    The idea that the team’s views had crystallised by October 2024 was problematised in court – this date was before Stock had provided a second witness statement (in response to points made in the university’s representations) on 12 December 2024, before the team had completed the drafting of the final recommendation (24 December 2024), before the presentation of the recommendation at a committee meeting (15 January 2025), and before the amount of the fine was decided (14 February 2025).

    Sussex argued that the amount of work that was done after Ahmed’s appointment to the investigation – taking another witness statement from Stock for example – suggests that the views of the team had not crystallised, and that Ahmed may have had the opportunity to “infect” the decision with bias. Proving bias in a regulatory decision is a very high bar – but whatever is decided the ambiguity about how the conflict of interest seems to have been interpreted and applied is troubling, and that ambiguity will need to be resolved in future investigations of this kind.

    The final OfS decision letter was sent to Sussex on 20 March 2025. It was re-issued on 27 March 2025. And it has never been published in full.

    Has this process been “adversarial”?

    So that second Stock statement, the one made in December 2024 in response to the university’s representations, wasn’t shared with the university until the high court hearing started gathering steam. Beforehand, there were just a few points from the statement included in the final decision letter. As OfS was relying on aspects of this statement in reaching the final decision, Sussex was rather nonplussed about this – and asked to see the full thing.

    It was told “no”. The reason? Litigation privilege.

    To be clear, litigation privilege is absolutely a thing. If you are preparing for some kind of adversarial litigation (the test is “reasonably contemplated” – around a 50 per cent likelihood of you lawyering up) you are allowed not to share certain kinds of documents with the people you are litigating against. The question in this case is whether adversarial litigation was “reasonably contemplated” at the point the OfS took the second statement from Kathleen Stock, which was before the final decision (the thing that Sussex could reasonably be expected to litigate about) was issued.

    The Sussex argument is that this suggests a frame of mind at OfS that was “adverserial” at a point where it was supposed to be all impartial and regulatory. True, the response to the provisional decision and the idea of a settlement might have given the impression that Sussex was unhappy – but the actual investigation couldn’t really go forward on the basis it was a preparation for the high court. Can it?

    Does the OfS offer a “jolly odd” kind of settlement process?

    That’s the words of Justice Lieven, when she learned that to accept a settlement Sussex would have had to accept the entire of the OfS’ case against it – admitting the breaches of registration conditions in other words – before paying a reduced fine. And that this would include accepting parts of the OfS’ original draft decision (for instance, the idea that the Sussex Freedom of Speech policy was in breach of a B condition) that OfS later withdrew. It is very much like what happened in the investigations that led to OfS’ statement on degree algorithms, where universities felt pressured to accept a presumption that it had breached conditions in order to avoid a reputational detriment.

    It is because Sussex didn’t accept these terms that it – famously – didn’t get the only planned meeting with OfS during the investigation: accepting the settlement was a requirement for the meeting to happen.

    OfS says that the university:

    was intending to challenge the OfS’ view about breaches of conditions of registration […] which was not an issue in respect of which the OfS was willing to negotiate during a settlement process […] settlement is only available under Regulatory Advice 19 if a provider is willing to accept breaches.

    To be clear, this wasn’t in any of the grounds Sussex raised – but Justice Lieven’s note of surprise when presented with these terms was interesting in itself, and I would be unsurprised to see more of this incredulity in her written judgement.

    Does the University of Sussex currently comply with governance conditions?

    On one level the whole point of this investigation and subsequent regulatory action was to ensure that the University of Sussex complied with freedom of speech and academic freedom principles. And on that reading, the end point would be when OfS was satisfied that any offending bits of policy or decision-making did indeed comply with E1 and/or E2.

    However, OfS reserved its position on the 2024 TNBPES – it didn’t want to say if it complied with registration conditions or not. Indeed, Sussex had initially thought the note to this effect in the final decision letter meant it was still under investigation – it was only in preparation for the hearing that it learned it was not. Which is something you would think the regulatory might have been a little clearer on if it was looking to drive compliance. Or if you wanted to say (as OfS did) something like:

    some of the issues with the TNBEPS which gave rise to breach of Condition E1 continued to exist as at 20 March 2024, and therefore it is possible that the breach continued beyond that date and could occur again.

    It would only know that if it had reached a decision on the current policy. Which it said it hadn’t.

    OfS argued that the investigation window had to end at some point, and that it had looked at a lot of iterations of TNBPES already. It argued that this was a common regulatory approach, and to assess yet another iteration of the policy would take “considerable time”.

    What about other universities with a similar policy? What about AdvanceHE?

    The original Sussex TNBPES bore a very close resemblance to a template originally published by the Equality Challenge Unit, which had by 2018 become a part of AdvanceHE. Sussex was not the only university to take this up – by various reckonings there were between eight and ten universities that had a similar policy based on the template.

    This was not an issue that had escaped Judge Lieven, who asked at what point OfS approached either AdvanceHE (to note the issue with a commonly used template and to ask for changes) or other providers (to ask them to cease using or rethink their usage of the template)?

    It had not. It claimed not to have been aware of specific other universities using the policy when it began the investigation (it apparently considered this in the initial conversation about prioritising the Sussex investigation), and there was no conversation with AdvanceHE until after the final decision was made.

    In Justice Lieven’s own words:

    You’ve fined Sussex half a million pounds for a policy, but didn’t ask other universities if they had the same policy?

    Sussex had raised this issue as a part of an argument that it had been “singled out” for punishment – that other providers had done the same thing (and even gone on to experience high profile controversies concerning gender-critical speech) and had not faced regulatory consequences. It had, it claimed, experienced a negative impact as a result – one that had a detrimental effect on fair competition (one of those pesky “have regard to” requirements of OfS in HERA).

