Tag: University

Higher education postcard: University of the Balearic Islands

Oh this year we’re off to sunny Spain! (If you’re old enough, you’ll know.) But we’re not taking the Costa Brava plane, instead we’re off to Mallorca.

In 1483 King Ferdinand of Aragon (yes, that one; half of the double-act Ferdinand and Isabella) authorised the establishment of the Estudi General Lul-Lià in Palma, on the island of Mallorca. This was a college named in honour of Ramon Llull.

Ramon Llull, philosopher and theologian, who lived from 1232 to 1316, and was a native Mallorcan. The entry for him in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy – it’s linked at the start of this paragraph – merits a read. Even if you don’t grasp the philosophical bits, the history and biography is quite something. I like him for three reasons. First, he was a unifier: trying to bring together philosophy, theology and mysticism into one body of knowledge and practice. Second, he wrote in languages that people could read: he was the first philosopher, for example, to write in vernacular Catalan. And finally, he believed that it would be possible to convert people to Christianity from Islam and Judaism by means of rational argument. As they say in the south of the USA, bless his heart.

Anyway, back to the main strand. The college acquired its first owned premises in 1561, and by 1673 it was granted a Papal Bull by Pope Clement X, recognising it as the Royal and Pontifical Literary University of Mallorca. It drafted statutes in 1692 which were approved by King Carlos II of Spain in 1697: the Pontifical, Royal, and Lulian Literary University of Majorca was on the map!

The university moved hither and thither in Palma over the next couple of centuries until, in 1835, it was disestablished. I can’t give chapter and verse as to why this was, but as at that time Spain was engulfed in a monumental civil war, contesting the succession to the throne and the nature of the monarchy (absolute or constitutional), I suspect it had to do with notions of bringing the former Aragon (which included the Balearic islands) back into line. But, this may be absolutely wrong – and if anyone who knows Spanish history can tell the story here, that would be great!

And so from 1835 students in the Balearic Islands had to go to mainland Spain to undertake higher study: there was no university.

Until in 1949 the University of Barcelona established what we would now call a branch campus in Mallorca, offering programmes in philosophy and philology at a reconstituted Estudi General Lul-Lià. In 1972 two further faculties were added: sciences, sponsored by the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and arts, sponsored by the University of Barcelona. A faculty of law was subsequently added and, in 1978, the branch campus became the University of Palma.

The university continued to expand, with campuses on Ibiza and Menorca, and in 1985 it became the University of the Balearic Islands.

Here’s a jigsaw of the card – it’s a tough one this week. The card itself shows, in the main, the rather splendid basilica of Santa María de Mallorca. But if you look about halfway up the left had side of the card, there’s a white building just to the left of the left-most of the cathedral’s four towers. And just behind that you can see roofs, one of which is the roof of the Estudi General, which is now a cultural centre.

This week’s card was requested by, and is in honour of, Susannah Marsden, who is a big fan of Mallorca. As always, if there’s a university you’d like me to feature, let me know in the comments!

Source link

May 29, 2025
Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

There’s a huge story going on right now in Australian higher education, one that hasn’t made many ripples outside the country yet, but really should have.

In January of 2026, two of the country’s major universities will be merging. The old research intensive University of Adelaide, one of the country’s so-called sandstone — meaning prestigious — universities, will be joining with the newer post Dawkins i.e., created in the early 1990s, University of South Australia, which began its life as the South Australian Institute of Technology.

The new institution, Adelaide University, will be a behemoth of a multiversity, among the five largest institutions in the country. I’m fairly certain I’m right in saying this is the largest merger ever of two anglophone universities. But there are a lot of questions about how this is gonna work out. How will the new institution manage to maintain two separate missions? One is a research institution and one is an access institution. How can two very distinct cultures be bridged? And also, how do you create a distinct curricular or pedagogical identity for a new institution?

With me today is David Lloyd. He’s the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia, and until the merger happens, also the Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Adelaide, and as you probably guessed, he’s one of the architects of the merger.

In the course of this interview, we cover a range of issues such as what are the benefits of mergers? Why these two institutions? Why now? And how on earth do you possibly make a merger of this scale actually work? I can’t do any of this justice in an intro, so let’s just turn it over to David.

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.33 | Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

Transcript

Alex Usher (AU): David, why merge these two institutions—and why now? What made this the right moment to bring these two very different institutions together?

David Lloyd (DL): I guess sometimes we joke and say there’s never going to be a better time. I’m not sure there ever is a perfect time. In this case, it’s not our first attempt. Ever since UniSA was established in 1991, people have questioned why another university was needed in South Australia.

Right now, though, the political landscape is aligned in support of this. There’s institutional ambition on both sides of the ledger—coming from different motivations, but ultimately converging. You’ve got leaders who’ve known each other for a long time, strong financial positions in both institutions, and a shared history—we came very close before. We nearly merged in 2012. We nearly did it again in 2018. So in some ways, it’s like—third time lucky.

AU: What do you gain together that you don’t already have apart? What’s the advantage here?

DL: One of the biggest advantages is scale. Australian universities are large organizations. UniSA has about 40,000 students and Adelaide has about 30,000. So combined, you’re looking at 70,000 students—which makes it a $2.1 billion enterprise. It’s a big operation. Now, big isn’t automatically better, but it does mean you’re more financially robust and resilient.

