Tag: University

  • Degree apprenticeships are quietly redesigning how we teach at university

    Degree apprenticeships are quietly redesigning how we teach at university

    The apprentice-student is changing higher education – from curriculum to culture. It’s time we stopped treating them like traditional undergraduates.

    Degree apprenticeships (DAs) are not just reshaping the student experience – they’re redesigning the university itself. As the Office for Students (OfS) emphasises outcomes, progression, and employer engagement, and as Skills England continues to define standards for higher-level technical education, DAs are becoming a proving ground for some of higher education’s most urgent policy challenges.

    Yet they are often marginalised in strategic thinking, treated as vocational bolt-ons or niche offerings rather than core to institutional purpose. That’s a mistake. DAs demand that we think differently about curriculum, assessment, and academic infrastructure. Quietly but decisively, they are exposing the limitations of legacy systems, and pointing the way to a more integrated, future-facing university model.

    Different learners, different accountability

    Degree apprentices are full-time employees and students, legally entitled to spend 20 per cent of their working time on off-the-job learning. This is not simply “study leave” – it encompasses formal teaching, applied projects, reflective practice, and continuous professional development.

    This dual status creates a distinctive learner profile, and a distinctive teaching challenge. In designing a level 6 accounting and finance manager degree apprenticeship, we couldn’t simply repackage existing content. We had to co-develop new modules that satisfied two sets of demands: the academic rigour expected by the university and the occupational standards defined by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE). These must also align with professional accounting syllabi from bodies such as CIMA, ACCA and ICAEW.

    This triple mapping – to university, regulatory, and professional standards – creates what might be called multi-stakeholder accountability. It requires curriculum teams to work in ways that are more agile, responsive, and externally engaged than many traditional degree programmes.

    Rethinking assessment

    If OfS regulation is pushing universities toward more transparent, outcomes-focused assessment practices, DAs offer a blueprint for how that can work in practice. Assessment in degree apprenticeships is not an end-of-module activity; it’s a longitudinal, triangulated process involving the learner, the employer, and the academic team. Learners are required to build portfolios of evidence, reflect on their practice, and complete an end-point assessment, which is externally quality-assured.

    In our programme, this means apprentices must show how they’ve applied ESG frameworks to real reporting challenges or used digital tools to improve efficiency. These are not hypothetical case studies, they’re deliverables with real organisational impact.

    This demands a fundamental shift in how we understand assessment. It moves from a one-directional judgement to a co-produced, real-world demonstration of competence and critical thinking. It also raises practical challenges: how do we ensure equity, consistency, and academic standards in these shared spaces?

    Practice must evolve too. Assessment boards and quality teams need confidence in workplace-verified evidence and dialogic tools like professional discussions. Regulations may need adjusting to formally recognise these approaches as valid and rigorous. Co-created assessment models will only work if they’re institutionally supported, not just permitted.

    Institutional systems still speak undergraduate

    Despite their growth – and repeated nods in policy papers from DfE, OfS, and IfATE (now Skills England) – DAs still struggle to integrate fully into institutional structures designed around traditional undergraduates.

    Timetabling, academic calendars, support services, and digital access systems are still largely predicated on a three-year, 18- to 21-year-old, campus-based model. Degree apprentices, who may study in blocks, access learning from workplaces, and require hybrid delivery modes, often fall through the gaps.

    This institutional lag risks positioning apprenticeships as peripheral rather than core to university provision, and undermines the very work-based, flexible, lifelong learning that national policy increasingly promotes.

    To move beyond legacy assumptions, institutional systems must adapt. Timetabling and delivery planning should treat block teaching as core, not marginal. Learner support must accommodate hybrid work-study lives with flexible pastoral care and digital access. Even workload models and quality assurance processes may need tailoring to reflect co-delivery demands

    If we are serious about the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, future modularity, and widening participation, DAs are not just a test case, they are the early evidence base.

    Who owns the curriculum?

    DAs also reconfigure academic authority. In designing the our degree apprenticeship programme, we co-developed curriculum with employers, professional bodies, and regulators. At its best, this is collaborative innovation. At its most complex, it’s curriculum by committee.

    Some employers overestimate their control over content or underestimate their responsibilities around mentoring and assessment. Professional bodies may be supportive in principle, but slow to recognise apprenticeship pathways in formal qualifications. The university becomes a mediator, balancing academic integrity, regulatory compliance, and employer priorities.

