Tag: University

Data, Decisions, and Disruptions: Inside the World of University Rankings
University rankings are pretty much everywhere. Though the earliest university rankings in the U. S. date back to the early 1900s and the modern ones from the 1983 debut of the U. S. News and World Report rankings. The kind of rankings we tend to talk about now, international or global rankings, really only date back to 2003 with the creation of the Shanghai Academic Rankings of World Universities.

Over the decade that followed that first publication, a triumvirate emerged at the top of the rankings pyramid. The Shanghai Rankings, run by a group of academics at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the Quacquarelli Symonds, or QS Rankings, and the Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings. Between them, these three rankings producers, particularly QS and Times Higher, created a bewildering array of new rankings, dividing the world up by geography and field of study, mainly based on metrics relating to research.

Joining me today is the former Chief Data Officer of the Times Higher Education Rankings, Duncan Ross. He took over those rankings at a time when it seemed like the higher education world might be running out of things to rank. Under his tutelage, though, the Times Impact Rankings, which are based around the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, were developed. And that’s created a genuinely new hierarchy in world higher education, at least among those institutions who choose to submit to the rankings.

My discussion with Duncan today covers a wide range of topics related to his time at THE. But the most enjoyable bit by far, for me anything, was the bit about the genesis of the impact rankings. Listen a bit, especially when Duncan talks about how the Impact Rankings came about because the THE realized that its industry rankings weren’t very reliable. Fun fact, around that time I got into a very public debate with Phil Beatty, the editor of the Times Higher, on exactly that subject. Which means maybe, just maybe, I’m kind of a godparent to the impact rankings. But that’s just me. You may well find other points of interest in this very compelling interview. Let’s hand things over to Duncan.

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.20 | Data, Decisions, and Disruptions: Inside the World of University Rankings

Transcript

Alex Usher: So, Duncan, let’s start at the beginning. I’m curious—what got you into university rankings in the first place? How did you end up at Times Higher Education in 2015?

Duncan Ross: I think it was almost by chance. I had been working in the tech sector for a large data warehousing company, which meant I was working across many industries—almost every industry except higher education. I was looking for a new challenge, something completely different. Then a friend approached me and mentioned a role that might interest me. So I started talking to Times Higher Education, and it turned out it really was a great fit.

Alex Usher: So when you arrived at Times Higher in 2015, the company already had a pretty full set of rankings products, right? They had the global rankings, the regional rankings, which I think started around 2010, and then the subject or field of study rankings came a couple of years later. When you looked at all of that, what did you think? What did you feel needed to be improved?

Duncan Ross: Well, the first thing I had to do was actually bring all of that production in-house. At the time, even though Times Higher had rankings, they were produced by Clarivate—well, Thomson Reuters, as it was then. They were doing a perfectly good job, but if you’re not in control of the data yourself, there’s a limit to what you can do with it.

Another key issue was that, while it looked like Times Higher had many rankings, in reality, they had just one: the World University Rankings. The other rankings were simply different cuts of that same data. And even within the World University Rankings, only 400 universities were included, with a strong bias toward Europe and North America. About 26 or 27 percent of those institutions were from the U.S., which didn’t truly reflect the global landscape of higher education.

So the challenge was: how could we broaden our scope and truly capture the world of higher education beyond the usual suspects? And beyond that, were there other aspects of universities that we could measure, rather than just relying on research-centered metrics? There are good reasons why international rankings tend to focus on research—it’s the most consistent data available—but as you know, it’s certainly not the only way to define excellence in higher education.

Alex Usher: Oh, yeah. So how did you address the issue of geographic diversity? Was it as simple as saying, “We’re not going to limit it to 400 universities—we’re going to expand it”? I think the ranking now includes over a thousand institutions, right? I’ve forgotten the exact number.

Duncan Ross: It’s actually around 2,100 or so, and in practice, the number is even larger because, about two years ago, we introduced the concept of reporter institutions. These are institutions that haven’t yet met the criteria to be fully ranked but are already providing data.

The World University Rankings have an artificial limit because there’s a threshold for participation based on the number of research articles published. That threshold is set at 1,000 papers over a five-year period. If we look at how many universities could potentially meet that criterion, it’s probably around 3,000, and that number keeps growing. But even that is just a fraction of the higher education institutions worldwide. There are likely 30,000—maybe even 40,000—higher education institutions globally, and that’s before we even consider community colleges.

So, expanding the rankings was about removing artificial boundaries. We needed to reach out to institutions in parts of the world that weren’t well represented and think about higher education in a way that wasn’t so Anglo-centric.

One of the biggest challenges I’ve encountered—and it’s something people inevitably fall into—is that we tend to view higher education through the lens of our own experiences. But higher education doesn’t function the same way everywhere. It’s easy to assume that all universities should look like those in Canada, the U.S., or the UK—but that’s simply not the case.

To improve the rankings, we had to be open-minded, engage with institutions globally, and carefully navigate the challenges of collecting data on such a large scale. As a result, Times Higher Education now has data on around 5,000 to 6,000 universities—a huge step up from the original 400. Still, it’s just a fraction of the institutions that exist worldwide.

Alex Usher: Well, that’s exactly the mission of this podcast—to get people to think beyond an Anglo-centric view of the world. So I take your point that, in your first couple of years at Times Higher Education, most of what you were doing was working with a single set of data and slicing it in different ways.

But even with that, collecting data for rankings isn’t simple, right? It’s tricky, you have to make a lot of decisions, especially about inclusion—what to include and how to weight different factors. And I think you’ve had to deal with a couple of major issues over the years—one in your first few years and another more recently.

One was about fractional counting of articles, which I remember went on for quite a while. There was that big surge of CERN-related articles, mostly coming out of Switzerland but with thousands of authors from around the world, which affected the weighting. That led to a move toward fractional weighting, which in theory equalized things a bit—but not everyone agreed.

More recently, you’ve had an issue with voting, right? What I think was called a cartel of voters in the Middle East, related to the reputation rankings. Can you talk a bit about how you handle these kinds of challenges?

Duncan Ross: Well, I think the starting point is that we’re always trying to evaluate things in a fair and consistent way. But inevitably, we’re dealing with a very noisy and messy world.

The two cases you mentioned are actually quite different. One is about adjusting to the norms of the higher education sector, particularly in publishing. A lot of academics, especially those working within a single discipline, assume that publishing works the same way across all fields—that you can create a universal set of rules that apply to everyone. But that’s simply not the case.

For example, the concept of a first author doesn’t exist in every discipline. Likewise, in some fields, the principal investigator (PI) is always listed at the end of the author list, while in others, that’s not the norm.

One of the biggest challenges we faced was in fields dealing with big science—large-scale research projects involving hundreds or even thousands of contributors. In high-energy physics, for example, a decision was made back in the 1920s: everyone who participates in an experiment above a certain threshold is listed as an author in alphabetical order. They even have a committee to determine who meets that threshold—because, of course, it’s academia, so there has to be a committee.