At that scale, the student mix is also important—about 75% domestic and 25% international on day one. That gives you a really strong foundation, making the institution more shockproof in the face of events like the pandemic or future geopolitical disruptions. You get a very robust organization.

And then, if you think about how you can leverage the cash flow of a $2.1 billion enterprise into applications and resources—it throws off a lot more than each institution could alone. That gives you a real capacity for investment.

AU: You said this isn’t your first go at this, right? That this is actually at least the second time, that I know of, that this has been considered. So take us back. Presumably, at some point after 1991, as UniSA grew from being an old technical institution into what it is now, there would have been various moments when people said, “Hey, there are gains to be had from a merger.” Over this long period—20 or 30 years—what were the big turning points? When did the light go off and people say, “Aha, we should definitely do this”?

DL: I think it goes back to the origins of the institution in the 1990s. When the policy came through under the Hawke Labor government—John Dawkins was the Minister for Education at the time—the creation of new institutions was happening across the country.

In that formative period, you had faculties and activities from what had been an Institute of Technology and a College of Advanced Education. There was a bit of a shop-around approach—people were saying, “Well, these parts could go to University X, or those parts could go to University Y, or we could put them together and create something new.” And in South Australia, that led to the creation of a new university.

So you went from a town with two institutions—the old, established sandstone University of Adelaide, and Flinders University, a 1950s construct—to suddenly having this new kid on the block in 1991. And it quickly became a real challenger to the other two. It grabbed a large share of the domestic market and drove the participation agenda. The national driver at the time was to increase tertiary attainment, and suddenly, a lot of people who’d never gone to university had access.

Then you fast forward to 2012. There was a desire at that time—between the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide—to pursue a merger. It didn’t go through, for all sorts of reasons. I think mostly small, local considerations. Peter Høj—who’s now my co–Vice Chancellor at the new Adelaide University—was the Vice Chancellor of UniSA back then. He left to run the University of Queensland.

And I was recruited to lead UniSA after that particular push toward merger had fizzled. So I came into an institution that had thought about merging, had moved somewhat in that direction, but ultimately hadn’t done it.

Then in 2018, the same kinds of conversations came up again. These things tend to resurface when there’s a leadership change. When a Vice Chancellor leaves, people say, “Well, we could hire a new one—or we could merge the universities.” It’s a very simple framing, but it does come up.

In 2018, that cycle happened again. We went quite far down the road exploring a merger. There was a public process. But in the end, UniSA withdrew. We said no, and we said no because of the business case. What was being articulated at that time didn’t look like something that would take the goals and ambitions of the institution to where we believed it needed to be—especially not given the overhead that would come with creating a new university.

So things settled down again—until we got to the conditions we talked about earlier, the ones that make this moment feel like the right one.

AU: Let me just ask you—based on what you’ve described, why, from the University of South Australia’s perspective, is Adelaide the right merger partner? Why not Flinders?

DL: Yeah, yeah, that’s a really good point. I can tell you that in the various machinations over the years—and I’ve been here now for 13 years—there have definitely been times when I thought, you could actually end up with quite a different landscape in South Australia. UniSA and Flinders could have come together to create a kind of younger, more modern university that would have competed in the domestic market against the older, more established University of Adelaide. That would’ve created a local differentiator.

But the combination that actually came about—and the reason we are where we are today—has a lot to do with a key political shift. In 2021, while still in opposition, the now state government released a policy position saying that, if elected, they would establish a merger commission to examine the merits of a combination—with a view to making it happen. It was a very clear and determinative policy.

They believed a merger had been a missed opportunity in the past and were committed to a process that would determine the next steps. That put universities in an interesting position. You had the prospect of an external body telling you, “You have to merge—and here’s who you’re going to merge with.” That creates a real risk of losing institutional autonomy and control.

What stood out in that policy position, though, was the stated ambition to create a university that could rank sustainably in the global top 100. If you look at different combinations, a UniSA–Flinders merger wouldn’t get you there—at least not without a significant uplift in investment. But a UniSA–University of Adelaide merger could. And so that becomes one of the key factors shaping the path we chose.

AU: There’s one other country that’s really moved in this direction, specifically with the goal of getting institutions into the global top 100, and that’s France. Right? You’ve seen a lot of that in places like Lyon and Paris. Did you spend much time looking at the dos and don’ts from the French experience—or from any other international mergers?

DL: We did spend some time on that. There’s quite a bit of jurisdictional variability when it comes to amalgamating institutions. The example we really studied, with a kind of weather eye on how to do this properly, was the creation of the University of Manchester.

But that was quite a while ago now. When we looked at the French experience, what stood out was that their approach often seemed to involve putting a veneer of amalgamation over existing institutions and then dropping a kind of cash bundle on top to make the veneer hold together. So it’s less the creation of a single institution and more the creation of an amalgamated system. From our perspective, this is a non-trivial exercise. We didn’t want to just have an umbrella that said, “This is a merged university.” We wanted to create a new university.

And from UniSA’s side, the conditions for entering the process were very clear: we would create a new institution—with its own mission, its own purpose—its own values, and all of those things. That’s not really what the French model does. But one interesting lesson from the French approach was that if you apply that veneer—and if you’re something like Paris-Saclay—you can be considered a young university again, which is an intriguing outcome. The Sorbonne, for example, is now viewed as a young university again.