    This is delicate, sometimes frustrating work. But it also shifts the purpose of curriculum design, from academic transmission to negotiated, contextualised learning and demands that academic teams are supported to work across professional and regulatory boundaries without compromising standards

    What universities can learn

    DAs are more than a niche. They’re a stress test, revealing how well universities are equipped to deliver flexible, employer-engaged, outcome-driven learning.

    They challenge traditional pedagogies, reward authentic assessment, and open up new relationships between knowledge and practice. They also model the kinds of teaching and learning the sector is being increasingly nudged toward by policy: modular, flexible, accountable, and co-created with employers.

    This is not an argument for turning every degree into an apprenticeship. But it is a call to stop treating DAs as bolt-ons or exceptions. If we take seriously the structural and pedagogical shifts they demand, we may find in them a pathway to broader institutional transformation.

    In a higher education landscape increasingly shaped by regulation, scrutiny, digital disruption and workforce change, the apprentice-student may not just be part of the future – they may be leading it.

    Source link

  • Antisemitic beliefs rare among faculty, Brandeis University study finds

    Antisemitic beliefs rare among faculty, Brandeis University study finds

    Dive Brief:

    • Just 3% of non-Jewish faculty members hold views about Israel that would fit definitions of antisemitism put forward by Jewish groups, according to a spring survey of over 2,300 faculty members at 146 research universities released by Brandeis University in July. 
    • Less than 10% of faculty reported actively teaching about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Despite widespread media attention to campus protests and targeted attacks on universities by the Trump administration over allegations of antisemitism, more than three-fourths said the Israel-Palestine conflict never came up in class discussions. 
    • Only a minority of faculty were politically active or posted on social media about major current issues, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, racism in America, climate change and President Donald Trump’s impact on American democracy, the survey found. 

    Dive Insight:

    The new study comes at a time of roiling political tensions around college campuses. 

    On the campaign trail, Trump described colleges as being “dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.” Since taking office in January, his administration has launched investigations and pulled research funding from major institutions — Columbia and Harvard universities, among others — over claims of rampant antisemitism on campus. 

    The administration has also sought to impose “intellectual diversity” on college faculties, including through an executive order on accreditation and in its dealings with individual universities. 

    While the Brandeis study found that nearly three-quarters of faculty — 72% — identify as liberal, they also hold “a wide range of views on controversial political issues,” the researchers wrote.

    For instance, when looking at the intensity of opinions, over 60% said they “strongly” believed that climate change was a crisis requiring immediate attention and that Trump represented a threat to democracy. 

    But only 33% expressed strong belief that racism was widespread in America and 14% that Israel is an apartheid state. (Overall, a majority of faculty backed those statements, including only those who somewhat agreed, with a much larger majority agreeing with the racism statement.) 

    That said, activism around any of those topics was relatively scant. With the Israel-Palestine conflict, 78% of faculty reported no activism at all, including on social media. Around two-thirds reported no activism around racism or climate change. 

    When it comes to teaching, a majority of faculty said they would present a variety of perspectives on those news topics, with the exception of climate change. Only 45% of faculty said they would present a variety of perspectives on climate change while another 40% said they would do so but with some perspectives “more justified than others.”

    When it came to the Middle East conflict, even among the 14% of faculty who said they strongly believed Israel to be an apartheid state, a majority (56%) said they would present a variety of perspectives when teaching about the issue.

    The researchers posed questions intended to study when faculty views of Israel veered into antisemitism as defined by Jewish groups, including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and that Jewish students frequently agree are antisemitic. They also used the definition by the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which has accused the IHRA’s version of blurring the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. 

    The researchers asked whether survey respondents agreed with statements such as “Israel does not have the right to exist,” “all Israeli civilians should be considered legitimate targets for Hamas,” and “I wouldn’t want to collaborate with a scholar who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.”

    Large majorities strongly disagreed with those statements, and fewer than 10% agreed with them with any intensity. Those who did were more likely to identify as liberal. 

    Likewise, a small minority of non-Jewish faculty — 7% — expressed views considered antisemitic about Jewish people as a group rather than Israel. Those faculty were more likely to be politically conservative, according to the study. 

    Amid the Trump administration’s attacks on colleges, close to half (46%) of faculty and a majority of those identifying as liberals expressed serious concerns about being targeted by the federal government for their political views, the study found.