    But Justice Lieven’s take opens a wider question – is going after one provider for a widespread sin a reasonable and fair way to do regulation to ensure compliance. OfS’ pour encourager les autres approach is perhaps not a model of change that is helpful if you want to claim a dispassionate and even-handed approach to regulation.

    Why it matters beyond this case

    There is higher education legislation on the way – a Skills Bill, which would straighten up some of the more egregious problems with HERA and the OfS. Some of Justice Lieven’s judgement – particularly if she gets as stuck in to the visitorial jurisdiction issue – is an intervention in the evolution of higher education regulation that would shift us from the Behanite “it would be nice if” to a situation where changes had to be made to ensure OfS can continue to regulate in the way it has come to assume it has.

    Much like in the aftermath of Office for Students vs Bloomsbury College, already knowable issues with OfS become pressingly urgent, and the government will be forced into action via primary legislation. A crisis can drive needed change, but it can also drive measures to shore up systems that need a more considered rethink.

    Source link

  • New Research Highlights a Disconnect Between University Retention Strategies and Adult Learner Priorities

    New Research Highlights a Disconnect Between University Retention Strategies and Adult Learner Priorities

    National study from Collegis Education and UPCEA highlights opportunity for institutions to strengthen student persistence through better alignment of strategy, systems, and support

    WASHINGTON, D.C. and CHICAGO, IL – February 4, 2026 — ​​ As adult learners account for a growing share of higher education enrollment, colleges and universities face increasing pressure to sustain persistence in online programs. A new national study, “The Retention Disconnect: What Learners Need and What Institutions Miss,” released by UPCEA and Collegis Education, examines where institutional assumptions about retention diverge from learners’ lived experiences—and how realigning support strategies can improve outcomes, protect revenue, and better meet students where they are.

    The study found that 48% of institutional leaders cannot confidently report their online retention rate, indicating a visibility gap that makes it harder to evaluate which approaches are most effective for learners. As institutions face enrollment pressure tied to demographic shifts and slower net-new growth, retention is increasingly viewed as a critical lever for stability. The findings underscore the need not for more activity, but for clearer insight into what actually supports persistence.

    Surveying 1,015 online learners and 54 institutional leaders, the research reveals that while 75% of learners say it is “easy” to stay enrolled, nearly one in five has still considered stopping out. The gap suggests that persistence hinges less on online learner motivation and more on how effectively institutions anticipate, support, and align with students’ academic and life realities.

    Left unaddressed, these misalignments carry meaningful consequences. Attrition is estimated to cost institutions millions in lost tuition revenue annually, particularly in graduate and online programs where retention is central to long-term growth.

    Key Research Findings:

    • Many institutions lack a consistent measurement of online retention, limiting informed decision-making.
    • Learners prioritize self-service and visibility: 87% rate progress dashboards highly valuable, while institutions tend to emphasize staff-driven interventions.
    • Retention risks vary significantly by life stage, reinforcing the limits of one-size-fits-all strategies
    • Career advancement is the leading enrollment driver, yet learners frequently report misalignment between coursework and professional goals
    • Financial pressure, work demands, and caregiving responsibilities remain the top reasons learners consider stopping out

    “Retention today is less about adding more touchpoints and more about intentional design,” said Tracy A. Chapman, Chief Academic Officer at Collegis Education. “Institutions seeing progress are those that align their strategies around how learners actually move through education—creating clarity, relevance, and timely support that helps persistence scale.”

    The research also found that while many institutions invest heavily in alerts and structured outreach, learners place greater value on flexibility, autonomy, and transparency. When these preferences are not reflected in institutional design, retention efforts can miss critical moments that influence whether students persist.

    “Adult learners are reshaping expectations across higher education, and institutions are under increasing pressure to demonstrate outcomes,” said  Emily West, Senior Market Research Analyst at UPCEA. “This research shows that improving retention isn’t about doing more—it’s about understanding professional learners better and meeting their needs.”

    Implications for University Leaders

    The findings highlight an opportunity for institutions to strengthen persistence by improving visibility into retention outcomes and aligning support with different learner profiles and life stages. Programs that provide clearer pathways, relevant coursework, and timely guidance are better positioned to sustain momentum. In a competitive environment, retention increasingly reflects institutional design as much as student effort.

    UPCEA will host a webinar on February 11 at 1 pm EST to explore the research findings and actionable strategies. Registration details are available at: https://collegiseducation.com/insights/the-retention-disconnect-webinar/

    About UPCEA

    UPCEA is the online and professional education association. Our members continuously reinvent higher education, positively impacting millions of lives. We proudly lead and support them through cutting-edge research, professional development, networking and mentorship, conferences and seminars, and stakeholder advocacy. Our collaborative, entrepreneurial community brings together decision-makers and influencers in education, industry, research, and policy interested in improving educational access and outcomes. Learn more at upcea.edu.

    About Collegis Education

    As a mission-oriented, tech-enabled services provider, Collegis Education partners with higher education institutions to help align operations to drive transformative impact across the entire student lifecycle. With over 25 years as an industry pioneer, Collegis has proven how to leverage insights, systems, and expertise to optimize institutions’ business processes that enhance the student experience. With the strategic capabilities that rival the leading consultancies, a full suite of proven service lines, including marketing, enrollment, retention, IT, and its world-class Connected Core® platform, Collegis helps its partners enable impact and drive revenue, growth, and innovation. Learn more at CollegisEducation.com.