That was an interesting insight into how these things are perceived. So for us, the goal was to do this really well—to create an integrated, new institution. That way, we’d have the benefits of a young university, with all the pedigree and legacy behind us too.

AU: David, I assume—though I’m not sure exactly what process you used—there was some kind of letter of intent or memorandum of understanding that said, “We’re going to do this, and we’re serious.” How does the planning process unfold from there? Once you’ve done the initial feasibility and assured each other you’re acting in good faith, how do you move through the bottlenecks of institutional governance, stakeholder engagement, and all those kinds of things? How do you get to the finish line?

DL: Um, great tenacity—I think that’s key. Peter and I started this as an informal conversation back in 2021, and we’re planning to open the doors of the new university on the first Monday of 2026—January 5th. So it’s a long road from informal talks to delivering a functional, operational, competitive institution.

On the plus side, we had very strong intent from the state government to enable this. In our system, it’s the state government that legislates the creation of universities. But then you also have to negotiate with the federal government to be recognized as an Australian university—

AU: And funded.

DL: Exactly. So, at the local level, we could establish a corporate body, but we still needed legislation to pass through the house. It was much more complex than just signing an MOU.

We actually had to draft legislation and, mechanistically, we created a new corporate entity—a new university—that sits alongside the two existing ones. So when I’m co–Vice Chancellor of the new Adelaide University, I’m still the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia. These are independent and autonomous institutions—one of which is actively creating the other, even while the original continues to exist legislatively. It’s quite an unusual construct.

On the federal side, this goes back to why now. The current federal government—a Labor government—has a strong agenda around widening participation. When we approached them and said, “We’re going to have the largest population of domestic Australian students of any institution in the country,” that positioned us as a sovereign educator. We’re delivering an equity and participation agenda at a scale no other Australian university can match. That naturally leads to a conversation about: how do they help us set it up?

AU: As I understand it, you’ve got some kind of transition council. I’m not sure if that’s a joint council for both institutions, or if each has its own. How does that work? Who’s on that council making the nitty-gritty decisions? And how do you make sure everything stays on track?

DL: That goes back to the legislation. Adelaide University was formally established in legislation in March 2024. That legislation created a council—capital “C”—with the word “transition” in front of it, which gives you a sense of its purpose.

The composition of that council was agreed upon by the two institutions, determining how to populate the board of this new university from the existing boards of UniSA and the University of Adelaide. It was set up as a 50/50 split between the two, with UniSA having the right to appoint the chancellor of the new university. That was one of the key elements in the background negotiations—like why it’s called Adelaide University and not the University of South Australia.

In fact, the act establishing the new university is based on the University of South Australia Act, and UniSA retained the right to appoint the transition chancellor.

But functionally, this council operates as a fully independent university council, completely autonomous from the two existing institutions. Everyone who joined the council had to step off their former boards and now acts solely in the interest of the new institution, as required by law.

What the council does is provide a governance framework for the executive to work within. It approves the strategy, but it’s the executive team—originally Peter and myself, along with a team drawn from both universities—that brings forward the decisions.

Now, we’ve started appointing deputy vice chancellors who are employees of the new Adelaide University. We’ve brought forward a strategy that actually originated in the business case—a white paper—that both universities had independently agreed was in their best interests.

If you go back to 2022, we were asking: What will we create? What should it look like? Why are we doing this? How much will it cost? We built a strong business case and rationale. That was then translated into a strategy for the new institution—one that doesn’t just cover the start in 2024, but runs all the way through to 2030. That’s when we aim to have a fully established, steady-state university of scale, delivering everything we set out to achieve: a purposeful, excellent institution.

AU: One thing that’s really struck me about this process—watching it from 8,000 miles away—is how remarkably smooth it seems to have been. Mergers often stir up a lot of turbulence, especially with alumni communities. And while I don’t know the geography of Adelaide very well, I imagine there can be tensions if one part of town gains certain things and another part doesn’t.

Then there’s the fact that your two institutions have different origins, stories, and areas of specialization—but still quite a bit of overlap in terms of departments and programs. That’s usually where the real head-butting happens: getting people to play nicely together. But you seem to have managed that really well. What’s the secret to a smooth merger?

DL: Well, part of it is that this is our third attempt—so maybe it’s third time lucky. As I said earlier, this isn’t our first rodeo. This has been considered before, so there was a certain inevitability in the way we presented it this time. There was a clear policy position, enabling legislation, and strong support from the government behind us.

But that only takes you so far. You can’t just rely on top-down directives. People can still dig in their heels. If the message had been, “We’re doing this because we were told to,” we could’ve faced a lot of turbulence.

Instead, what we had were two universities that went through their own internal processes—through their academic boards, their senates—and independently concluded that creating this new institution was in their best interest, and in the best interest of the state. So both came to the table willingly, but from different perspectives.

Each institution had a view of what it would give up—and what it would become. This is really a baton pass from both organizations to something new.

And when we looked at the mechanics of creating that new institution, we didn’t take a “lift and shift” approach. We didn’t just bundle together the activities of both universities under a single umbrella. We committed to building a new structure. We committed to delivering a new curriculum. We agreed to design everything—program content included—through a forward-looking Adelaide University lens, rather than from the perspective of UniSA’s past or Adelaide’s past.