But when you have 5,000 authors on a single paper, that distorts the rankings. So we had to develop a mechanism to handle that. Ideally, we’d have a single metric that works in all cases—just like in physics, where we don’t use one model of gravity in some situations and a different one in others. But sometimes, you have to make exceptions. Now, Times Higher Education is moving toward more sophisticated bibliometric measures to address these challenges in a better way.

The second issue you mentioned—the voting behavior in reputation rankings—is completely different because it involves inappropriate behavior. And this kind of issue isn’t just institutional; sometimes, it’s at the individual academic level.

We’re seeing this in publishing as well, where some academics are somehow producing over 200 articles a year. Impressive productivity, sure—but is it actually viable? In cases like this, the approach has to be different. It’s about identifying and penalizing misbehavior.

At the same time, we don’t want to be judge and jury. It’s difficult because, often, we can see statistical patterns that strongly suggest something is happening, but we don’t always have a smoking gun. So our goal is always to be as fair and equitable as possible while putting safeguards in place to maintain the integrity of the rankings.

Alex Usher: Duncan, you hinted at this earlier, but I want to turn now to the Impact Rankings. This was the big initiative you introduced at Times Higher Education. Tell us about the genesis of those rankings—where did the idea come from? Why focus on impact? And why the SDGs?

Duncan Ross: It actually didn’t start out as a sustainability-focused project. The idea came from my colleague, Phil Baty, who had always been concerned that the World University Rankings didn’t include enough measurement around technology transfer.

So, we set out to collect data from universities on that—looking at things like income from consultancy and university spin-offs. But when the data came back, it was a complete mess—totally inconsistent and fundamentally unusable. So, I had to go back to the drawing board.

That’s when I came across SDG 9—Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. I looked at it and thought, This is interesting. It was compelling because it provided an external framework.

One of the challenges with ranking models is that people always question them—Is this really a good model for excellence? But with an external framework like the SDGs, if someone challenges it, I can just point to the United Nations and say, Take it up with them.

At that point, I had done some data science work and was familiar with the tank problem, so I jokingly assumed there were probably 13 to 18 SDGs out there. (That’s a data science joke—those don’t land well 99% of the time.) But as it turned out, there were more SDGs, and exploring them was a real light bulb moment.

The SDGs provided a powerful framework for understanding the most positive role universities can play in the world today. We all know—well, at least those of us outside the U.S. know—that we’re facing a climate catastrophe. Higher education has a crucial role to play in addressing it.

So, the question became: How can we support that? How can we measure it? How can we encourage better behavior in this incredibly important sector?

Alex Usher: The Impact Rankings are very different in that roughly half of the indicators—about 240 to 250 across all 17 SDGs—aren’t naturally quantifiable. Instead, they’re based on stories.

For example, an institution might submit, This is how we combat organized crime or This is how we ensure our food sourcing is organic. These responses are scored based on institutional submissions.

Now, I don’t know exactly how Times Higher Education evaluates them, but there has to be a system in place. How do you ensure that these institutional answers—maybe 120 to 130 per institution at most—are scored fairly and consistently when you’re dealing with hundreds of institutions?

Duncan Ross: Well, I can tell you that this year, over 2,500 institutions submitted approved data—so it’s grown significantly. One thing to clarify, though, is that these aren’t written-up reports like the UK’s Teaching Excellence Framework, where universities can submit an essay justifying why they didn’t score as well as expected—what I like to call the dog ate my student statistics paper excuse. Instead, we ask for evidence of the work institutions have done. That evidence can take different forms—sometimes policies, sometimes procedures, sometimes concrete examples of their initiatives. The scoring process itself is relatively straightforward. First, we give some credit if an institution says they’re doing something. Then, we assess the evidence they provide to determine whether it actually supports their claim. But the third and most important part is that institutions receive extra credit if the evidence is publicly available. If you publish your policies or reports, you open yourself up to scrutiny, which adds accountability.

A great example is SDG 5—Gender Equality—specifically around gender pay equity. If an institution claims to have a policy on gender pay equity, we check: Do you publish it? If so, and you’re not actually living up to it, I’d hope—and expect—that women within the institution will challenge you on it. That’s part of the balancing mechanism in this process.

Now, how do we evaluate all this? Until this year, we relied on a team of assessors. We brought in people, trained them, supported them with our regular staff, and implemented a layer of checks—such as cross-referencing responses against previous years. Ultimately, human assessors were making the decisions.

This year, as you might expect, we’re introducing AI to assist with the process. AI helps us filter out straightforward cases, leaving the more complex ones for human assessors. It also ensures that we don’t run into assessor fatigue. When someone has reviewed 15 different answers to the same question from various universities, the process can get a bit tedious—AI helps mitigate that.

Alex Usher: Yeah, it’s like that experiment with Israeli judges, right? You don’t want to be the last case before lunch—you get a much harsher sentence if the judge is making decisions on an empty stomach. I imagine you must have similar issues to deal with in rankings.

I’ve been really impressed by how enthusiastically institutions have embraced the Impact Rankings. Canadian universities, in particular, have really taken to them. I think we had four of the top ten last year and three of the top ten this year, which is rare for us. But the uptake hasn’t been as strong—at least not yet—in China or the United States, which are arguably the two biggest national players in research-based university rankings. Maybe that’s changing this year, but why do you think the reception has been so different in different parts of the world? And what does that say about how different regions view the purpose of universities?

Duncan Ross: I think there’s definitely a case that different countries and regions have different approaches to the SDGs. In China, as you might expect, interest in the rankings depends on how well they align with current Communist Party priorities. You could argue that something similar happens in the U.S. The incoming administration has made it fairly clear that SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) are not going to be top priorities—probably not SDG 1 (No Poverty), either. So in some cases, a country’s level of engagement reflects its political landscape.

But sometimes, it also reflects the economic structure of the higher education system itself. In the U.S., where universities rely heavily on high tuition fees, rankings are all about attracting students. And the dominant ranking in that market is U.S. News & World Report—the 600-pound gorilla. If I were in their position, I’d focus on that, too, because it’s the ranking that brings in applications.

In other parts of the world, though, rankings serve a different purpose. This ties back to our earlier discussion about different priorities in different regions. Take Indonesia, for example. There are over 4,000 universities in the country. If you’re an institution like ITS (Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember), how do you stand out? How do you show that you’re different from other universities?

For them, the Impact Rankings provided an opportunity to showcase the important work they’re doing—work that might not have been recognized in traditional rankings. And that’s something I’m particularly proud of with the Impact Rankings. Unlike the World University Rankings or the Teaching Rankings, it’s not just the usual suspects at the top.