    Media Contacts:

    Collegis Education

    Alyssa Miller

    [email protected]

    973-615-1292

    Our mission is to enable impact in higher education. We help our partners achieve more, deliver superior experiences, and drive impact across the entire student lifecycle by leveraging and aligning data, technology, and talent.

    Source link

  • Audit Finds ‘Severe Noncompliance’ at Utah State University

    Audit Finds ‘Severe Noncompliance’ at Utah State University

    A state audit slammed Utah State University for finance and governance issues.

    raclro/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    A state audit released Friday found a litany of issues at Utah State University, including “patterns of financial noncompliance” among university leaders and staff, and poor oversight by the Utah Board of Higher Education. The audit offered 26 recommendations for improvement.

    “The nature and number of financial issues identified during this audit were concerning,” the audit noted.

    Notably, the report detailed how the university moved ahead with renovations to former president Elizabeth “Betsy” Cantwell’s office without securing funding beforehand. (The audit doesn’t name Cantwell, but The Salt Lake Tribune reported on the incident.) The original plan to spend $10,000 on basic upgrades, such as new paint and carpet, ultimately ballooned to $300,000. Cantwell’s project, “questioned both externally and internally,” continues to go unfunded, according to the audit.

    The report raised other issues, as well, including Utah State contracting vendors who have professional ties to leadership, or procuring work without a competitive process, and university personnel spending on costly accommodations during work travel.

    “Based on the documentation we were able to review, there has been a pattern of severe noncompliance within the university for many years,” the audit read. “University leaders are not held accountable for violating university policy, which undermines the effectiveness of existing internal controls.”

    The audit did however acknowledge that the board hired a new president, Brad Mortensen, “who has a record of good leadership.” Mortensen, the former president of Weber State University, took over in November. The board has also instituted new rules for reviewing presidential spending.

    Source link

  • Indiana University Football (and Others) Just Need to Go Pro

    Indiana University Football (and Others) Just Need to Go Pro

    Writing at The Wall Street Journal, former federal prosecutor and longtime television writer/producer Jonathan Shapiro calls Indiana University president Pamela Whitten the school’s “MVP.”

    Shapiro is also the author of How to Be Abe Lincoln: Seven Steps to Leading a Legendary Life, which is described as being “written for those who don’t just admire Lincoln but want to emulate his rational, practical approach to law, love, leadership and life.”

    As an apparent expert in character, one might wonder which of President Whitten’s accomplishments has Shapiro singing her praises.

    Is she the MVP for calling in Indiana state troopers to arrest protesting students on her campus, an action that included snipers on the roof of a campus building?

    Is President Whitten the MVP for IU’s attempt to enforce a “no-trespass” order on a group of IU faculty, grad students and alumni, which led to institutional sanctions, sanctions that were later invalidated on First Amendment grounds in a federal court?

    Is she the MVP for being subject to an April 2024 faculty no-confidence vote brought over a petition that charged the administration with “encroaching on both academic freedom and shared governance,” including a failure to resist an Indiana state law directly attacking tenure and other faculty protections?

    Maybe Shapiro was thinking of the decision to fire the university director of student media and adviser to the Indiana Daily Student newspaper prior to declaring that the print edition could no longer print “news” and instead be limited to “event guides.”

    (This restriction was ultimately reversed following widespread objections from students, faculty, alumni and other people who care about free speech.)

    I won’t pretend suspense any further, because we all know what is most notable about Indiana University in this moment. Shapiro was praising Pamela Whitten for her stewardship of the Indiana University football team, which recently completed its season as undefeated national champions, a feat all the more amazing given that Indiana University has, historically, been the losingest football team in the history of the Big Ten.

    Shapiro praises Whitten for being “quicker than most to adapt to the new world order in college athletics” and being “adept at finding talent,” including hiring coach Curt Cignetti and, after his initial successes, nailing him down with a salary of $11.6 million a year, which required “weathering a storm of criticism.”

    The increased attention and revenue realized through this success is, in Shapiro’s mind, an unalloyed good and even necessary compared to the alternatives. As he says, “Nobel Prizes are nice, but the physics department’s fan base will never kick in for a new cyclotron.”

    By his biography, Shapiro seems like a person invested in character and justice and protecting the foundational rights of Americans. He was educated at Harvard, Oxford and Berkeley. But in this man’s opinion, what makes a college president an MVP is the success of the football team.

    Jonathan Shapiro’s opinion piece is hardly the most important or dispositive evidence that there must be some reckoning when it comes to the major revenue sports and the institutions that host them, but reading it felt like a bit of a tipping point to me, indicating that there is no future where the same person can lead both the entity that is striving for a national championship in football or basketball and an institution of postsecondary education.

    It’s all too big. There’s too much money, and the incentives between education and major revenue-generating athletics—always tenuous—are now almost entirely misaligned.

    If anyone needs additional evidence, how about Duke University suing a student, Darian Mensah, in attempt to keep him at the school so he could remain their starting quarterback, fulfilling a two-year, reportedly $8 million contract? The parties settled the dispute and Mensah is now heading to Miami, his third school and this year’s runner-up to IU, with two years of eligibility remaining.

    Let me pause to say that I 100 percent support student athletes being paid absolutely as much as they are able, and that Mensah and other players who transfer to more promising athletic and financial opportunities are doing nothing wrong. Anyone who laments this state of play should aim all of their ire at the NCAA and its member universities, who had a chance to craft a system that paid students for their labor but refused to do so.

    In a way this relatively ungoverned and ungovernable system, which also has former professional basketball players being cleared to return to college, is more clarifying than if the NCAA had allowed athletes to certify and bargain collectively. The attitudes of people like Jonathan Shapiro only reflect reality: The activity that most matters when it comes to many universities is sports.