    Source link

  • The Critical Role of University Leaders in Shaping Safer Cultures and Meeting OfS Condition E6 on Harassment and Sexual Misconduct

    The Critical Role of University Leaders in Shaping Safer Cultures and Meeting OfS Condition E6 on Harassment and Sexual Misconduct

    Harassment and sexual misconduct have no place on our university campuses, nor in wider society. Yet, both continue to be pervasive. The Office for National Statistics reports that 1 in 10 people aged 16 years and over experienced at least one form of harassment in the previous 12 months, while the Crime Survey for England and Wales reveals that “an estimated 7.9 million (16.6%) adults aged 16 years and over had experienced sexual assault since the age of 16 years”. The adverse sequelae for victims/survivors are well documented. 

    The Office for Students (OfS), noting the absence of national-level data at higher education institutions (HEIs),  piloted the design and delivery of a national sexual misconduct prevalence survey in 2023 (full survey due to be reported in September 2025). The study, involving 12 volunteering institutions, found 20% of participating students experienced sexual harassment and 9% experienced sexual assault/violence. The 4% response rate requires cautious interpretation of the findings; however, they are in line with other studies.

    Over the last decade, universities have taken these matters more seriously, appreciating both the impact on victims/survivors and on their institution’s culture and reputation. In 2016, Universities UK and Pinsent Mason published guidance (updated in 2022) for HEIs on managing student misconduct, including sexual misconduct and that which may constitute a crime.  As of 1 August 2025, the OfS has sought to strengthen universities’ actions through introducing condition E6 to ensure institutions enact robust, responsive policies to address harassment and sexual misconduct, as well as promote a proactive, preventative culture.  Our experience, however, suggests that universities’ preparedness is varied, and the deadline is not far away.

    Culture Starts at the Top

    Organisational culture is shaped significantly by those at the top. At its heart is ‘the way things are done around here’: the established, normative patterns of behaviour and interaction that have come to be. Senior leaders have the power to challenge and change entrenched patterns of behaviour or to reinforce them. Thus, compliance with Condition E6 is just a starting point; herein lies an opportunity for university leaders to lean deeper into transforming institutional culture to the benefit of all.

    Understandably, times of significant financial challenge may cause executive teams to quail at more demand on limited resource. This can precipitate a light-touch, bare minimum and additive approach; that is, devolving almost exclusive responsibility to a university directorate to work out how to do even more with less.  Yet, the manifold benefits of inclusive cultures are well established, including improved performance and productivity and lower rates of harassment and sexual violence. Leadership attention to and engagement in building a positive culture will see wider improvements follow. Moreover, hard though it is to write this, we know from our own work in the sector that some leaders or teams are not modelling the ‘right’ behaviour.

    Ultimately, the imperative to transform culture is in the best interests of the institution although it should also manifest a desire for social justice. Consequently, university governors need to understand and have oversight of the imperative; though narrowly defined as regulatory, it should be strategically defined as the route to creating a happier, healthier and more productive community likely to generate the outputs and outcomes the governing authority seek for a successful and sustainable institution.

    Creating Safer Cultures

    We use the term ‘safer culture’ to refer to a holistic organisational environment that is intolerant of harassment, discrimination, and mistreatment in any form. Underpinning the sustainable development of a safer culture are eight key pillars:

    1. Leadership Commitment, Governance and Accountability
      Senior leaders and university governors need to visibly and actively promote an inclusive and respectful culture, holding themselves – and others – accountable.  Strategic allocation of resources and institutional infrastructure needs to support cultural change, and governance mechanisms must enable assurance against objectives.  A whole-institution approach is required to avoid commitments becoming initiative-based, siloed, inconsistent, or symbolic: the responsibility should be shared and collective.
    2. Clear Policies, Procedures and Systems
      Institutions need to develop accessible policies that define inappropriate behaviour, including harassment and sexual misconduct, and outline clear consequences for non-adherence. Associated procedures and systems should support effective prevention and response measures.
    3. Training and Development
      A tiered training approach should be adopted to embed shared understanding, develop capability and confidence, raise awareness, and foster appropriate levels of accountability across the organisation: among students and staff, including the executive team and governing body. Specialist skills training for those in frontline and support roles is essential.
    4. Reporting Processes
      Simple, reliable, confidential, and trusted reporting mechanisms are required. These must protect against retaliation, the need to repeat disclosure information unnecessarily, and provide swift access to appropriate support through a minimum of touchpoints.
    5. Provision of Support
      A trauma-informed, empathetic environment is crucial to ensure individuals feel safe and supported, whether they are disclosing misconduct or have been accused of such. User-focused support systems and wellbeing services need to be in place for all members of the university’s community.
    6. Investigation and Resolution
      Fair, timely, and impartial processes are required which uphold the rights of all parties and enforce meaningful consequences when misconduct is confirmed. Those involved must be appropriately trained and supported to ensure just outcomes for all.
    7. Risk Management
      Risk should be proactively identified and appropriately managed. Individuals throughout the organisation need to understand their responsibility in relation to risk, both individual and institutional.
    8. Investigation and Resolution
      Creating a safer culture requires regular evaluation through policy review, data analysis and reporting, including staff and student feedback. This is essential to address emerging issues, enhance interventions in line with changing policy and practice, and achieve cultural maturity.