One of my favorite examples is Western Sydney University. It’s a fantastic institution. If you’re ever in Sydney, take the train out there. Stay on the train—it’s a long way from the city center—but go visit them. Look at the incredible work they’re doing, not just in sustainability but also in their engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. They’re making a real impact, and I’m so pleased that we’ve been able to raise the profile of institutions like Western Sydney—universities that might not otherwise get the recognition they truly deserve.

Alex Usher: But you’re still left with the problem that many institutions that do really well in research rankings have, in effect, boycotted the Impact Rankings—simply because they’re not guaranteed to come first.

A lot of them seem to take the attitude of, Why would I participate in a ranking if I don’t know I’ll be at the top?

I know you initially faced that issue with LERU (the League of European Research Universities), and I guess the U.S. is still a challenge, with lower participation numbers.

Do you think Times Higher Education will eventually crack that? It’s a tough nut to crack. I mean, even the OECD ran into the same resistance—it was the same people saying, Rankings are terrible, and we don’t want better ones.

What’s your take on that?

Duncan Ross: Well, I’ve got a brief anecdote about this whole rankings boycott approach. There’s one university—I’m not going to name them—that made a very public statement about withdrawing from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. And just to be clear, that’s something you can do, because participation is voluntary—not all rankings are. So, they made this big announcement about pulling out. Then, about a month later, we got an email from their graduate studies department asking, Can we get a copy of your rankings? We use them to evaluate applicants for interviews. So, there’s definitely some odd thinking at play here. But when it comes to the Impact Rankings, I’m pretty relaxed about it. Sure, it would be nice to have Oxford or Harvard participate—but MIT does, and they’re a reasonably good school, I hear. Spiderman applied there, so it’s got to be decent. The way I see it, the so-called top universities already have plenty of rankings they can focus on. If we say there are 300 top universities in the world, what about the other 36,000 institutions?

Alex Usher: I just want to end on a slightly different note. While doing some background research for this interview, I came across your involvement in DataKind—a data charity that, if I understand correctly, you founded. I’ve never heard of a data charity before, and I find the idea fascinating—intriguing enough that I’m even thinking about starting one here. Tell us about DataKind—what does it do?

Duncan Ross: Thank you! So, DataKind was actually founded in the U.S. by Jake Porway. I first came across it at one of the early big data conferences—O’Reilly’s Strata Conference in New York. Jake was talking about how data could be used for good, and at the time, I had been involved in leadership roles at several UK charities. It was a light bulb moment. I went up to Jake and said, Let me start a UK equivalent! At first, he was noncommittal—he said, Yeah, sure… someday. But I just kept nagging him until eventually, he gave in and said yes. Together with an amazing group of people in the UK—Fran Bennett, Caitlin Thaney, and Stuart Townsend—we set up DataKind UK.

The concept is simple: we often talk about how businesses—whether in telecom, retail, or finance—use data to operate more effectively. The same is true in the nonprofit sector. The difference is that banks can afford to hire data scientists—charities often can’t. So, DataKind was created to connect data scientists with nonprofit organizations, allowing them to volunteer their skills.

Of course, for this to work, a charity needs a few things:
1. Leadership willing to embrace data-driven decision-making.
2. A well-defined problem that can be analyzed.
3. Access to data—because without data, we can’t do much.
Over the years, DataKind—both in the U.S. and worldwide—has done incredible work. We’ve helped nonprofits understand what their data is telling them, improve their use of resources, and ultimately, do more for the communities they serve. I stepped down from DataKind UK in 2020 because I believe that the true test of something successful is whether it can continue to thrive without you. And I’m happy to say it’s still going strong. I kind of hope the Impact Rankings continue to thrive at Times Higher Education now that I’ve moved on as well.

Alex Usher: Yeah. Well, thank you for joining us today, Duncan.

Duncan Ross: It’s been a pleasure.

And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan. And you, our viewers, listeners, and readers for joining us today. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Worried about missing an episode of the World of Higher Education? There’s a solution for that. Go to our YouTube page and subscribe. Next week, our guest will be Jim Dickinson. He’s an associate editor at Wonkhe in the UK, and he’s also maybe the world expert on comparative student politics. And he joins us to talk about the events in Serbia where the student movement is challenging the populist government of the day. Bye for now.

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.
Source link
February 13, 2025
Ignore the noise – university is overwhelmingly worth it for most

New data from UCAS shows the number of 18 year old applications to undergraduate courses for autumn 2025 continues to climb, including from young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The slight dip in the rate of applications can be explained in part by changes around how students engage with the application cycle. Year-on-year we see decision making happening later in the admissions cycle. There is a clear disconnect between the discourse around universities and the demand for them, where the long-term trend is up.

Universities have long been used as political currency, despite being a core part of young people’s aspirations in the UK. It is not uncommon to hear influential politicians and commentators argue against the value of a degree, even though they generally have degrees themselves. If the government has its sights set on sparking economic growth and creating opportunity across society, encouraging more people to go to university is the answer, with jobs requiring higher education expected to see the most growth in the next ten years, according to analysis from Skills England.

There has been a tremendous amount of progress in helping people from a wider range of backgrounds go to university in recent years, and this is reflected in new UCAS data. Applications from young people from areas with low participation in higher education is at its highest level in recent years. Not only does this afford thousands more young people opportunities that they might never otherwise have had, it also has huge economic benefits for them, and their communities.

Reaping the rewards of participation

However, there is much further to go. You are still about twice as likely to go to university if you are from the most affluent backgrounds, compared to the least affluent. This can’t be right, particularly as the data shows that the benefits of university are especially strong for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Graduates who received free school meals earlier in life get a big earnings boost by going to university. On average, they’ll earn over a third more than non-graduates from the same background by the age of 31. And the benefits go beyond salary – universities play an important role in tackling economic inactivity and unemployment, one of the government’s key battles. Overall, graduates are far less likely to be claiming benefits, nearly three times less likely to be economically inactive, and over one and a half times more likely to be employed than non-graduates.

The data shows that there is still a great deal of progress to be made in closing the regional participation gap. In London, 58 per cent of 18-year-olds applied to university; in the North East this was only 32 per cent. In Wales, the participation rate has been going backwards. This is a huge missed opportunity for the nation.

If the government were to work with universities, colleges and schools to ensure all young people have the same educational opportunities, we’d see more people in work and more people able to adapt as the labour market changes around them, earning higher wages and filling the jobs being created in exciting new sectors of the economy.

And, given that graduates are statistically more likely to enjoy better health, we’d probably have a healthier population too. In the UK we’re lucky to have exceptional universities in every region of the UK, and producing and attracting more graduates to these areas could significantly boost regional productivity.