    But that primary importance of sports cannot co-exist with an educational institution under the same leadership. I would like to hear a serious argument rooted in reality that makes this case, because I cannot see it.

    The good news is that there are some relatively clear frameworks that can point the way to better futures for both aspects of the contemporary university, athletics and academics.

    Clearly football, and men’s and women’s basketball (and potentially other sports that can be run profitably), should be spun off as independent for-profit entities. They will be required to share some portion of gross revenue with the originating institution in exchange for rights to the name and jersey and facilities, but otherwise they will be run separately according to their highest purpose—winning games. These entities will be “owned” through some combination of the institution and a separate body of alumni/boosters/whatever. (There’s lots of ways to structure this as a corporate entity. Perhaps the unique structure of the Green Bay Packers could be used as a model.)

    The people running the revenue-generating athletics entity will not report to the university president. They will be accountable to the same structures we find in other professional sports, like team presidents or boards of governors. Players will be eligible to simultaneously attend credit-bearing courses at the affiliated university, but they will not be required to do so while they are rostered as an athlete. Players will receive a guaranteed five-year scholarship credit to return to the institution for the pursuit of a degree following the end of their athletic career.

    We may need a salary cap and reductions in roster size—college football teams often have more than double the number of players as NFL teams. The current Division I teams that don’t have the resources necessary to compete as a for-profit entity will drop back into subdivision that remains genuinely amateur, closer to the structure of college sports from several decades ago.

    Big-time teams unshackled from the nonprofit entity that hosts them will be allowed to go whole hog on revenue-generating and value-increasing activities.

    All I am proposing is that we recognize these sports for what they have become and then allow them to be what they are without trying to maintain a relationship between two entities that have no reason to be conjoined beyond tradition.

    Something like what I describe here is inevitable, though in the worst case scenario we simply allow the football team to swallow the educational mission, much like President Whitten has apparently achieved with Indiana University, only on a national scale.

    This has the potential to be a win-win for both sports and academics and, at its best, will be a reversal of the era when subsidies from the academic side have been used to support athletics.

    All it’s going to take is a critical mass of rich and important people to nudge us that way. For those of us who don’t belong to those groups, our job is to make sure the tribute paid to the remaining academic entity is sufficient to do our work.

    Source link

  • What Do People Get Wrong About the University Presidency?

    What Do People Get Wrong About the University Presidency?

    Now that we text each other approximately 7,000 times a day, and we’re going forward as friends in a relationship of equals, we’ve decided to use our initials for this column. Gordon’s full name is Ebenezer or something that starts with an E. Rachel was born without a middle name and in college, among the preppies, decided to give herself an S.

    RST: That good with you?

    EGG: Do I have a choice? I would have preferred Your Highness but highly unlikely that would fly.

    RST: That’s what my phone calls me. I like thinking of you as an egg. Maybe gain a whole bunch of pounds around your middle and then I’ll crack you.

    EGG: That is cruel. You have no respect for older people.

    RST: Whatever, geezer. Within minutes of our first column’s publication, I heard from folks telling me how I should attack you.

    EGG: Rachel, one of the agreements we have is that this is not an effort to say what others wish to hear. This is us unfiltered—

    RST: —um, I am always unfiltered. It’s why you wanted to work for me, since you are always decorous and stuffy.

    EGG: —and the reason we decided to do this together is because we can ask each other the tough questions and not let each other resort to pablum. Truthfully, it is a bit frightening for me after 45 years of people holding their breath about what I will say, but you insist that I be honest and say the things out loud that I mutter under my breath.

    RST: Well, we promised our readers we were going to get into it, go there, have it out. We already have a list of meaty topics to cover, and we’re both excited and energized by this project. We even started working on a column called “Majors Are Dumb.”

    EGG: Point of order: It is not so much that majors are dumb, rather it is because the structure that requires majors is antiquated. Universities are structured to put both faculty and students into a system that is hierarchical and siloed. Yes, students need to learn and have deep understanding about topics but not be forced to learn more about this and less about that. Only when we get rid of departments and colleges and organize around centers, institutes and working groups can true creativity happen and curiosity be stoked.

    RST: Can’t wait to get into that. But first, I want to ask about some of the things I’ve learned in the past three years talking confidentially to presidents for The Sandbox. They all say that everyone wants to tell them how to do their job. What do people like me fail to understand about the presidency?

    EGG: Everyone “knew” how to run the university better than I did. I always felt that if people who were second-guessing me and had the same amount of information that I had, they would make the same decisions. For example, at WVU when we were looking at the need to restructure, we had a fact-based approach. We discovered we had 28 faculty in World Languages teaching 21 majors. What the hell! That was a better student-faculty ratio than the Department of Surgery. Yet when we made the decision to eliminate the department, I was accused of being an absolute heretic. We continued to teach languages based on student demand. I know that asking the students to vote with their feet is a strange concept, but it is the reality.

    RST: What if there is a sudden and intense demand from students to learn Klingon? Would you set up a department to teach that? Don’t tastes and trends change? I mean, only a few years ago, students were being advised to major in computer science. Oops. I meant for us to have this conversation later.

    EGG: Not a department of Klingon, but I would respond by further reducing language programs where there is no demand and hiring Professor Spock and several others if the demand persisted.

    RST: Cultural appropriation much? Dr. Spock is Vulcan, Gordon (you ignorant slut!). Squirrel! We are both easily distracted, which is partly why it’s a hoot to collaborate with you.

    EGG: I am having so much fun, despite your unfiltered mouth. I will take your slings and arrows with grace … and get back at you.