    A Leadership Imperative

    The imminent introduction of condition E6 offers university leaders an opportunity to bring renewed and purposeful focus to developing an institutional culture that is safe, respectful and high achieving – the very foundation of academic excellence, creativity and innovation. At a time when equity, diversity and inclusion are under threat worldwide, including in the UK, the imperative has never been greater.

    Source link

  • Trump administration opens a fourth probe into George Mason University

    Trump administration opens a fourth probe into George Mason University

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a probe into George Mason University over its admissions and scholarship practices as well as its response to antisemitism, the agency announced Monday. It follows a probe into the university’s employment practices announced last week.
    • In a letter to the head of George Mason’s board, Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said the agency would consider whether George Mason’s student practices violate Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin at federally funded institutions. 
    • Dhillon’s letter made no specific allegations against the university, and an agency spokesperson declined to comment Tuesday on what prompted the probe. In a statement Monday, the university’s board of visitors said it would “respond fully and promptly to the requests from the U.S. Government.”

    Dive Insight:

    The Trump administration has set its sights on George Mason as it widens its attacks on universities based on their diversity programs, approach to pro-Palestinian protests and other practices that run counter to the president’s political agenda.

    The latest investigation is at least the fourth probe the Trump administration has launched into the university. Dhillon gave George Mason until Aug. 1 to provide “a series of certifications, responses, and productions of information, data, and materials” to the agency. 

    In its statement, the university’s board of visitors said that it has a fiduciary obligation “to ensure that the University continues to thrive as the largest public university in Virginia,” adding, “This includes making sure that GMU fully complies with federal anti-discrimination laws as it excels in its mission.”

    Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and the ranking member on the House’s education committee, blasted the Trump administration’s investigations into George Mason in a statement Tuesday.

    “Under this Administration, the government’s Offices of Civil Rights have adopted a radical reinterpretation of our civil rights laws to attack diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility,” Scott said. “The Trump Administration’s selective actions undermine the pursuit of justice, and the independence and academic freedom of America’s institutions of higher education.” 

    Late last week, Dhillon informed the university of a similar probe under Title VII, which bars employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  

    In a July 17 letter, she alleged that George Mason “may be engaged in employment practices that discriminate against employees, job applicants, and training program participants based on race and sex.” 

    Dhillon cited internal emails and comments from George Mason President Gregory Washington seeking to promote diversity and equity in the hiring and tenure processes, as well as antiracism throughout the university’s operations. 

    Prior to that, the Trump administration opened two separate investigations over claims that the university hasn’t done enough to respond to antisemitism and illegally uses race in employment decisions.

    In a July 18 post, Washington rejected the government’s allegations of discrimination and explained that the comments cited by Dhillon came in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, who was Black, by a White police officer in 2020. 

    “As part of addressing this national reckoning, we were examining ourselves, looking for ways to become better,” Washington said, adding that diversity efforts were part of a state-mandated initiative, and the public expected George Mason to “play a meaningful part in creating structures and programming to address old biases and persistent inequalities in business operations.”  

    He also said, “It is inaccurate to conclude that we created new university policies or procedures that discriminated against or excluded anyone,” and added that “our systems were enhanced to improve on our ability to consistently include everyone for consideration of every employment opportunity.”

    The Trump administration’s targeting of George Mason comes shortly after the Justice Department pushed former University of Virginia President Jim Ryan to announce his abrupt resignation in June. The university was, like George Mason, under investigation by the administration over its diversity initiatives.