And what was remarkable—and maybe a bit fortuitous—was the way our people responded. Let’s say we brought together two marketing faculties. We told them, “We want you to design a new curriculum that takes the best of both.” And instead of any sense of loss or resistance, what we got was strong academic alignment in shaping that new product.

We did that across the board—wherever we had overlapping programs: two business degrees, two law degrees, two science degrees. The faculty teams who had once been institutional competitors came together and asked, “If we start with a blank piece of paper—not with the past—what would the ideal program look like?”

And that approach has been incredibly unifying. Thousands of academics have gone through that process already, and many more will continue to do so between now and 2030.

AU: You’re talking about new programs here. What’s striking, again from a distance, is the early commitment to pedagogy—a move away from the traditional lecture system. As I understand it, the institution committed to moving away from in-person lectures. Have I got that right? Is that the plan?

DL: I love having these conversations—especially when the 8,000-kilometer view is, “You guys aren’t going to have lectures anymore.”

AU: That’s why we’re having this conversation, David!

DL: Exactly. And we had a similar conversation in Beijing when we were on stage launching the new brand. Journalists there were asking the same thing. But no, we are not getting rid of lectures.

What we are getting rid of is the idea that students just sit in a room while someone talks at them for an hour, and then leave—as if knowledge has magically transferred from the person at the podium to the students in the seats. Instead, we’re aiming for much richer, more engaging classroom experiences.

These will still be face-to-face, but students will come prepared. The foundational content—the pre-reading, the prerequisite material—will be delivered online. We’ll expect students to engage with that before attending the in-person component, whether it’s a workshop, tutorial, or some other interactive format.

And that core online content is being designed so it can also stand alone. If you’re not physically in South Australia, you’ll still be able to engage with the material from anywhere—across the country or internationally.

AU: So, it’s flipped classrooms at scale?

DL: Yes. Exactly.

AU: That’s a significant pedagogical shift. It’s not something you’d typically get from individual departmental committees. Was there wide buy-in for that? Because even when you frame it as flipped classrooms rather than online classes, it still feels like a big change for academics across a wide range of disciplines.

DL: Yeah, and I think in a post-COVID era, that shift is more understandable. The pandemic showed us all that you can go online—and do it either really well or really poorly. But if you do it well, students can have a great experience.

We’ve anchored all of our structural decisions through the lens of student experience and student success. And the evidence we have shows that, when done right, students actually report better experiences with these kinds of blended or flipped models than they do with traditional, lecture-heavy formats.

If you go back to one of UniSA’s strengths: in 2018, we created a division called UniSA Online. Higher education bodies now say we’re number one in Australia for online education—and top ten globally. That means we already had a strong engine for content creation and pedagogical design.

Now we’re layering that into an institution with the generational pedigree and academic reputation that the University of Adelaide brings. So together, the new Adelaide University will have a really compelling mix.

And to be clear—it’s not a wholesale replacement of everything that came before. The academic content is still owned by the faculty. What’s changed is how that content is curated and presented in the online environment. That curation is handled institutionally, but the ownership remains firmly with the academics.

AU: We’re a little more than seven months away from opening day. I have two questions: what are you most looking forward to in all of this? And what do you think the global implications are—what lessons might institutions outside Australia take from this?

DL: Yeah. The first part—this has been nearly a five-year journey for me, getting this institution to the point of opening. On a personal level, my daughter is just finishing a diploma with the University of South Australia. She’s about to start her degree in the next few weeks, entering mid-year. So she’ll begin at UniSA just as it officially ends—and she’ll graduate from Adelaide University in, hopefully, three years’ time.

So I have a very real hope that we’ve managed to build an institution that will empower her, her peers, our colleagues, and future learners—to be successful, to find meaningful employment, and to have a great experience along the way. That’s not the reason we did all this, of course, but when I look at the outcomes we aimed for, I want to see that we’ve hit the metrics we set.

It’s a very ambitious strategy. But we’ve had the financial resources and a long runway to plan—something only a whole-of-institution change like this could make possible.

Personally, I’m really looking forward to 2030. That’s when I want to look back and assess whether we’ve achieved what we set out to do. Not necessarily from inside the organization—Peter and I won’t be the Vice Chancellors next year. We’ve made a conscious decision to hand over to a new leader who will carry this strategy forward.

But I want to see how they reach those milestones based on the breadcrumbs and trail we’ve laid down. And in the next few months, we’ll see the inaugural rankings for this institution as we move into its first year of operation. I’m quietly confident we’ll meet our targets.

And I’ll admit—part of me is looking forward to proving the doubters wrong. The ones who said, “You can’t do this. You’ll go backwards. It’s dilution.” I want them to be left eating humble pie. Glen Davis—the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, now working in the Prime Minister’s department—once said to me, “Good luck as you attempt the impossible.” And if we pull this off, that’s where the real satisfaction will come from.

AU: And from an international perspective—what should others learn from this?

DL: I think what we’re demonstrating is that there are two ways to approach a merger. You can put up an umbrella, apply a veneer, and say, “Here’s a system.” Or you can take a planned, deliberate, mindful approach—what I wouldn’t call a leap of faith, but an investment in doing it properly.

And that means proper integration. Proper consideration of what it means to deliver a new organization—not just on paper, but in culture, structure, and purpose. If you do that, you can create something that really is more than the sum of its parts.

I think we’re showing what’s possible.

AU: DL, thank you so much for being with us today.