    RST: Getting back to it, every president I talk to—and, to be clear, my circle is large but may not be representative, because everything in The Sandbox is anonymous and I do nothing to promote them or feed their egos—says that no one understands the job until their butt is in the chair. You got into that seat seven different times. Even when you were returning, did you still have a steep learning curve?

    EGG: Rachel, there is no playbook for the presidency. Each place is different, with their own values and culture. And when I returned to OSU and WVU, I had to totally reinvent myself and relearn the institutions because they had changed. If I had tried the old playbook for either place, it would have been a disaster.

    RST: Because you can’t step into the same river twice, though some colleges and universities are more like scum-covered ponds. An old peer of yours asked me this fall if I thought the presidency had changed in the last five years. Nope, I said. I think it’s changed in the past two. Now when former presidents spout off and tell those still in the job what they should be doing, it does damage, and I’m not going to allow you to do that, Gordon, so don’t get any ideas. The only thing worse is when those who haven’t spent meaningful time on a campus since they were students tell presidents how to do their jobs and treat higher ed as if it’s monolithic. What do you make of all these calls for presidents to stand up, fight back, make statements?

    EGG: They are fools. Some of those people would have their asses fired in two minutes if they were at a public university in a red state and did what people are calling for. You learn how to dance with the partner that brought you.

    RST: You mean boards. You’ve had public and private university boards, and if my sources are right, you make tons of coin serving on corporate boards (can you get me one of those cushy jobs?). What do people not understand about university boards?

    EGG: University boards are the challenge of the moment. They are often appointed because of political connections or have been substantial donors to the governor or the university. And sometimes they are even elected. I had many wonderful board members who wanted to learn and support the university, but when you get a rogue board member or a cabal, it makes the life of the president miserable and you end up fighting a two-front war—the board and/or the faculty or legislature—and so you slink off into obscurity. Truthfully, tender love and care of the board is a president’s first duty and ultimate lifeline.

    RST: I don’t know which is Scylla and which is Charybdis, but only one of them has real power. Lots of presidents get hired by boards who want them to do stuff, but when they fire the football coach or make some dumbass crack about the Little Sisters of the Poor, they don’t support them. And they are accountable to no one. So how do you solve this problem?

    EGG: As a president you do your homework. So many people accept a job without doing due diligence. I am a poster boy for that with my decision to go to Brown. You also need to get a clear understanding of the ground rules. Although I hate this, I do think a president needs to be represented by a good lawyer before accepting a job. Ambiguity is the enemy of a successful presidency. But, in the end, so many circumstances can derail a presidency which are beyond your control. When it is time to quit, exit with grace.

    RST: Not always easy. I wish I could remind faculty colleagues that if we vote no confidence in a president (misguidedly thinking that will have any effect other than souring a relationship that needs to work), the next guy the board brings in is likely to be a lot worse.

    EGG: I just had a great conversation with a distinguished president who has presided over both a big public and big private institution. We decided we are going to form a group of presidents called FNC (Faculty No Confidence) members. The popular idea of the moment for faculty to express their concerns is by votes of no confidence, but confident leaders view these often as marks of greatness. And they should if they are doing the right things. If they are being stupid, then they deserve such a vote and [to be] returned to their first love: teaching.

    RST: Which would be a rude awakening, because even though being a tenured faculty member is the most privileged position in the country, the students of today are a horse of another color, and not easy to corral.

    EGG: The cultural gap between the Millennials and the Z generation is huge. We tend to teach to the last generation instead of to the present, and that is one of the many reasons that higher education has lost so much trust. Meet the students where they are and not where we want them to be … back to the old problem of majors, which is a silly notion for so many present students.

    RST: You are famous for sending handwritten notes to journalists (for the record, since I am not a journalist, I have never received one). What does the media get wrong about the presidency and/or higher ed?

    EGG: Oh my. The press. I feel like I have had almost a daily colonoscopy from the press. With a few exceptions (and they know who they are), the press has little understanding of universities or the presidency. They come at it from a very progressive lens and listen to the voices who confirm what they want to hear. The old adage of “if it bleeds it leads” is accurate. If you can make the university president bleed, you are “brave”—and most often inaccurate, if not dishonest.

    RST: When I first started The Sandbox, I had a former president of a big university who wanted to write a piece called “Why We Can’t All Be Gordon Gee.” When you first reached out to me, I told you that and said I had the sense that at times even you couldn’t be who we thought Gordon Gee was. You started your career working for Chief Justice Warren Burger, and now, for the first time in 45 years, finally, you have another boss who can teach you: me. Now let’s get to work on majors and departments.

    EGG: Yes, ma’am.

    Rachel Toor is a contributing editor at Inside Higher Ed and the co-founder of The Sandbox. She is also a professor of creative writing. E. Gordon Gee has served as a university president for 45 years at five different universities—two of them twice. He retired from the presidency July 15, 2025.

    Source link

  • Revolutionizing University Assessments: From Essays to Portfolios

    Revolutionizing University Assessments: From Essays to Portfolios

    First posted on Substack

    The AI arms race still rages. Students will identify AI writing support tools, educators will rearm themselves with AI-aware plagiarism-detection software, and students will source apps that can bypass the detection software. Institutions are increasingly prioritising the ease with which mass assessments can be marked. Governments are revising legislation that banned ‘essay mills’ used for contract cheating to incorporate restrictions on Generative AI.

    Students may find themselves asked to handwrite their submissions to avoid the temptation to use fully integrated generative AI tools in their word processing software. Some shrewd students will (re)discover software that takes your typed text, AI-generated or otherwise, and turn it into a version that mimics your handwriting (calligraphr.com).