That’s not to say that everyone should want to, or needs to go to university to have a successful career or spark regional growth, but graduates’ skills make a vital contribution to local economies. Regions with high numbers of graduates perform better economically, and these benefits spillover to non-graduates. All eight growth-driving sectors identified by the government, including clean energy and the creative industries, are dependent on a bigger supply of graduates to expand. Last year, these industries reported having a 50 per cent higher proportion of graduates than in the UK workforce as a whole.

The bottom line

For the many young people who don’t know exactly what they want to do in life, going to university can be the difference between gaining skills and experience that will set them up for life or falling into economic inactivity. Despite what a great deal of headlines will tell you, universities are essential to young people’s prospects in this country, and the new application data shows that young people feel this too.

As well as the huge economic benefits for wider society, university has huge appeal for individuals. It’s an opportunity to gain career skills, immerse yourself in a subject you enjoy and meet lifelong friends. And above all, thanks to the UK’s diverse offering of institutions and courses, including academic and vocational styles, it’s a realistic goal for most people. Perhaps, in a world where young people are being increasingly discouraged about the future ahead, university represents something more optimistic, and that’s why they continue to want to go there.

Source link

February 13, 2025
Walden University President Michael Betz Cashing In

Walden University President Michael Betz has sold $380,000 worth of Adtalem shares. Walden is one of America’s largest robocolleges, proving online education to tens of thousands of folks in psychology, social work, nursing, education, business, and criminal justice each year.

Adtalem, formerly known as DeVry Education, is Walden’s parent company.  Adtalem also owns the Chamberlain College of Nursing and medical schools in the Carribean. Walden and Adtalem have been profitable despite mediocre results for worker/consumers, a disproportionate number are women and people of color.

In 2024, Walden settled a case for $28M that claimed the school systematically deceived black and female students.

Source link

February 10, 2025
Tennessee State University could run out of cash this spring without help
Dive Brief:
- Tennessee State University is looking for help from state lawmakers as it tries both to stay afloat and to revamp its operations and finances for the long term.
- The public historically Black institution is on pace to run out of cash by April or May, Interim President Dwayne Tucker said Tuesday at a meeting hosted by Black Caucus members in the state Legislature.
- TSU intends to present a five-year turnaround plan to the Legislature. Operations through the first year of the plan could be financed by removing restrictions on roughly $150 million out of $250 million the state previously set aside for university infrastructure, Tucker noted.
Dive Insight:

TSU’s financial troubles are steep and immediate. An FAQ page on the university’s website acknowledges that the financial condition has reached crisis levels stemming from missed enrollment targets and operating deficits. This fall, the university posted a projected deficit of $46 million by the end of the fiscal year.

The university identified inefficient processes in financial aid, advising and enrollment systems, that contributed to its woes. It also said those problems were exacerbated by 2024’s messy federal rollout of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

Additionally, and perhaps most damaging, the university launched a full scholarship program for some students without a plan to fund it throughout students’ journey to graduation. It paid $37 million toward the scholarship in fiscal 2022 using federal pandemic emergency funds. When that money ran dry, TSU had to issue tens of millions of dollars in institutional financial aid, causing it to heavily discount its tuition.

The scholarship helped attract students, with fall enrollment hitting 8,198 students in 2023, compared to 7,774 in 2018. But the university couldn’t ultimately afford to maintain those aid levels.

Taking aim at the university’s management, Tennessee lawmakers last March passed a Republican-led bill to replace all of the university’s trustees and restructure its board, over the objection of Democrats.

Emergency state funding last fall kept the institution operating, but Tucker said TSU will need more to not just turn around — but to stay open.

“It’s a fact that we can’t pay our bills,” Tucker said, noting also that the university would likely not be open today without state help.

But Tennessee also owes TSU money, according to a federal assessment.

In a letter to Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee in 2023, then-U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the institution had been hurt by “longstanding and ongoing underinvestment” as a public land-grant HBCU. By their estimate, inequitable funding gaps led Tennessee State to miss out on $2.1 billion over 30 years.

Tucker dismissed the idea of suing the state for the $2.1 billion, arguing that the legal process could take years — while the university’s financial needs are immediate. Legal action could also potentially anger the legislators whose support TSU needs to help provide funding. Moreover, the institution could lose a legal challenge, he added.

Tucker — the university’s second interim president in less than a year — argued for focusing instead on the state funding gap identified by the Legislature in 2021. That gap amounts to over $540 million.

Since identifying the amount, Tennessee lawmakers lined up a one-time $250 million sum for the university to invest in infrastructure. Tucker said the university could use a portion of those funds to keep it afloat through the first year of a five-year plan.

Along with state help, TSU and its board are considering financial exigency, a restructuring process that allows an institution experiencing budgetary distress to lay off tenured faculty and shut down academic programs.

In a special meeting of TSU’s board on Jan. 31, a consultant with the National Association of College and University Business Officers presented a detailed workshop on how exigency works.

Tucker said Tuesday that officials were considering exigency but that it wasn’t in the university’s immediate plans.
Source link
February 7, 2025
‘Betraying an entire generation of students’? What do Trump University and Matt Goodwin’s excoriating new book tell us about universities today?
Browsing in a good bookshop sure beats scouring the internet for things to read. And when I was recently in my local independent bookshop (the Book House in Thame since you ask), I stumbled across a new biography of Donald Trump focusing on his pre-politics business career. Seeing that the book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump squandered his father’s fortune and created the illusion of success by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, included a section on Trump University, I snapped it up.

Every leader’s weaknesses are clear before they rise to power if you look in the right places. We knew Gordon Brown’s seriousness could merge into tantrums long before the revelations about throwing phones at staff came to light, and we knew Boris Johnson’s joie de vivre hampered an eye for detail long before he caught the ball ‘from the back of the scrum’ and entered Number 10. If Nigel Farage ever makes it to the top job, as ever more people seem to be predicting, no one will be able to claim his destructive approach to politics was previously hidden.

Similarly, this new biography of Trump written by two New York Times journalists proves the US President’s weaknesses were evident beneath the bluster throughout his long business career in hotels, casinos and golf courses. If the authors are right, Trump has long been prone to taking big risks on a hunch, to acting litigiously and to seeking credit for things that aren’t his doing. The title suggests he was a Lucky Loser, though perhaps that is just an uncharitable way of saying he was a big winner against the odds.

As a businessman, the book shows how Trump began lucky, with ‘the equivalent of half a billion dollars from his father’, and ended lucky, with ‘another half billion as a reality television star’. These allowed him to take on huge debts, aided by paying as little tax as possible and reclaiming what tax he had paid whenever he could (as during Obama’s Great Recession recovery programme).

Trump’s dollars from the TV show ‘The Apprentice’ came not so much from appearance fees as from his right to half the profits from any sponsorship deals and from lending his name to all sorts of businesses attracted by his TV success, from health supplements to early video phones. These enabled him to keep afloat. But there were many lows to Trump’s business career and a number of his big projects declared bankruptcy in the 1990s and 2000s, leading the two authors to conclude, ‘He would have been better off betting on the stock market than on himself.’