    Source link

  • Malvern International partners with Liverpool Hope University

    Malvern International partners with Liverpool Hope University

    The deal encompasses pathway and pre-master’s programs from the upcoming Liverpool Hope University International Study Centre, which will be based at the university’s Hope Park Campus.

    Claire Ozanne, vice-chancellor and rector at Liverpool Hope University, said the new study centre will form an “exciting and important part” of the institution’s international strategy – one that would “further enhance our position as a global university and one that has an inclusive approach to education”.

    “International students and the rich diversity of ideas and experiences they bring to our campuses hugely enhance the academic experience for all of our students,” she added.

    Malvern International said that through the partnership, students attending the centre can expect to find a challenging curriculum, set to enhance their English language proficiency and the skills to help them successfully transition into university life.

    International students and the rich diversity of ideas and experiences they bring to our campuses hugely enhance the academic experience for all of our students
    Claire Ozanne, Liverpool Hope University

    Ashleigh Veres, senior director, university recruitment and partnerships at Malvern International, said that the deal marked “an important step forward and a proud moment for Malvern as we continue to grow and diversify our pathways division, scaling up our capabilities to deliver exceptional services that benefit both universities and students”.

    She added: “We are delighted to partner with Liverpool Hope University, an institution renowned for its excellent student satisfaction and commitment to academic excellence. Together, we are dedicated to providing transformative opportunities for students while expanding the University’s global reach and impact.” 

    Source link

  • Bridging the Gap: How Smart Technology Can Align University Programmes with Real-World Skills

    Bridging the Gap: How Smart Technology Can Align University Programmes with Real-World Skills

    • By Pete Moss, Business Development Director at Ellucian.

    ‘Pouvez-vous s’il vous plaît me dire où se trouve la gare?’ – this is the extent that a colleague of mine can remember from his Introductory French module that he completed as part of a computing degree in the late 90s.  That institution’s attempt at the time to embed flexibility and cross-curriculum choice to help students develop skills out of their discipline to help with employability.  ‘It was easier to pass than the programming courses’  was the authentic feedback that my colleague gave in retrospect, but they did at least have the choice to expand their learning experience and gain some broader foundational skills.  That institution, however, has long abandoned much of that flexibility, largely due to the apparent complexity of administration.

    That is not to say that there are not fantastic examples of employability related skills initiatives across the sector, but the recent policy landscape (not least the Skills England Sector evidence on the growth and skills offer) and ever-present national growth agenda are now firmly putting the spotlight on the role of HE in this area.  The if element of HE holding that key role in the skills agenda is widely held, but now the thorny problem of how must be addressed.  Technology advancements, specifically AI, will play a contributory factor in how institutions can remove barriers that caused institutions to reduce flexibility in the past, but what of the wider considerations?

    To explore this topic further I asked Ben Rodgers, an experienced academic registrar and AHEP consultant, for his views on the topic:

    In today’s fast-moving global economy, the value of a university education is increasingly measured not just by academic achievement, but by the employability of graduates. Employers are no longer looking solely for degrees, they’re looking for skills: digital fluency, critical thinking, communication, and technical know-how that align with the needs of their industries. Meanwhile, universities are under pressure to demonstrate that their programmes deliver real-world value. The challenge is clear: how do we bridge the gap between what is taught and what is needed?

    This is where technology can make a transformative difference. At the forefront of this change is a new wave of AI-powered innovation designed to bridge the gap between academic programmes and real-world skill demands. These emerging technologies can analyse curricula, extracting the skills embedded within them and mapping those against labour market data to identify areas of alignment and gaps.

    Crucially, they work in both directions; institutions can see what skills a course develops, while students or employers can start with a desired competency like coding or digital marketing and trace back to the programmes that build those capabilities.

    It is the kind of innovation that higher education has long needed. For too long, the link between the classroom and the workplace has been inconsistent or poorly articulated. Universities may know they are delivering valuable learning, but haven’t always had the means to evidence that value in terms that resonate with employers and prospective students. These technologies bring much-needed clarity, offering structured and data-informed ways to demonstrate how academic learning contributes directly to employment readiness.

    A Game-Changer for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE)

    This kind of technology becomes even more important as the UK rolls out the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE). The LLE is set to reshape the educational landscape by allowing individuals to access student finance for short courses, modular learning and skills-based development over the course of their lives. This shift away from traditional three-year degrees opens new possibilities, but also new challenges.