DL: Pleasure. Thanks, Alex.

AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

Join us next week, when our guest will once again be Brendan Cantwell from Michigan State University. You may remember him from last fall’s episode, when he suggested—based on a close reading of Project 2025—that a second Trump administration might shift from a culture war posture to one of active sabotage and destruction of the higher education sector. We’ll see whether he can resist saying, “I told you so.” Bye for now.

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling.

Source link

May 29, 2025
The Largest American University Endowments (Adjunct Noise)

Source link

May 28, 2025
Norwegian princess chooses Australia to attend university – Campus Review

A future monarch of Norway, Princess Ingrid Alexandra, will relocate to Sydney in August to study at the University of Sydney.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

May 28, 2025
A code of ethical university governance is overdue
It’s a thankless job being a university governor at the best of times.

The structures and hierarchies – established over decades, even centuries – feel impenetrable.

You’re overwhelmed with papers and reading, never completely sure what’s going on at meetings.

Statutes and ordinances, rules and regulations, sub-committees and working groups. And all this you’re doing for free?

But during precarious times for the sector, the job gets even harder. Income lags further behind expenditure. The funding model seems loaded against you.

Doubt sets in. Have you really been holding institutional managers robustly to account? Are those course closures and staff redundancies really unavoidable?

Behind the seens

Governing bodies are the highest authorities in most institutions. Structures vary from one university to the next, as does the language of governance.

But in England, all boards are legally accountable to the sector regulator, the Office for Students, and hold significant powers, up to and including the authority to remove the vice chancellor if they so choose.

However, governing bodies remain a reticent and mostly unseen grouping. Students and staff may occasionally glimpse members at award ceremonies or public events, but closer forms of engagement tend to be discouraged (or carefully managed).

On policies that reshaped the sector in recent decades, like the 2012 fee rise, governors had little to say. During Covid, one commentator was moved to ask if anyone had seen the governing body.

Another had previously dismissed governors as “a small cadre talking amongst themselves.” Until a media exposé in 2018, almost all UK vice chancellors were members of the sub-committee that made recommendations on their own pay.

A 2019 investigation found “significant and systemic” failings in one governing body.

Yet many individual governors continue to invest substantial time and effort into their never-more-important role – lay members can bring vital external expertise to a sector that has too often been inward-looking and naïve, and staff and student members can help institutional managers see the campus from a ground-level perspective.

Last year, the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) conducted interviews with current or former governors at over forty English universities.

While most reported enjoying the opportunity to learn how universities operate, the same issues arose time and time again:
- Membership was demographically and ideologically narrow, resulting in “business realist” discourses that privileged the university’s finance and estates over its educational purpose
- Chairs were too close to senior managers to bring meaningful “challenge”;
- Cliques had emerged, leading to some members’ views carrying more weight than others;
- Power dynamics were problematic;
- Meetings of the main board sometimes served as rubber-stamping exercises for decisions already taken;
- Processes were reported to be opaque, with few governors understanding how the agenda was set, or knowing how to have an item added.
More worryingly, as OfS has increased the burden of regulatory and legal compliance, so governing bodies appear to have become more ideologically compliant. The logic of the market goes unchallenged, and the whims of policy-makers and the sector regulator courteously indulged.

Surprisingly, this critique emerged from lay members as strongly as from elected staff and student governors.

Relevant, useable and inclusive

Now the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) has launched a consultation for its new Code of Ethical University Governance. The sector already has a Higher Education Code of Governance, authored by the Committee of University Chairs (CUC Code) – the new Code supplements this, while presenting a vision of university governance that is more relevant, more useable and more inclusive.

Practical advice is offered to all members on what to expect from governance, how to navigate complex organisation structures, and – most crucially – how to impact decision-making processes.

The consultation is necessary so that the Code can be a co-produced document, capturing as many perspectives as possible. So please consider completing this short survey if you’re a current or former governor, a student, a university employee, someone with other connections to the higher education sector, or someone with no connections at all to the higher education sector.

So far, governing bodies have mostly avoided using their potentially formidable powers to intervene as the sector has been politicised and defunded. Over 10,000 campus jobs are currently at risk, and 40 per cent of universities face budget deficits.

But the aim of the Code is not to look backwards, let alone to apportion blame. It is to help give future generations of university governors the confidence and wherewithal to bring genuine, meaningful challenge.

At a time when higher education needs urgently to reclaim its status as a prized public asset, governing bodies have a duty to surpass the Nolan principles, and operate to the very highest standards.

The CDBU’s Code of Ethical University Governance may be the first step towards nudging governors beyond compliance, and empowering them to speak out. The long-term goal is for governing bodies to see their role as standing up for communities of students and staff, and for the value of higher education to everyone.

The draft Code can be found here, and the consultation here.
Source link
May 27, 2025
Philander Smith University Names Dr. Maurice Gipson as 15th President

Dr. Maurice GipsonPhilander Smith University’s Board of Trustees has appointed Dr. Maurice D. Gipson as the institution’s 15th president and chief executive officer, the university announced Thursday.

Gipson has served as interim president since August 2024.

“We are incredibly proud to name Dr. Maurice Gipson as our 15th President and Chief Executive Officer,” said Board Chair Dr. Tionna Jenkins, a 2001 alumna. “He brings not only the experience and strategic insight needed for this moment, but also a heartfelt understanding of what makes Philander Smith University so special.”