If there’s one person responsible for Trump’s rise to the top, it is Mark Burnett, a British Falklands veteran who is now the United States Special Envoy to the UK. Burnett invented the TV programme ‘Survivor’ before creating an urban equivalent in The Apprentice (and later also creating ‘The Voice’). And if there’s one thing responsible for Trump’s rise it seems to be vanilla-and-mint Crest toothpaste as Proctor & Gamble were the first mass consumer company to do serious sponsorship of The Apprentice. They paid $1.1 million to get the contestants to come up with a new toothpaste, thereby drawing attention to the actual new vanilla-and-mint product sitting on shop shelves.

Ostensibly, this all has little to do with higher education. But Trump University (also known as Trump U) is one of the most notable of all the current US President’s past projects and one of the ventures undertaken just before he stood for the Presidency for the first time. Trump not only lent his name to the project, he also invested millions of dollars in return for 93% of the business –like Victor Kiam, he liked it so much he bought the company. But the authors of this book conclude the whole thing was a disaster from start to finish.

Beginning as a way to sell recorded lectures to small and medium-sized businesses, Trump University quickly moved into get-rich-quick in-person seminars. The Trump Elite Gold programme had a fee of $34,995 (about the same as the entire cost of a three-year degree in England or Wales). Prospective learners were told, ‘There are three groups of people … People who make things happen; people who wait for things to happen; and people who wonder, “What happened?”’ If you wanted to be in the first group, you were encouraged to open your wallet or else borrow the necessary fee.

One failed applicant for The Apprentice, Stephen Gilpin, found himself tapped up to work for Trump U but later wrote an exposé that claimed, ‘the focus for Trump University was purely on separating suckers from their money.’ At the time, Trump said he hand-picked the instructors, but he did no such thing. The whole venture ended up in three major lawsuits, which were settled just as Trump became President for the first time.

In the end, the story of Trump University confirms a truism: it is vital to protect the use of the term ‘University’ and to police it actively and in real time. The book serves as a reminder that – as Jo Johnson has argued persuasively on the HEPI blog – pausing new awards for University Title means the Office for Students is giving less attention to this area than it should.

It is ironic that the global leader of right-wing populism should not only have sought to establish his own ‘University’ but that, having done so, it should embody in such exaggerated form all the negatives that populists tend to ascribe to traditional universities: poor value for money; an unoriginal curriculum taught by ill-trained staff; and insufficient personal attention to students. However, if a new book being published today attacking UK and US universities, Bad Education: Why our universities are broken and how we can fix them by Matt Goodwin, is any guide to populism more generally, then the failure of Trump U has not deterred the attacks on places that actually do have the legal right to call themselves a ‘University’.

Goodwin starts with a chapter called ‘Why I decided to speak out’ though it could just have easily been called ‘The grass is always greener’ or ‘Looking back with rose-tinted spectacles’. The book’s core argument is that:

the rapid expansion of the university bureaucracy, the sharp shift to the left among university academics and the politicization of the wider system of higher education have left universities in a perilous state.

As a result, Goodwin argues, ‘our universities are not just letting down but betraying an entire generation of students.’

He notes that, as the number of EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) champions has gone up, some types of diversity, such as diversity in academic thought, have gone down. But Goodwin is a political scientist rather than a historian and the problems he identifies are not as new as he makes out. Far-left students used to disrupt Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph and Leon Brittan when they spoke on campus; now they try and block Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix. The issue of whether such individuals should be allowed to speak even if some people on campus will be ‘offended’ are the same. The recourse to legislation in response is the same too: the rows of the 1980s led to the Education (No. 2) Act (1986) and the rows of today led to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (2023).

Notably, Goodwin’s views seem to have changed even more over time than the institutions he criticises. Two decades ago, Goodwin was a progressive studying for a PhD under Professor Roger Eatwell, an expert in fascism and populism at the University of Bath, after which he moved to Manchester and Nottingham, where he worked with political scientists like Rob Ford and Philip Cowley, and thereafter to Kent. These days, Goodwin has not only given up his professorship but is found speaking at Reform UK meetings while accepting a job as a GB News presenter.

And while Goodwin says his book has been 20 years in the making, it reads like it was 20 weeks in the writing. That is not meant to be rude for the piece is pacey, personal and polemical – and all the more readable for that. But while it is based in part on others’ research – including pieces of HEPI output – it generally draws from just one well: the place inhabited by Eric Kaufman, Jonathan Haidt and Niall Ferguson. The dust jacket includes endorsements from Douglas Murray, Claire Fox and Nigel Biggar among others.

Goodwin’s pamphleteer-style of writing ensures his text has little in common with the meticulous research on recent university history by Mike Shattock or Roger Brown and Helen Carasso or Steve Jones (who will be writing his own review of the book for HEPI in due course). Nonetheless, whisper it quietly but – whether you like his general approach or not, whether you like his new acquaintances or not and whether you like his writing style or not – Matt Goodwin may have something of a point.

Universities do not always welcome or reflect the full diversity of viewpoints in the way that perhaps they should, given their business is generating and imparting knowledge. It has been said many times before by others, so it is far from original, yet that doesn’t make it false. Goodwin quotes the US economist Thomas Sowell: ‘when you hear university academics talk about diversity, ask them how many conservatives are in their sociology department.’ It seems a fair question.

But grappling with that is not easy. The best answer, Goodwin argues, is a muscular response. Rather than leaving it to the sector to resolve its own issues, he wants to see hard-nosed interventions from policymakers and regulators:

only government action and new legislation, or pressure from outside universities, can change the incentive structures on campus. This means adopting a proactive rather than a passive strategy, making it clear that the individual freedom of scholars and students is, ultimately, more important than the freedom or autonomy of the university.

At the very end, Goodwin even argues someone should ensure ‘all universities be regularly audited for academic freedom and free speech violations’, with fines for any that transgress. Yet that begs more questions than it answers: we don’t know who would do the audit or what the rules for it would be.

So there is a paradox at the heart of Goodwin’s critique. He ascribes the problems he sees to flaws in the ‘system’ whereby the number of university administrators, institutions’ central bureaucracy and the pay of vice-chancellors have all increased rapidly. But such changes have often reflected:
1. external influences, such as the increase in the regulation of education (in response to scandals of the Trump U variety);
2. the need to have flattering statistics (such as to present to the Treasury in the battle for public resources); and
3. recognition that the old ways of working are not going to root out inappropriate behaviours (for example, sexual harassment).
Perhaps making universities more accountable to regulators and policymakers will make them bastions of free speech in the way Goodwin hopes, but might it not just clog up the lives of academics even more?

