Tag: University

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln leader reduces program cuts from 6 to 4

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln leader reduces program cuts from 6 to 4

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

    Dive Brief:

    • University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s chancellor on Monday unveiled a final budget recommendation that would cut four academic programs at the university, two fewer than he originally proposed in September.
    • However, Chancellor Rodney Bennett’s new plan would eliminate two programs that a university committee voted to recommend keeping. His proposal also comes amid concerns raised by faculty over program evaluation metrics and the budget reduction process.
    • The program cuts would trim $6.7 million from UNL’s budget, mainly through doing away with roughly four dozen full-time equivalent jobs. Bennett’s proposal also calls for merging four academic departments into two new schools and reducing budgets at four UNL colleges.

    Dive Insight:

    Ultimately, Bennett proposed axing UNL’s departments of Earth and atmospheric sciences; educational administration; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design — all as part of an effort to save $27.5 million annually to address a structural deficit. 

    He spared two programs that he recommended cutting earlier: landscape architecture, and community and regional planning. The University of Nebraska System’s regents plan to consider Bennett’s final recommendations at their December meeting. 

    Bennett’s initial proposal — and how he arrived at his recommended cuts — drew opposition from affected faculty and other stakeholders.

    Based on hearings and nearly 3,000 filed comments, UNL’s Academic Planning Committee — made up of faculty, staff, administrators and students — voted in October to oppose closing four of the programs in Bennett’s original plan. 

    Two of those programs — statistics, and Earth and atmospheric sciences — are nonetheless on the chopping block in Bennett’s final plan. 

    The committee didn’t oppose Bennett’s plans to cut the educational administration and textiles programs, or to merge UNL’s departments of entomology and plant pathology into one interdisciplinary school and the departments of agricultural economics and agricultural leadership, education and communication into another.

    However, the committee called on Bennett and UNL leaders to extend the timeline for making existential decisions about any of the programs. 

    “We strongly recommend to the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Regents that the approval of any budget cuts be delayed allowing time for units to identify creative alternative solutions that reduce or prevent the need for these cuts,” the committee said in an Oct. 24 memo. But Bennett and UNL leaders appear undeterred and are sticking with their original timelines. 

    The committee also pointed to concerns raised by UNL stakeholders about the metrics and data that officials used to decide on programs. 

    Faculty members have said that the data was incomplete and sometimes incorrect and that the administration wasn’t transparent with them about how programs were being statistically evaluated. They also contended that the programs’ full value to the university and state weren’t taken into account. 

    UNL officials reviewed the programs “in accordance with performance metrics that align with UNL standards and external accountability frameworks,” Bennett said in a public message Monday. “The metrics were also shaped through extensive consultation in the spring with academic deans, college leadership teams, department executive officers and the APC.”

    Still, some faculty continued to slam the metrics for a lack of transparency. 

    “What are these new performance expectations, and where do we find them?” Sarah Zuckerman, an educational administration professor at UNL and head of its American Association of University Professors chapter, said in a Tuesday blog post titled “No Real Metrics, Only Vibes.” UNL’s AAUP chapter has actively opposed the cuts. 

    Zuckerman added, “This feels like not only have administrators changed the rules of the game while it is still being played, but they didn’t bother to tell us.”

    UNL’s faculty senate plans to consider a no confidence vote for Bennett on Nov. 18 over his handling of the budget cuts.

    Source link

  • Transitioning to the Agentic University 2026–27

    Transitioning to the Agentic University 2026–27

    The dramatic enhancement in the capability of AI as it moves from bots to agents will bring about efficiencies and have a far greater impact on the day-to-day operations, strategies and effectiveness of our institutions. We will become less expensive, more personalized and more responsive to students and employers. Those are big claims, so for this column, I turned to my personal assistant, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro on Nov. 1, 2025, to help me with identifying the pathway to those outcomes.

    Caveats

    In this article, I can only hit the high points along the way in developing an agentic AI–enhanced university. This is merely a broad-brush, incomplete view that each university should adjust and enhance in order to meet its structures and needs. I also encourage you to read the valuable McKinsey article “Deploying agentic AI with safety and security: A playbook for technology leaders,” published on Oct. 15, 2025, for important security and safety information.