    How will learners know which modules to pick? How will they know what skills they need for the job they want or even the job they haven’t yet imagined? With the support of emerging AI-driven tools, learners can begin to reverse-engineer their career goals. Want to become a Data Scientist? These systems can help identify which combinations of modules across a university lead to that destination. Interested in project management? The technology can pinpoint where those skills are taught, and which courses offer them. It’s like having a careers advisor, curriculum guide, and labour market analyst all in one—offering personalised insights that connect educational choices with professional ambitions.

    This sort of capability is vital if LLE is to be more than just a funding mechanism. It needs to be supported by intelligent infrastructure that empowers learners to make informed choices. Otherwise, there’s a risk that modular study becomes a confusing patchwork of disconnected learning.

    Towards a Shared, Inter-University Skills Ecosystem

    Now imagine if we took this even further. What if a skills platform were adopted not just by individual institutions but as a shared framework across regions or even nationally? In this model, students in Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham, or Belfast could see the skills they need for local job markets and be directed to the institutions offering them. This would create a more agile, responsive, and learner-centred education system. Universities wouldn’t just be competing with each other; they’d be collaborating to build a broader skills ecosystem.

    The scale of opportunity here is significant and growing fast. Consider this: if every individual in the workforce has access to around £1,800 in personal development funding each year, the cumulative potential across a university’s learner base is vast. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands of learners, and you’re looking at a transformative funding stream that’s currently underutilised.

    This is not just an opportunity for students, it’s a strategic imperative for institutions. By enabling individuals to build relevant, targeted skills, universities position themselves as essential engines of workforce development, driving economic resilience at local, regional, and national levels. It’s a win-win: empowered learners, future-ready graduates, and sustainable new revenue for the sector.

    Of course, this requires a shift in thinking from institutional autonomy to inter-institutional alignment. But the benefits are compelling: more efficient use of public funding, stronger regional economies, and better outcomes for students.

    Making Programme Design More Purposeful

    Beyond helping students choose what to study, this technology also has the power to influence what universities choose to offer. If data consistently shows that a particular programme has little connection to current or emerging job markets, it is worth investigating. It does not mean the course should be cut. There may be academic or social reasons to preserve it, but it does mean the institution is equipped with the intelligence needed to make informed decisions.

    It also invites a more purposeful approach to curriculum design. Are we including this module because it is pedagogically valuable, or because it’s always been there? Are we assessing this way because it builds a skill, or because it is the easiest to administer? When you can map outcomes to employment skills, these questions become easier to answer.

    Moreover, it provides a compelling framework for conversations with students, parents, and policy-makers about the value of university education. It shows that we are listening to what the world needs and responding with academic rigour and strategic intent.

    Global Potential, Local Application

    The skills gap is not just a UK issue; it’s a global one. The World Economic Forum reports that nearly half of all workers (66 per cent) will need reskilling by 2030. Universities worldwide are grappling with how to stay relevant in an era of automation, AI and constant disruption. Emerging AI tools offer the potential for a globally shared skills taxonomy that could, with appropriate localisation, apply anywhere.

    Conclusion

    As universities continue to evolve, their role as engines of economic and social mobility becomes more important than ever. To fulfil that role, we must ensure that what we teach aligns with what the world needs. That does not mean turning every degree into job training, but it does mean being thoughtful, strategic, and transparent about the skills our programmes provide.

    Emerging technologies offer an exciting glimpse into a more connected, skills-aware future. They empower students to take greater control of their learning, help universities refine and align their programmes and ensure that the promise of Higher Education translates into meaningful, real-world opportunities.

    After all, education is a journey. It’s time the map caught up.

    Source link

  • Temple University to lay off 50 employees

    Temple University to lay off 50 employees

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Temple University in Philadelphia plans to lay off about 50 staff members as it looks to cut a budget deficit previously forecasted at $60 million down to $27 million, according to a community message Friday from university President John Fry. 
    • The layoffs — amounting to nearly 1% of Temple’s workforce — are part of a larger reduction of 190 positions across the university, the majority of which were eliminated via attrition, retirement or cutting vacant roles. None of the layoffs impact faculty members, a spokesperson said Monday.
    • Temple is also “closely monitoring” the potential impacts of changes to the federal student loan and Pell Grant programs set to start in the 2026-27 academic year following the implementation of Republicans’ massive new spending bill, Fry said.