Reprinted with permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved.
Source link
February 6, 2025
VICTORY: University of Wyoming administrators reject student government’s proposal to slash media funding

Administrators at the University of Wyoming have agreed to cut student media funding by only 8.5%, repudiating a censorial student government proposal to punish student media by cutting the funding by 75% because students “don’t like” student newspaper the Branding Iron’s editorial choices. The change came after FIRE wrote to the university, explaining that the proposed funding cut was based on the content of the student newspaper, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.

On Nov. 19, the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming passed a resolution recommending a drastic 75% cut to the fee that funds student media, including the student newspaper Branding Iron. The resolution, drafted by the Tuition Allocation and Student Fee Review Committee, cited staffing challenges, the quantity of advertising, and supposed “errors” in content as reasons for the cut. During the debate, several senators made their true motivations plain, tying their votes to personal distaste for the Branding Iron’s editorial choices, writing quality, and student opinions.

When they distribute student fee funding, student government members exercise state power. The First Amendment bars the government, and the students to whom it delegates its power, from taking away resources based on the content of a media outlet’s expression. For good reason.

Student media often have to write critical stories about their peers, administrators, and student government officials. So it goes when serving as a check on power, but that work would be nigh impossible without the First Amendment’s guarantee that citizens cannot be retaliated against for what they say. Cutting funding based on content impairs student journalists’ ability to confidently report on the world around them, and FIRE has beat back similar efforts across the country.

Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.

Though several student senators argued they had no “vendetta” against the student paper, their reliance upon opinions about the content of student media was enough to render their decision content-based. And any content-based restriction, however innocuous the stated motivation, must be regarded with a jaundiced eye lest those in power go unchecked.

Thanks to FIRE’s efforts, student journalists at UW are back to covering events in their community and beyond.

Having such dedicated staff on the local beat is especially important in places like Wyoming, where there are fewer outlets to cover local issues.

“When we look at the University of Wyoming, and we consider that it is the only four year university in our entire state, our student media’s impact is so much more important,” said Branding Iron editor-in-chief Ven Meester. “We are a college campus in one of the reddest states in the nation. From student organizations, to speakers, to community events, we have an exceptional amount of political diversity.”

Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

Source link

February 5, 2025
Why are university registrars so white?

In recent years AHUA has made a choice to talk about an absence of people of colour* within the professions it serves.

There was a discomfort that had existed unanswered for too long when looking at the annual association conference full of registrars, secretaries and chief operating officers – who were overwhelmingly white.

It was an acknowledgement that, while some progress was being made in the diversity of the students and staff that the association’s members served and supported – and even in the population of vice chancellors and university chairs they work with, the group of heads of administration has remained stubbornly white.

While we could have chosen as a membership organisation to defer on this issue to the institutions who appoint our members, we choose to recognise our responsibility and ability to influence and inform institutions.

We proactively sought out initiatives where we believe we have agency to increase opportunities to enhance progression and diversity and are committing resources to our members to help their own activities. We considered it a responsibility we share with institutions and the sector.

The work of the association to address this was multifaceted because, despite limited capacity and resource to invest, we knew that there was no silver bullet to be fired or piece of marketing that would change our language and in doing so break the barrier that appeared to exist.

We also knew we would need to speak about things that might be uncomfortable at times, and that would need some care to avoid being white folk talking about race in ways which inadvertently perpetuated problems or failed to acknowledge the privilege we might have.

A reciprocal mentoring program was established bringing together AHUA members with minority ethnic staff from middle management and director-level roles using frameworks that tried to create equal power in the relationship, and mutual learning and dialogue that would help advance the way people think about race and equity in their work and practice and aspirations.

A bursaries programme was launched for ethnic minorities to join our flagship “Aspiring Registrars and COO’s Programme”. The bursaries were designed to demonstrate our ambition to create pathways into the roles AHUA represent and bring together and diversify the conversations that take place within the course. They resulted in an increase in applications from a previously underrepresented group in the first year and it’s a pilot we may well repeat or extend in due course.

A research partnership and evidence base

These projects were modest attempts to start to try to generate change but we had to acknowledge that they were based on our own judgements and experience, as a largely white population of people who had made it into positions of power and authority.

It was on that basis that we decided we needed a robust evidence base that included the voices and experiences of those who are ethnically minoritised. So, we developed a research brief and ran a tender process to try to find a research partner who could work with us to best inform our further and continued work to deliver real change. In late 2024 we launched the research project with our partners at Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University

The research takes in two research phases. The first phase is desk-based, looking at institutions and what their available and existing data tells us about the structural profiles and institutional experiences of work on diversifying workforce, particularly at more senior levels in professional services.

This phase might reflect on race quality charters, Athena swan charters, ethnicity pay gap reporting and data on race/ethnicity in career progression.

The second phase conducts interviews and focus groups, primarily with people who are ethnically minoritised professional services staff and captures their own work experiences and perceptions of professional services. All of this data and research is intended to help us start to more deeply understand the barrier and enablers for career progression.

We are really anxious not to assume the research findings and outcomes will identify simple, easy solutions to a deep-rooted challenge for us. Equally, we are determined that the research outcomes (however uncomfortable) can be disseminated widely and that the substance of the research finds practical, initiatives that leverage change based on evidence.

Whatever the outcome, we are very firmly committed to gathering the research evidence that can underpin our work to bring a new diversity to the administrative leadership of universities in the years ahead.

If there are institutions who wish to share their data as part of the first phase please do get in touch with AHUA and / or Louise Oldridge (louise.oldridge@ntu.ac.uk) as the research project lead and we will make sure we can help you set up a collaborative agreement to share the available data and start be part of the project. We require participating institutions to be signed up before the end of March. Find out more about participation in interviews and to sign up.

*We recognise that this term is one way to refer to a community of people that share experiences of race and racism. We are continuously seeking ways to better engage and reflect the sector and community, and welcome feedback on our choice of language.

Source link

February 5, 2025
Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

The Australian higher education sector continues to evolve rapidly, with hybrid learning,
non-linear education, and the current skills shortage all shaping how universities operate.

At the same time, universities are grappling with rising operational costs and decreased funding, leading to fierce competition for new enrolments.

Amidst the dynamic landscape of higher education, the student experience has become a crucial factor in attracting and retaining students.

The student experience encompasses a wide array of interactions, from how students first learn about an institution through to the enrolment process, coursework, social activities, wellbeing support and career connections. With so many student touchpoints to manage, institutions are turning to data and technology integrations to help streamline communications and improve their adaptability to change.

Download the white paper: Why Unifying Data and Technology is Critical to the Success and Future of Universities

Enhancing institutional efficiency and effectiveness
Universities face an increasingly fragmented IT landscape, with siloed data and legacy systems making it difficult to support growth ambitions and improve student experiences.