    Many institutions have already been thinking about this for years. In 2021, UNESCO issued a useful report, ‘AI and Education’, which remains a foundational reader for any institutional leader who wants to be able to go head-to-head with their head of technology services, and to be informed when members of the Senate repeat some of the dystopian viewpoints gleaned from their social media feeds.

    What we need is a revolution in the design of university assessments. This also means some radical redesign of programs and courses. Institutions should be redefining what assessment looks like. Not just because much of the assessments currently on offer lend themselves too easily to plagiarism, contract-cheating, or AI-generated responses, but also because they are bad assessments. Bad assessments, designed loosely to assess very badly written learning outcomes.

    Many universities face a fundamental problem: their entire assessment philosophy (if they have one) remains rooted in a measuring psychosis. One that sees its self-justification in measuring what the learner knows now, rather than what they could do before they undertook a specific course or degree, and how much they have improved. Each course is assessed against its own learning outcomes (where these exist and assuming they are actually well-formed). The odds are that these outcomes are heavily weighted towards the cognitive outcomes and have not moved beyond Bloom’s standard pyramid.

    Rarely are these course-level outcomes accurately mapped and weighted against programme outcomes. A student should always be able to match the assessment they are asked to complete against a set of skills expected as the outcome for a specific course. These skills need to be clearly mapped onto programme outcomes. Each assessment task is assessed against some formulation of marking rubrics or guides, often with multiple markers making controlled, monitored judgements to attempt to ensure just (not standardised) marks.

    Unfortunately, it remains common to see all of these cohort-marked assessments plotted against a bell curve, and top marks to be ‘brought back into line’ where convention dictates.

    Why? Surely the purpose of undertaking a university degree is self-improvement. There is a minimum threshold that I must meet, a pass mark, that allows me to demonstrate that I am capable of certain things, certain abilities or skills. But beyond that? If I got a second-class honours degree and my friend got a first, does that mean they knowmore than I do? Currently, given the emphasis on cognitive skills and knowledge, one can fairly say yes. Does it mean they are necessarily more proficient out there in the big, wide world? Probably not. We are simply not assessing the skills and abilities that most graduates need.

    I advocate for Universities to abandon isolated course-specific assessments in favour of programme-wide portfolio assessments. These are necessarily ipsative, capturing students’ disparate strengths and weaknesses relative to their own performance over time. There may be pass/fail assessments as part of any portfolio, but there are also opportunities for annual or thematic synoptic assessments. Students would be encouraged to draw on their contributions to the university drama club, the volleyball team, or their part-time work outside the university.

    I undertook a short consultancy last year for a university that has been a bit freaked out by the advent of Generative AI. The head of department had a moment of realisation that the vast majority of the degree assessment was based entirely on knowledge recovery and transmission. In reality, of course, their assessment strategy has been flawed long before the advent of ChatGPT. They’ve struggled with plagiarism detection, itself imperfect, obviously, and with reproducing answers that differ only at the margins between students.

    The existing assessment certainly made it easier for them to have external markers looking for specific words to match a pro forma answer. No educational developer worth their salt would have looked at this particular assessment strategy and thought it was in any way valid. The perceived threat to assessment integrity does offer an opportunity for those who are still naive enough to think that essay questions demonstrate anything other than the ability to regurgitate existing knowledge and, at its best, an ability to write in a compelling way. Unless such writing is a skill that is required of the programme of study, it’s a fairly pointless exercise.

    Confidentiality means I don’t wish to identify the organisation, let alone the department, in question. What became abundantly clear is that the assessment strategy had been devised as the programme grew. As they increased the number of students, they had contracted out significant amounts of the marking. This led to a degree of removal from individual students’ actual experiences.

    Surely one can see that it will become pointless to ask students to answer knowledge-based questions beyond a diagnostic exercise early in each course or programme.

    So what’s the alternative? With very rare exceptions, the vast majority of tertiary students will have lived for at least 18 years. They have life experiences that make their perspectives different from those of their fellow students. Suppose we can design our assessments around individuals’ personal epistemology, culture, and experience. We have a chance to differentiate between them. We can build assessment incrementally within specific courses and programmes. Each course in a programme can build on previous courses. In the case of this particular client, I suggested that eliminating as many electives as possible and narrowing the options would not deter applicants and would make the design of assessment strategies within the programme more coherent.

    Developing a personal portfolio of evidence throughout a programme of study gives students both a sense of ownership over their own learning and potentially a resource they will continue to augment once they graduate. The intention is to develop an incremental assessment approach. Students in the third year of studies would be asked to review coursework from previous years, for example. Students could be asked to comment and provide feedback on students in earlier years within the same programme. Blending the ipsative nature of assessments with credit-bearing assessment tasks is the crucial skill now required of learning designers.

    Maybe it is now a good time for you to review your learning outcomes and ask whether you are assessing skills and attributes?

    Paid subscribers will have access to assessment design tools

    Source link

  • Virginia AG searches for university general counsels to counter ‘federal overreach’

    Virginia AG searches for university general counsels to counter ‘federal overreach’

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones has begun the hiring process for three university general counsel positions, framing the search as a counter to the Trump administration’s “federal overreach” into the state’s public institutions. 
    • Jones, a Democrat who took office on Jan. 17 alongside Gov. Abigail Spanberger, said this week that he would hire the “best and brightest legal counsel” for three public institutions with vacancies: the University of Virginia, George Mason University, and Virginia Military Institute.
    • “Over the past year, the Trump Administration’s continued politically-motivated assaults on Virginia’s academic institutions have sought to tarnish their reputations and undermine their ability to successfully prepare our students for the future,” Jones said in a statement. This national search will deliver on the promise to “fight back” against those attacks, he added.