    Dive Insight:

    Temple leaders signaled in June that job cuts were likely as officials tried to reduce the university’s structural budget. At the time, Fry pointed to a long-term dip in enrollment, specifically a decline of 10,000 students since 2017, with much of the loss coming during the pandemic. As of fall 2023, Temple had just over 30,200 students.

    However, the public university just logged its highest-ever number of first-year student deposits — 6,313 — indicating a second year of growth in Temple’s first-year class on top of a projected overall enrollment increase of roughly 200 students, according to Fry’s announcement. That would mark the first time the university’s student body has grown since 2017.  

    But for Temple, the historic enrollment decline has meant a drop of $200 million in tuition revenue, putting pressure on the university to reduce its expenses — the large majority of which are tied to employee compensation and benefits. And so to cut the university’s deficit, leaders have looked to its workforce.

    Of the coming layoffs, Fry said “considerable efforts were made to ensure that the reduction to our current workforce was as minimal as possible.”

    “It is my promise that care will be taken to ensure that any employee’s separation from the university will be handled as equitably and compassionately as possible,” he added.

    In his message, Fry described “significant financial challenges” facing Temple, stemming from both its structural deficit as well as “uncertainty at the federal level.”

    Fry highlighted the changes set for the federal student aid program without elaborating on their potential impact on Temple. Those changes include new limits on Pell Grant eligibility, caps on student and parent borrowing, and an elimination of Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate students to take out loans up to their cost of attendance. 

    He also announced the roster of a 13-member university advisory group made up of faculty, students and staff to, as he put it, “help us navigate this complex and evolving environment.”

    Wide swaths of the higher education world are making workforce and spending cuts as the Trump administration takes a hatchet to the federal research funding system. Colleges are also bracing for further financial impacts from other federal policy changes in Republicans’ spending and tax bill, including an increased endowment tax and Medicaid cuts that will land hard on many university hospital systems.

    Source link

  • George Mason University faces federal probe into hiring and promotion practices

    George Mason University faces federal probe into hiring and promotion practices

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

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday opened an investigation into George Mason University to determine whether it discriminates against employees based on sex and race, including in promotion and tenure decisions.

    The news comes after the U.S. Department of Education opened two investigations into the public institution earlier this month over claims the university hasn’t done enough to respond to antisemitism and illegally uses race in employment decisions.

    The flurry of federal inquiries raises questions regarding the future of George Mason’s president, after pressure from the Justice Department pushed former University of Virginia President Jim Ryan to announce his abrupt resignation in June.

    3 probes in 3 weeks

    In a Thursday letter to George Mason, DOJ alleged that “race and sex have been motivating factors in faculty hiring decisions to achieve ‘diversity’ goals” under President Gregory Washington’s tenure. The agency cited Biden administration-era emails and statements from Washington in which he discussed a desire to support diversity and faculty of color and oppose racism on an institutional level.

    The DOJ’s letter opens an investigation into whether the university has violated Title VII, which bars employers from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

    “When employers screen out qualified candidates from the hiring process, they not only erode trust in our public institutions — they violate the law, and the Justice Department will investigate accordingly,” Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of DOJ’s civil rights division, said in a statement.

    The agency said it has “not reached any conclusions” yet and called on the university to provide relevant information.

    George Mason did not immediately respond to a Friday request for comment on DOJ’s investigation.

    “Painted as discriminatory”

    On Wednesday, Washington strongly repudiated similar allegations from the Education Department. The agency is investigating the university’s faculty hiring practices over potential violations of Title VI, which bars federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

    “Our diversity efforts are designed to expand opportunity and build inclusive excellence — not to exclude or advantage any group unlawfully,” he said in a statement July 16.

    The university’s faculty performance evaluations do not “use race or anti-racism measures as determinants of institutional success,” Washington said, and George Mason’s promotion and tenure policies do not give preferential treatment based on protected characteristics.

    The university president said that all inclusivity work done by a task force at George Mason aligned with the One Virginia Plan, a state-level initiative promoting diversity and inclusion in the state government’s workforce.

    The plan, established during former Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration, is set to conclude at the end of 2025 and is unlikely to be extended by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a vehement opponent of diversity and inclusion efforts.

    Washington, the first Black president to lead George Mason, also commented on “the “profound shift in how Title VI is being applied,” in what he called “a stark departure from the spirit in which civil rights law was written.”