By integrating systems and data, institutions are starting to align digital and business strategies so that they can meet operational goals while providing more connected, seamless and personalised experiences for students.

One of the most effective ways universities can achieve this is by consolidating disparate systems into a cloud-based Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution, such as Salesforce.

Optimising admissions and enhancing student engagement
In recent years, there have been significant fluctuations in the enrolment of higher education students for numerous reasons – Covid-19 restrictions, declining domestic student numbers, high cost of living, proposed international student caps, and volatile labour market conditions being just a few.

To better capture the attention of prospective students, institutions are now focusing on delivering more personalised and targeted engagement strategies. Integrated CRM and marketing automation is increasingly being used to attract more prospective students with tailored, well-timed communication.

Universities are also using CRM tools to support student retention and minimise attrition. According to a Forrester study, students are 15 per cent more likely to stay with an institution when Salesforce is used to provide communications, learning resources and support services.

Streamlining communication and collaboration
By creating a centralised system of engagement, universities can not only support students throughout their academic journey, but also oversee their wellbeing.

For example, a leading university in Sydney has developed a system that provides a comprehensive view of students and their needs, allowing for integrated and holistic support and transforming its incident reporting and case management.

Fostering stronger alumni and industry relations
Another area where CRM systems play a pivotal role is in building alumni and industry relationships. Alumni who feel valued by their university – through personalised engagement – are more likely to return when seeking upskilling, or to lend financial support.

Personalising communication to industry partners can also help strengthen relationships, potentially leading to sponsored research, grants, and donations, as well as internships and career placements.

University of Technology Sydney, for example, adopted a centralised data-led strategy for Corporate Relations to change how it works with strategic partners, significantly strengthening its partner network across the university.

Unlocking the value of data and integration

With unified data and digital technology driving personalised student interactions, university ICT departments can empower faculty and staff to exceed enrolment goals, foster lifelong student relationships and drive institutional growth.

To learn more about the strategies and technologies to maximise institutional business value, download the white paper.

Do you have an idea for a story?
Email rebecca.cox@news.com.au

Source link

February 4, 2025
Is going to university still worth it? A widening participation student’s view

By David Lam, Activities Officer at the Students’ Union Bath.

As a child, I always envisioned a very traditional educational journey. I would work my way through high school, do my A levels and then end up at a good university, graduating into a well-paid job. I think this is the journey most undertake or are pointed towards as we were told that university students almost always earn more than those without one. It’s a no-brainer, right?

However, there have been recent conversations about the value of going to university and getting a degree. Being a student is tough right now, because:

Despite these challenges, record numbers of students from TUNDRA 1 (lowest participation) backgrounds have made it to university. A remarkable stat! But why has this happened? I believe university opens so many more opportunities for you besides a good education and, for this reason, people would prefer to earn and learn rather than not doing it at all.

Going to university allows you to access a whole load of new experiences through societies and sports clubs at a relatively low cost and without much commitment. At Bath, there are over 200 groups that you can join, ranging from common interests like football and board games to more niche ones like sailing and gliding. I am sure there are equally wide offers at other universities. Having gone to a state school, I never had the opportunity to try all these things while others from more privileged backgrounds did.

Studying at Bath meant I had access to a wide range of placements for my year in industry. Without the wonderful placement team showing me all the world had to offer, I would not have known where to start, nor would I have ever considered doing a placement. I had always seen movies that involved people going for the best year of their life abroad in a sunny place, making friends for life and being temporarily free from studying. I decided I wanted that experience too, but then the Covid-19 Pandemic hit, meaning my opportunities suddenly shrank. Despite the setback of a global pandemic, I eventually found an opportunity and I ended up working in Madrid as a Physical Education (PE) teacher in an international school. It was the best year of my life, living the dream I’d seen on TV, thanks to my university’s placement team’s support.

Attending university exposes you to people from diverse backgrounds. Coming from a small town in the Midlands, predominantly made up of white British residents, I was one of only three kids of colour in my entire primary school. So arriving in Bath and encountering people who looked like me was a strikingly different experience. Some of my closest friends come from all over the world and, yes, eventually when we all leave Bath, I will be visiting them at some point! The chances of me making such friendships would have been minimal had I stayed in my little town and I would have nowhere near as enlightened an understanding of other cultures as I have now.

University is often the first real taste of freedom for many, marking the transition from life at home to living independently. You are no longer surrounded by an endless supply of clean clothes or home-cooked meals; instead, you are managing your own routine and life, all within the relatively safe university environment. This shift into the big wide world fosters resilience and builds people skills. You will inevitably encounter challenges, like that one housemate who never does their dishes. But part of the university experience is learning to handle these issues yourself, having the tough conversations and solving problems independently rather than relying on someone else to step in. Along the way, you will meet both amazing people and those who are not so great. While no degree teaches you how to interact with others, living with a diverse group of people forces you to learn those essential skills.

For these reasons, I still believe there is value in going to university. While not everyone’s experience is the same, the underlying benefits remain. The university experience represents a beacon of opportunity and opens so many doors. It leads to things you would have never imagined doing, like living in another country for a whole year or writing a blog for a higher education think tank. Seeing the Office for Students turn its attention to the wider student experience, rather than exclusively to education, is welcome. I believe more places should be taking this holistic view and I look forward to seeing what their new strategy comes out with it.

Source link

February 3, 2025
These Are the Top 10 AI Prompts Every University Student Needs to Succeed (2025)

Listen up! If you’re a university student, you’re juggling deadlines, lectures, and endless assignments.

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed. But here’s the truth—success isn’t about working harder, it’s about working smarter. And AI? It’s your secret weapon.

Imagine cutting study time in half, getting crystal-clear explanations, and never staring at a blank screen again. These ten AI prompts will supercharge your learning, boost your productivity, and give you the unfair advantage you’ve been looking for. Let’s go!

#10. Article Summarizer

Prompt:
“Summarize the following article in clear and simple terms, keeping the response under 300 words. Focus only on the key takeaways, eliminating unnecessary details and technical jargon. Ensure the summary maintains the original meaning and does not misrepresent any information. If the article contains complex theories or dense academic language, rephrase it in an accessible way without oversimplifying critical ideas.”

Explanation:

University students are constantly bombarded with lengthy readings, from dense research papers to complex textbook chapters.

The problem? There’s only so much time in a day. This AI prompt is designed to extract the essential information, stripping away excess while preserving the core meaning. Whether you’re preparing for a class discussion, writing a paper, or just trying to understand a difficult concept, this tool saves time and enhances comprehension.

Instead of struggling through pages of convoluted academic writing, you get a clear, structured summary that lets you grasp the key points fast.

#9. Concept Simplifier

Prompt:
“Explain [insert concept] in simple terms, as if to someone without prior knowledge of the topic. Use clear language and everyday analogies, avoiding technical jargon while preserving accuracy. If the concept is abstract, provide a relatable example to illustrate its meaning. Keep the explanation under 200 words, ensuring that it remains informative without being overly simplified.”