    Dive Insight:

    Jones’ announcement follows up on his campaign promise to “take politics out of Virginia’s higher education system.” Both Jones and Spanberger have accused state officials of allowing undue political influence over their institutions.

    Virginia’s public universities have been in turmoil since the summer, when then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, sought to appoint a handful of members to UVA, George Mason, and VMI’s boards. But when Youngkin faced opposition from Virginia’s Democrat-controlled Senate committee — which has the power to reject appointments — he instructed his picks to begin serving anyway. The ensuing legal battle ended with a federal judge blocking the appointments. 

    All three boards had numerous unfilled seats through the end of 2025.

    Then, at the end of June, Jim Ryan abruptly stepped down as UVA’s president amid pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice over the university’s diversity work.

    UVA’s governing board did not defend Ryan publicly. 

    The board then struck a deal with the DOJ in October to pause its investigations into UVA and formally close them by 2028 if the university “completes its planned reforms prohibiting DEI,” the agency said at the time.

    The agreement requires the university to make several policy changes, including adopting the DOJ’s contentious anti-DEI guidance and filing quarterly compliance reports with the agency.

    In a November letter, Spanberger called on UVA trustees to hold off naming a new president until she took office.

    Spanberger argued that trustees’ response to the ouster of Ryan and their search for a new president had “severely undermined the public’s and the University community’s confidence,” citing votes of no confidence from the UVA faculty senate and the university student council.

    She also pledged in the letter to fill vacant positions on the UVA board shortly after she was sworn in. 

    Instead of waiting, however, the governing board appointed Scott Beardsley as UVA’s new president on Dec. 19. Beardsley took office on Jan. 1 — 16 days before Spanberger was inaugurated.

    At least four members of UVA’s board, including the board head, stepped down after Spanberger asked them to resign shortly before she became the first woman to serve as Virginia’s governor, The New York Times reported.

    She then appointed over two dozen board members across all three universities’ boards on her first day in office. The state Senate’s committee on privileges and elections approved those appointments on Tuesday.

    New members could prove especially impactful at George Mason, whose board has operated without a quorum in recent months. The Trump administration has targeted the university and its president, Gregory Washington, over its DEI work — similar to its play against UVA. But Washington has rebuked the DOJ’s calls to fall in line.

    Jones‘ national search for new general counsels isn’t the only move the attorney general has made to undo former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares’ last acts in office.

    Just days before his term ended, Miyares filed a joint motion with the DOJ to strike down a state law allowing certain undocumented students to pay in-state tuition to public colleges.

    Jones’ office withdrew Miyares’ joint motion three days after his swearing in. It also withdrew the former attorney general’s opposition to third-party intervention in the case, easing the path for Virginia students to defend the state law.

    Source link

  • University of Wisconsin–Madison Chancellor to Lead Columbia

    University of Wisconsin–Madison Chancellor to Lead Columbia

    Mnookin will be the fourth leader in three years at Columbia.

    DNY59/iStock/Getty Images

    Columbia University has selected Jennifer Mnookin, a legal scholar and current chancellor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, as its next president. 

    Jennifer L. Mnookin

    University of Wisconsin–Madison

    Mnookin has led the Wisconsin flagship since 2022 and will remain in her role through the spring commencement. Before taking the top spot at UW-Madison, she served as dean of the UCLA School of Law.

    Mnookin will be the fourth leader in three years at Columbia. Since 2023 the institution has been disrupted by student protests, faced $400 million in cuts to federal research funding and agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement with the Trump administration. 

    Mnookin will replace Claire Shipman, the former co-chairperson of the Board of Trustees, who has been acting president since March 2025, when interim president Katrina Armstrong resigned. Armstrong took over for Minouche Shafik, who was the university’s last permanent president and resigned in August 2024.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, Columbia chose Mnookin because of her success navigating polarized politics in Wisconsin and dealing with the federal government. 

    During her tenure, Mnookin launched programs guaranteeing full financial support for Pell-eligible in-state students and for undergraduates who are members of federally recognized Wisconsin American Indian tribes and pursuing their first degree. She also increased the institution’s research spending to $1.93 billion, making it the fifth-highest-ranked institution in the country for research expenditures. 

    Her term has not been without controversy, though. Last July, the institution closed its diversity, equity and inclusion office amid scrutiny into its funding from Republican state lawmakers. In October, the university announced cost-cutting measures after it had federal grants terminated and received stop-work orders on some projects.

    In a statement, Mnookin said her time at UW-Madison has been “life-changing.”

    “It has been a true honor to be a part of the Wisconsin family. I am proud of what we have accomplished together, even in a challenging period for higher education, and I know great possibilities lie ahead for the UW-Madison campus community.”

    Jay Rothman, president of the Universities of Wisconsin, extended “substantial gratitude” to Mnookin.

    “During her tenure, Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin brought unbounded energy, resilience and deeply thoughtful leadership to this great university,” Rothman said.

    Source link

  • Cornell University lands $371.5M gift, the largest in its history

    Cornell University lands $371.5M gift, the largest in its history

    Dive Brief:

    • Cornell University has booked the largest gift in its history — $371.5 million —  from the founder of PeopleSoft, the Ivy League institution said Thursday. 
    • David Duffield’s recent pledge, which comes on top of $100 million that the Cornell alum gave last year, makes Duffield one of “the university’s leading all-time donors,” Cornell said. 
    • Duffield’s latest donation will create a $250 million Duffield Legacy Fund to help Cornell’s engineering college pursue “strategic opportunities” and a separate $50 million fund to support college priorities under “educational excellence.”