Gipson most recently served as Vice Chancellor for Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity at the University of Missouri’s flagship campus. In that position, he oversaw more than 120 staff members and managed a multi-million-dollar budget for the 30,000-student institution.

His career in higher education administration spans more than a decade, with previous leadership positions at Arkansas State University, the University of Texas at Austin, Wiley University, and Huston-Tillotson University. Gipson also previously served a four-year term on Philander Smith’s Board of Trustees, where he chaired the Governance Committee and served as vice chairman.

A scholar specializing in African American history, Black nationalism, and the Black freedom struggle, Gipson is currently writing a book about the Black Freedom Struggle in Arkansas. He holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of Mississippi, a Juris Doctor from Southern University Law Center, a master’s degree in history from Missouri State University, and graduated from Louisiana State University. He is also a licensed attorney.

“I am deeply honored to lead this historic institution at such a critical time,” Gipson said. “Philander Smith University has long been a place where transformation takes root—for students, for families, and for communities.”

Source link

May 23, 2025
Higher education postcard: University of Greater Manchester

Greetings from Bolton. Definitely Bolton.

In 1824, a mechanics’ institute was established in Bolton. Mechanics’ institutes were a new phenomenon – the first was established in Scotland in 1821. They were, in essence, a subscription-based club which provided an opportunity for education, aimed at the better-off members of the working class.

As the 1857 advert in the Bolton Chronicle shows, it was still going fifty years later.

You can see the 1857 subscription fees in the advertisement. It’s hard to directly read across into today’s prices, because costs and wage structures change so much over the years. On a straightforward inflation calculation, using the Bank of England calculator, the annual fee would be about £50 today, which is a bit of a bargain. But comparing wages makes this feel different – for example, an average agricultural wage in 1857 was just shy of 11 shillings a week, so the subscription would be a quarter of a week’s wages. (And note also that the annual fee of ten shillings was just the quarterly fee multiplied by four. No discounts here for upfront payment.)

The curriculum looks good, but elementary: school rather than higher education. And this makes sense – many people would have had minimal schooling. Only about 70 per cent of the population could read and write. And so a good basic education didn’t hurt.

By the late 1880s there was a groundswell of opinion that Bolton needed better. As reported in the Bolton Evening News of 1 December 1886, the new chairman of the Mechanics’ Institute, Mr John Haywood MA, argued that:

In Manchester, they are content with one well-equipped technical school; whereas in Bolton we must, forsooth, have three struggling institutions, with the result, as far as the Mechanics’ is concerned, that the progress made is in the direction of increased debt.

The newspaper continued: “Mr Haywood thinks that Bolton has gone mad on sectarian and political distinctions when its young men cannot even sit on the same form to receive technical education.”

And so in 1887 the committee of the Mechanics’ Institute agreed to establish a technical school. A committee was established, which raised funds, but found itself short; and an appeal was made to the county council. And in 1891 the Bolton Technical School opened.

In 1926 Bolton Technical School became Bolton Technical College, and in 1941 a new building opened – that shown on the card – which enabled a broader range of courses to be offered. Engineering was, apparently, the most popular.

In 1964 the college bifurcated, splitting the lower and higher level education. Bolton Technical College focused on FE, and the Bolton Institute of Technology focused on higher studies.

A brief aside is now necessary, to introduce another institution, the Bolton Training College. This focused on training teachers for technical subjects and was one of three in the country doing this (the others being in Huddersfield and at Garnett College, in London). I’m afraid I can’t tell you when it was founded, but it is clear that there was a threat to close it in the 1950s, happily averted.

And in 1982 the Bolton Institute of Technology merged with the Bolton Training College to form the Bolton Institute of Higher Education. This gained taught degree awarding powers in 1992, research degree awarding powers in 1996 and became a university in 2004.

In December 2024 the university changed its name, becoming the University of Greater Manchester. And in what is becoming a bit of a busy year for the university, in governance terms, it was placed under enhanced OfS monitoring in February and suspended its vice chancellor in May. Let’s see what June and July bring for the university.

The postcard was sent in October 1961 to Miss Medley in Andover.

Dear Janet, Today I am going through to Blackpool to see “West Side Story”. The week has flown by, and tomorrow I shall have to return to the quiet South from the lively North. Love Jillian

And here’s the customary jigsaw – hope you enjoy it. Comment below if you can identify the cars.

Source link

May 22, 2025
UniSA, University of Adelaide retain staff numbers after merger – Campus Review

University of South Australia vice-chancellor David Lloyd told a parliamentary committee meeting on Monday that 2,767 academic staff were transferred to the new Adelaide University last Saturday.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

May 21, 2025
EEOC Initiates Investigation Into Harvard University Over Racial Discrimination – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | May 19, 2025

On April 25, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, issued a Commissioner’s Charge against Harvard University announcing that the EEOC is investigating whether “Harvard may have violated and may be continuing to violate Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion (including but not limited to tenure decisions), compensation, and separation decisions; internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs.”

The charge also covers “entities managed by, affiliated with, related, or operating jointly with or successors to” Harvard University. This includes the institution’s medical school, school of public health, and school of arts and sciences, as well as the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, among others. The investigation will look back to 2018 for potential discrimination.