    “Longstanding efforts to address inequality — such as mentoring programs, inclusive hiring practices, and support for historically underrepresented groups — are in many cases being reinterpreted as presumptively unlawful,” Washington said. “Broad terms like ‘illegal DEI’ are now used without definition, allowing virtually any initiative that touches on identity or inclusion to be painted as discriminatory.”

    The Education Department never publicly announced its first investigation into George Mason, which alleges that the university failed to respond “effectively to a pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students and faculty.” George Mason confirmed the investigation on July 3, though a conservative news outlet began publishing government documents about the case the day before.

    Washington predicted many of the obstacles George Mason has faced this month in an interview with ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

    Source link

  • First look at the University of Southampton’s Delhi campus

    First look at the University of Southampton’s Delhi campus

    TFTDL podcast – David Winstanley (Who’s The Man?)

    Listen to David Winstanley, the man with the weight of expectation on his shoulders as all eyes are on the University of Southampton as they prepare to open their Indian campus in August 2025. The TFTDL crew return to the airwaves on the day of the Air India crash, in a rare, new episode.

    Source link

  • Columbia University formally adopts controversial antisemitism definition

    Columbia University formally adopts controversial antisemitism definition

    Dive Brief:

    • Columbia University’s Office of Institutional Equity plans to formally use a controversial definition of antisemitism when conducting its work, Acting President Claire Shipman said in a message this week. 
    • The Ivy League institution will embrace the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism when investigating discrimination on campus, joining other well-known colleges like New York University and Harvard University. However, critics of the definition say it undermines free speech by potentially chilling and punishing criticism of Israel. 
    • The news comes as Columbia reportedly nears an agreement with the Trump administration to reinstate some of its $400 million in suspended federal funding. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The Trump administration froze the funding earlier this year over claims that Columbia hasn’t done enough to protect Jewish students from antisemitism. And in May, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determined that the university violated Title VI by being deliberately indifferent to “student-on-student harassment of Jewish students.” 

    Title VI prohibits federally funded institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin. 

    Under a potential deal between Columbia and the federal government, the university would potentially pay some $200 million for alleged civil rights violations and add more transparency around the foreign gifts it receives, anonymous sources told The New York Times last week. 

    In return, the Trump administration would return some of the $400 million in federal funding it suspended earlier this year over allegations that the university hadn’t done enough to protect Jewish students from harassment.

    Shipman referenced Columbia’s ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration in her message Tuesday. 

    “The fact that we’ve faced pressure from the government does not make the problems on our campuses any less real; a significant part of our community has been deeply affected in negative ways,” Shipman said. “In my view, any government agreement we reach is only a starting point for change. Committing to reform on our own is a more powerful path.”

    Having the university’s Office of Institutional Equity adopt the IHRA definition is one of several steps Columbia is taking to address harassment and discrimination, she said. 

    “Formally adding the consideration of the IHRA definition into our existing anti-discrimination policies strengthens our approach to combating antisemitism,” Shipman said. 

    IHRA’s definition of antisemitism says that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” However, free speech and civil rights groups have raised alarms over some of the definition’s examples of possible antisemitism. 

    Those include “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

    Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the definition, has frequently spoken out against using the definition to enforce antidiscriminations laws on campus. He noted that it was developed to help European data collectors monitor antisemitism and has argued the definition could be misapplied to restrict classroom instruction and discussion, including on works critical of Zionism. 

    Stern, who heads Bard College’s Center for the Study of Hate, also opposed the federal government’s adoption of the definition in 2019, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to consider it when enforcing Title VI.

    Columbia’s new adoption of the definition has sparked outcry, including from the university’s Knight First Amendment Institute, which aims to defend free speech through research, advocacy and litigation. 

    “Restricting criticism of Israel and its policies, including by faculty and students directly affected by those policies, universities compromise the values they should be defending — free speech, free inquiry, and equality as well,” Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the institute, said in a statement Wednesday. 

    Shipman also said university officials will not meet with or recognize Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of student groups that has called on the institution to cut ties with Israel and organized the protest encampment last year. 

    “Organizations that promote violence or encourage disruptions of our academic mission are not welcome on our campuses and the University will not engage with them,” Shipman said. 

    CUAD slammed Columbia on social media Thursday. 

    “Columbia didn’t ‘capitulate’ to the Trump administration’s Title VI threats — it welcomed the excuse,” the group said. “The university has long sought to implement IHRA and crack down on Palestine solidarity. Federal pressure just gave them the cover to do what they already wanted.”

    Source link