    Dive Insight:

    With over $470 million pledged to Cornell in less than two years, the university is naming its engineering college after Duffield. 

    Duffield co-founded software companies PeopleSoft and Workday. He is worth $12.1 billion, according to Bloomberg. 

    Along with the education and strategic priorities funds, Duffield’s latest gift will also create the Duffield Launch Fund with the remaining $70-plus million. That third fund is to finance investments into immediate priorities of the newly renamed Cornell David A. Duffield College of Engineering. Those priorities include updating the college’s physical infrastructure, bolstering research facilities, and supporting faculty and students. 

    The engineering college will also use the launch fund to pursue research in fields such as quantum engineering, artificial intelligence, health and data-driven decision-making.  

    The legacy and launch funds established by Duffield’s donation will allow the college to “remain nimble, proactive and financially responsible as we advance our values and mission,” Lynden Archer, Cornell’s engineering dean, said in a statement. Archer added that the university will announce more specific plans for the funds later.  

    Cornell’s endowment was valued at just under $11.2 billion at the end of fiscal 2025, according to the university’s latest financials. Over 80% of those funds had donor restrictions tied to them. 

    The university’s endowment was the 18th largest in the nation, according to the latest study of endowments from the National Association of College and University Business Officers and asset management firm Commonfund.

    With 26,561 students in fall 2025, Cornell’s endowment dollars per student came to around $420,000 — well under the $500,000 per student threshold that triggers the minimum endowment income tax created in last year’s massive Republican tax and spending bill. 

    A post last year from the conservative American Enterprise Institute listed Cornell as among the colleges that “may not be on the hook for the tax right now” but could be later “if their endowment growth continues to outpace growth in enrollment.”

    AEI researchers projected that Cornell’s endowment tax liability would jump from $0 in 2026 through 2028 to $14.8 million in 2029 and $16.2 million in 2030. 

    While off the hook for the endowment tax (for now), Cornell is set to pay the government $30 million over three years per a deal it cut with the Trump administration in November. That payment is in exchange for the administration reinstating $250 million in federal research funding and ending its civil rights investigations into the university.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: University of Sunderland

    Higher education postcard: University of Sunderland

    Greetings from Sunderland!

    By the 1850s Sunderland’s main industries were shipping, coal and glass. And in common with other industrial towns, the need for colleges to teach beyond basic school level had been felt and addressed. There had been a mechanics’ institute, which had failed; and then the creation of a school of science and art, funded through the government scheme. There’s a most learned discussion of the Sunderland School of Science and Art in this article by W G Hall from 1966 – it was published in The Vocational Aspect of Secondary and Further Education and drew upon Hall’s Durham MEd thesis.

    But the School of Science and Art was wound up in 1902. For the reason that the town council had in 1901 created a technical college to meet the town’s needs. The technical side of the School of Science and Art was transferred to the new college after it had been running for a year; the art side was hived off into a newly established Sunderland School of Art.

    The technical college was absolutely geared to the town’s industrial needs. Alan Smithers reports that in 1903 “heavy engineering and shipbuilding industries in Sunderland tried an arrangement whereby apprentices were released to the local technical college for six months each year over a period of several years.” While this was not the very first sandwich course – which may have been in Glasgow or in Bristol, 60 or 25 years previously, depending – it was a new model for technical colleges, and was soon copied in Wolverhampton, Cardiff, and at the Northampton Polytechnic, London.

    From 1930 students were able to study for degrees: in applied sciences, from Durham University; in pharmacy, from the University of London. And in 1934 London also recognised the college for the BEng degree.

    In 1969 the technical college, the school of art, and the Sunderland Training College (which had been established in 1908 and which operated from Langham Tower) were amalgamated to form the Sunderland Polytechnic. Educational innovation continued, with the country’s first part-time, in-service BEd degree being offered.

    In 1989 the polytechnic – along with all others, it wasn’t just a Sunderland thing – moved out of local authority control to become a self-governing corporation, following the 1988 Education Reform Act. The Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette ran an eight page supplement on Monday 3 April to celebrate. Features included:

    • a foreword from the Polytechnic’s Rector, Dr Peter Hart. (You can see a picture of him below, sat at his desk. 1989 and no computers. Sic transit gloria mundi.)
    • a sport-council funded project to promote inclusion of people with disabilities in sports
    • the polytechnic’s autism research
    • a photo of the polytechnic’s switchboard operators, with their new computerised system which enabled direct lines to extensions within the poly
    • the polytechnic’s knowledge exchange work
    • a picture of an Olympic athlete (Christina Cahill, fourth at the Seoul Olympics women’s 1500m) joining student services
    • the faculty of technology
    • an article written by the dean of the new faculty of business, management and education
    • pharmacy and art
    • the Japanese language centre at the polytechnic
    • a charity based at the polytechnic looking at medicines for tropical diseases.

    There’s a variety of stuff here, and what strikes me is the fact itself that the local paper regards the poly as a local amenity. There was clearly a felt connection between the local paper and this very big local institution, and pride at what it did.

    Image: Shutterstock

    In 1992 the polytechnic became the University of Sunderland. It now has campuses in London and Hong Kong as well as in Sunderland, and since 2018 has had a medical school.

    Alumni include Olympic athlete Steve Cram and current Guyanese President Irfaan Ali.

    Here’s a jigsaw of the postcard – it’s unsent and undated but I would guess it is from before the first world war, as it was printed in Berlin.

    Source link