As Acting Chair Lucas explains in the charge, the allegations “are based on publicly available information regarding Harvard, including, but not limited to, documents and information published on Harvard and its affiliates’ public webpages (including archived pages); public statements by Harvard and its leadership; and news reporting.” The charge references documents that were on Harvard’s website, including resources that tracked its decade-long progress to diversify its faculty, but these documents have since been deleted from the university’s website.

Lucas highlights data showing a 10% drop in white men among “all ladder faculty” from 2013 to 2023 and the corresponding 10% increase in total women, nonbinary, and faculty of color in the same time span. She also points to the increase in the percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty that are women, nonbinary, and/or people of color. Acting Chair Lucas believes Harvard took “such unlawful action in an effort to achieve, in Harvard’s own words, ‘demographic diversification of the faculty.’” Moreover, Lucas claims, “there is reason to believe that these trends and the underlying pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and sex have continued in 2024 and are ongoing.”

The charge also emphasizes that various programs hosted by the university and its affiliates — including fellowship programs, research opportunities, and other initiatives targeted toward underserved groups, including Black and Native American students — demonstrate disparate treatment by the university and its affiliates against White, Asian, male, and straight applicants and training program participants.

The EEOC’s Commissioner’s Charge is the latest escalation of the battle between Harvard and the Trump administration, which has frozen or paused billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, and initiated a task force to investigate the university’s behavior towards Jewish students. The Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services are also investigating the university, including for race-based discrimination.

In a letter in response to the Department of Education, Harvard explained:

“Employment at Harvard is similarly based on merit and achievement. We seek the best educators, researchers, and scholars at our schools. We do not have quotas, whether based on race or ethnicity or any other characteristic. We do not employ ideological litmus tests. We do not use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in our hiring decisions. We hire people because of their individual accomplishments, promise, and creativity in their fields or areas of expertise, and their ability to communicate effectively with students, faculty, and staff. And we take all of our legal obligations seriously, including those that pertain to faculty employment at Harvard, as we seek to offer our students the most dynamic and rewarding educational experience that we can.”

CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this charge and other relevant enforcement activity at the EEOC.

Share This Article:

Source link

May 19, 2025
University Finance and Managing the Margins of Error
- By Huw Morris, Honorary Professor of Tertiary Education at the Institute of Education, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, and Richard Watermeyer, Professor of Education at the School of Education, University of Bristol.
- Over the weekend, HEPI blogged on the possible consequences for universities and students of a new UK / EU agreement – see here.
The financial challenges currently facing UK universities, as revealed by last week’s report from the Office for Students, have focused attention among university leaders, government policy makers and media commentators, as well as higher education staff and students, on four things:

What has received less attention are variations between universities in the number of students recruited in general and international students in particular, as influenced by perceptions of institutional quality, and the wider incomes and costs of this provision. It is these things which impact on institutional margins, their surpluses and losses, and determine their longer-term financial sustainability. Most importantly, there are very big differences between universities when assessed by these measures. With a HM Treasury Spending Review and a Department for Education Higher Education White Paper expected imminently, it is these wider institutional economics and financial management issues which are the focus of this article.

Higher Education Statistics (HESA) data reveals a very mixed pattern of financial activity and performance among the 302 higher education institutions that filed accounts for 2022/23, the last year for which full records are available. Income from all sources, including tuition fees, research funds, government grants, endowments and other miscellaneous sources for these organisations, has ranged from £84,000 at the Caspian School of Academics to £2.5 billion at the University of Cambridge. Despite such wide variance, 88 institutions are responsible for over 80% of the income; within this group, the 24 members of the UK’s Russell Group of research-intensive universities account for the lion’s share (47.3% despite attracting only 25.8% of total student numbers). This mismatch between volume and income is explained by the financial margins of course provision.

The costs universities incur are similar. Salaries for academic, professional services and support staff vary, but national pay bargaining and pension arrangements mean that the differences are not great. Meanwhile, the costs of campus buildings per square metre and the unit costs of equipment are similar. So, while there are significant differences in the number of staff, size of university estate and scale of expenditure on equipment, most institutional leaders are alert to the key metrics that help to marshal these aggregate costs. The big difference in costs is in supporting research activity, with the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) data revealing £4.6 billion a year of unfunded activity. This is a measure of the research activity undertaken by university academic staff, which is not supported by research funds and appears to be undertaken within hours nominally allocated to other things, such as teaching and administration. It is this and related figures that the Minister of State for Skills is referring to when she challenges universities to be more transparent with the information they provide on their use of public money.

At a UK level, information on this activity is not hard to find. Table C.1.2. of the OECD’s Education at a Glance reveals that the UK has a higher level of expenditure on research and development per HE student than the US, despite very much lower levels of Gross Domestic Product per capita. The proportion of unfunded research activity varies considerably between institutions and is lowest among Russell Group universities and highest among institutions that are seeking to increase activity from a lower base.

What is understood by most university leaders, but less commonly by policymakers and the media, is the vital role of operating margins in determining whether a university is financially sustainable. The role of margins is best illustrated by comparing two fictional universities.