Explanation:
Some academic concepts are so complex they feel impossible to understand. Whether it’s an economic principle, a scientific theory, or a philosophical idea, breaking it down into simple language makes learning faster and more effective. This prompt forces AI to act like a great teacher—one who doesn’t just repeat definitions but makes knowledge accessible. The key is balance: simplifying without distorting. By using this, students gain a deeper understanding, making it easier to apply what they’ve learned in discussions, essays, and exams.

#8. Thesis Statement Generator

Prompt:
“Generate three strong, well-structured thesis statements on [insert topic]. Each thesis should take a clear stance and be arguable, avoiding vague or obvious claims. Ensure that each one provides a foundation for a structured essay, with room for supporting arguments and counterarguments. If possible, vary the focus of the thesis statements to cover different angles of the topic.”

Explanation:
Crafting a strong thesis statement is one of the hardest parts of writing an essay. A weak thesis leads to a scattered argument, while a strong one provides direction and clarity. This AI prompt ensures that students start with a solid foundation, giving them multiple thesis options that they can refine based on their specific argument. By exploring different angles, it also helps students think critically about their topic instead of settling for the first idea that comes to mind. A well-crafted thesis is the backbone of any persuasive essay, and this tool eliminates the guesswork.

#7. Essay Outline Builder

Prompt:
“Create a detailed essay outline for an argumentative essay on [insert topic]. The outline should include an introduction with a strong thesis statement, at least three body paragraphs with clear topic sentences and supporting evidence, and a conclusion that reinforces the main argument. Ensure the structure is logical and that each point builds upon the last. If relevant, include a counterargument section to strengthen the essay’s persuasiveness.”

Explanation:
Starting an essay from scratch can feel overwhelming, especially when trying to organize thoughts into a logical flow. This AI prompt removes that barrier by providing a structured outline that acts as a roadmap for writing. Instead of wasting time figuring out where to start, students can focus on developing their ideas and refining their arguments. A clear outline ensures that essays are well-organized, persuasive, and easy to follow—making the entire writing process faster and more effective.

#6. Study Plan Optimizer

Prompt:
“Create a personalized study schedule for the next [insert timeframe] based on the following subjects: [list subjects]. Prioritize subjects based on difficulty and upcoming deadlines, ensuring balanced study sessions. Incorporate review time for previously learned material and schedule short breaks to maximize focus. The plan should be realistic and flexible, avoiding burnout while maintaining steady progress.”

Explanation:
Cramming at the last minute is one of the biggest mistakes students make, leading to stress and poor retention. A well-structured study plan ensures that learning is spread out efficiently, reinforcing knowledge instead of overwhelming the brain. This AI prompt helps students optimize their time, ensuring that they focus on high-priority topics without neglecting review sessions. By incorporating breaks and flexibility, it also prevents burnout, making study sessions more productive and sustainable.

#5. Counterargument Generator

Prompt:
“Provide three strong counterarguments to the following perspective: [insert argument]. Each counterargument should be logical, well-supported, and address potential weaknesses in the original claim. Avoid strawman arguments and instead focus on real, credible objections. If possible, include examples or evidence to strengthen each point.”

Explanation:
Critical thinking isn’t just about defending your own position—it’s about understanding and addressing opposing viewpoints. This prompt helps students develop stronger arguments by forcing them to consider counterarguments and refine their reasoning. Whether for a debate, an essay, or a class discussion, recognizing alternative perspectives makes arguments more persuasive and well-rounded. Instead of blindly defending a stance, students learn to anticipate challenges and respond with logic and evidence, strengthening their overall reasoning skills.

#4. Text Simplifier

Prompt:
“Rewrite the following text in clear, concise language while maintaining its original meaning. Eliminate unnecessary jargon, complex sentence structures, and overly technical terms. The revised version should be accessible to a general audience without losing important details. Keep the response under [insert word limit] and ensure readability at a high school level.”

Explanation:
Academic writing is often dense and difficult to digest, making it challenging for students to quickly grasp key ideas. This prompt helps break down complex information into straightforward language without oversimplifying critical details. Whether it’s for reviewing difficult readings, paraphrasing for research papers, or making study materials more accessible, this tool ensures that students can understand and communicate ideas clearly. Simplicity isn’t about dumbing down—it’s about making information usable.

#3. Discussion Question Generator

Prompt:
“Generate ten thought-provoking discussion questions on [insert topic]. The questions should encourage critical thinking, analysis, and debate rather than simple yes/no answers. Ensure a mix of conceptual, ethical, and real-world application questions to deepen understanding. Avoid generic or overly broad questions, focusing instead on specific angles that spark meaningful discussion.”

Explanation:
Engaging in classroom discussions isn’t just about speaking—it’s about asking the right questions. Strong discussion questions push beyond surface-level answers and encourage deeper analysis. Whether preparing for a seminar, leading a study group, or refining an argument, this prompt helps students generate meaningful questions that drive insightful conversations. It forces them to think beyond memorized facts and into the realm of interpretation, debate, and application—where real learning happens.

#2. Academic Jargon Translator

Prompt:
“Rewrite the following passage in clear, everyday language without losing its meaning. Maintain accuracy while eliminating unnecessary jargon, overly complex vocabulary, and convoluted sentence structures. Ensure that the revised version is understandable to someone without a background in the subject, but still retains the key concepts. If necessary, provide a simple example to illustrate difficult ideas.”

Explanation:
Professors and researchers often write in ways that feel like decoding a secret language. While technical terms have their place, they can make learning harder when concepts get buried under unnecessary complexity. This prompt helps students strip away the clutter and focus on what truly matters: understanding the core ideas. Whether it’s a confusing textbook passage, a dense research paper, or an academic journal article, this tool ensures that students can actually absorb the material—without spending hours deciphering it.

#1. Professional Email Composer

Prompt:
“Write a professional email to [insert recipient] regarding [insert topic]. The email should be clear, concise, and respectful, maintaining a formal but approachable tone. Include a polite greeting, a direct explanation of the purpose, and a specific request or question. Ensure proper grammar and formatting, avoiding overly casual language or unnecessary details. If appropriate, conclude with a call to action and a professional closing statement.”

Explanation:
Communicating effectively with professors, advisors, and peers is a critical skill in university—and one that many students struggle with. A poorly written email can come across as unclear, unprofessional, or even disrespectful. This prompt ensures that messages are well-structured, polished, and to the point. Whether asking for an extension, clarifying an assignment, or requesting feedback, this tool helps students sound professional while maintaining a friendly and respectful tone. In academic and professional settings, the way you communicate matters, and this prompt makes sure you get it right.

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Source link

February 2, 2025