University A is a large research-led institution that offers a wide range of courses to home and overseas students. In 2021/22, in keeping with the average Russell Group university, one third of its students were recruited from overseas and its position in the Chinese Academic World Ranking of Universities (AWRU) – and to a lesser extent the QS and THE World rankings – enabled the university to charge fees of £80,000 for its MBA programme, £60,000 per year for its Medicine degree to overseas students, and £20,000 per year for its doctoral programme. These high fees and the large volume of students applying for a limited number of places generated sufficient margins (gross surplus) to subsidise the costs of the less remunerative courses for home students in subject disciplines such as English Literature where the full-time undergraduate degree fee is £9,535 per year. This was important because the cost of these courses with the higher charging courses for international students was typically twice the £9,535 per full-time student income earned from UK students, not least because of the costs of the providing time and resources for staff research in these disciplines where there was no grant income to support this activity. These funds also provided the financial resources to underpin some of the research work of academic staff and their professional services colleagues.

The picture is less rosy at University B, a large former polytechnic, with a much lower ranking in international league tables and which is consequently less competitive in attracting Chinese international students. Instead, University B is dependent on recruiting first-generation international students; students typically from less wealthy families, unable to afford the premium fees charged at University A. At University B, the fee for an MBA is £20,000, although this is often discounted and then diluted by recruitment agency fees. The high sticker price and subsequent use of discounting is used because the advertised fee is a marker of quality and the discount fee is used to draw the student in by adjusting the amount to what they can afford and flattering them into believing the university wants them for their talents. University B does not have a Medical school and so a comparator fee is not available, but the fee for an international student on a science and technology degree is £18,000. When diluted by agents’ fees and discounted prices, this fee may drop below the costs of provision. Finally, the PhD course fees of £5,000 per year only cover half the running costs in order to attract students who will help to boost external assessments of the research undertaken by this university.

Figure 1. Course prices and costs compared

The net effect of the combination of different course prices and costs at University A and University B is that the former is making significant gross surpluses and the latter is making significant gross losses. It is important to note that this pattern of surpluses and losses is also evident in the financial performance of other university services, including, for instance, franchise courses in the UK and overseas, student accommodation, conference facilities, catering and other services. This is because the prices charged by institutions with less auspicious reputations and league table positions are lower than those of their competitors, but the costs are similar.

There are also issues associated with capital requirements (the need for funding to pay for the renewal and replacement of buildings and other assets) and risk exposure (the extent to which future activity is certain and predictable). The number of young British people wanting to study at UK universities has historically been predictable, and while there has been competition between universities, this competition has rarely led to institutional failure. Institutions may have got smaller, closed courses, and on occasion merged, but they have not been forced into insolvency. Such relative assurance may wane in future as risks rise and the need to renew and replace buildings and other capital assets grows.

We might, for instance, reasonably anticipate increased risk associated with international student recruitment where geopolitical and concomitant financial volatility impact the inward migration of students into UK universities. While we have already witnessed the inhibitory effects of visa rule changes, we can reasonably expect exchange rate fluctuations and changes to the proclivity of overseas governments to fund students studying in the UK to further increase these risks. In the medium term, a requirement to maintain a high ranking in international university league tables, as corresponding justification for high fee charges, compels sizable financial investment in buildings, equipment, and staff to maintain the research performance.

Assessment of university performance in the AWRU, QS and THE World University rankings is dependent on research performance measured by citations and, in the case of the QS and THE specifically, the reputation of the institution in the eyes of senior leaders in other universities and the opinions of employers. These ratings are influenced by past rankings and impressions of campus quality. In the long term, maintaining these league table positions is likely to become more demanding for three reasons.
- First, the drive by governments in many other countries to create their own ‘world-class’ universities leads to an increase in the costs of competing and a consequent decline in margins.
- Second, the growing prominence of philanthropy and alumni giving looks set to make up an increasing proportion of the funding of highly ranked institutions, though this is less of a feature in UK higher education. In the USA, for example, higher education endowment is around $800 billion and is growing by 150% per year. Endowments now account for 50% of the income of Harvard University and a very sizeable proportion of the income of other Ivy League and American research-led institutions. Of course, whether this remains the case in the face of challenges from President Trump’s new administration remains to be seen.
- Finally, in the longer term (10 to 30 years), it seems reasonable to predict that developing countries in the Global South will develop their own higher education provision, and the number of young people travelling overseas to study will reduce, as is being encouraged by the China-Africa 100 University plan and similar initiatives.
The lessons of this analysis for institutional leaders and their governing bodies and councils are that they should broaden their focus to consider the operating margins on all their activities, (that is, teaching, research, accommodation, conferences, room and equipment hire) as well as the investment requirements to maintain this performance in the medium to long term. Without engaging in these types of analysis, the risks of cashflow problems will grow and the longer-term sustainability of these institutions will be jeopardised.

The lesson for governments is that they should look at the real costs of different courses and focus the funding that is made available through student loans and grants on those activities which will provide the greatest sustainable private and public benefit in the long run. This means aligning the funding with future needs, as defined by assessments in the NHS Workforce plan and the analyses by Skills England, Local Skills Improvement Plans and the UK shortage occupation list and, where this is not the case, subject areas where it seems probable that the student loans will be repaid. If institutions wish to fund programmes that fall outside these lists, then they can subsidise these courses with surpluses made from other activities. The issues outlined above also mean that the pressures facing institutions are different, and it is probably beyond the capability of the Department for Education and the Office for Students to oversee the transitions that will be needed in many of the 452 higher education institutions in the UK. To handle these changes will require additional leadership, management and governance resource and ideally greater local and regional stewardship for most institutions.
Source link
May 19, 2025