    Gemini Pro prefaced its recommendations with:

    This is the central strategic challenge for the next 36 months. The institution has successfully navigated the first wave—generative AI, which is about creating content. You are right to be concerned about the second, more powerful wave: agentic AI, which is about taking action.

    Where generative AI is a research assistant, an agentic AI is a 24/7, autonomous project manager. It can understand a high-level goal (e.g., “increase retention for first-generation students”), create a multi-step plan, execute that plan across different software systems and learn from its mistakes without constant human prompting.

    Competitors will use this to create profound operational efficiencies and new, hyper-personalized student services. The institutions that wait will be competing on price and quality against a rival that has automated its back office and given every student a personal AI adviser.

    This will take significant thought and planning across the university. It will be important that we include all members of the university community to make this a coordinated, comprehensive change that will significantly advance the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the institution. Timing is important. We must begin immediately if we hope to have major changes in place before the end of 2027. Let’s begin!

    First Half of 2026 Foundation and Vision

    We will need an executive task force with the knowledge, resources and shared vision to accomplish this task. Gemini recommends we be sure to include:

    • Chief information officer: To map the data and systems.
    • Chief financial officer: To identify cost-saving opportunities and fund pilots.
    • Provost: To champion the academic quality and student-facing initiatives.
    • VP of enrollment: To represent the entire student life cycle (recruitment to alumni).
    • VP of operations: To represent the “back office” (HR, grounds, facilities).

    The executive task force will want to set up opportunities for input and support of the initiative. Perhaps the first step will be to seek ideas of whether the first order of priority should be quality improvement (hyperpersonalization of services to the learners) or cost efficiency (operational excellence). Both of these will be needed in the long run in order to survive the agent-enabled competition that will be both of higher quality and less expensive. In seeking input on this choice, universitywide awareness can be fostered. Perhaps a broad university forum could be scheduled on the topic with smaller, targeted follow-ups with faculty, staff, students, administrators and external stakeholder groups scheduled as the initiative proceeds.

    One of the first steps of the executive task force will be to perform a universitywide Agent Readiness Audit. Since agents run on data and processes, we need to identify any data silos and process bottlenecks. These will be among our first priorities to ensure that agents can perform work smoothly and efficiently. Resolving these may also be among the most time-consuming changes. However, removing these data roadblocks can begin to show immediate progress in responsiveness and efficiency.

    Second Half of 2026 Into Spring 2027 Pilot and Infrastructure

    Gemini suggests that a good starting point in the summer of 2026 would be to set up two pilots:

    • Cost-Saving Pilot: The Facilities Agent
    • Goal: Reduce energy and maintenance costs.
    • Action: An AI agent integrates with the campus event schedule, weather forecasts and the building HVAC/lighting systems. It autonomously adjusts climate control and lighting for actual use, not just a fixed timer. It also fields all maintenance requests, triages them and dispatches staff or robotic mowers/vacuums automatically.
    • Quality-Improvement Pilot Example: The Proactive Adviser Agent
    • Goal: Improve retention for at-risk students.
    • Action: An agent monitors student data in real time (LMS engagement, attendance, early grade-book data). It doesn’t replace the human adviser. It acts as their assistant, flagging a student who is at risk before the midterm and autonomously executing a plan: sending a nudge, offering to schedule a tutoring session and summarizing the risk profile for the human adviser to review.

    Our most significant centralized expense will be to set up a secure digital sandbox. The pilots cannot live on a faculty member’s laptop. The CIO must lead the creation of a central, secure platform. This sandbox is a secure environment where AI agents can be developed, tested and given access to the university’s core data APIs (e.g., SIS, LMS and ERP).

    Gemini reminds me that, concurrently, we must set up a new entity. The generative AI rules were about plagiarism. The agentic AI rules must be about liability. The new entity is a kind of Agent Accountability Framework. It deals with policy questions such as:

    • Who is responsible when an agent gives a student incorrect financial aid advice?
    • What is the off-switch when an agent-driven workflow (like course wait lists) creates an inequitable outcome? Who has authority to flip the switch?
    • By whom and how are an agent’s actions audited?

    Implementation Across University Through Fall 2027

    There will be many personnel and staffing topics to address. By the summer of 2027, we should be well on the way to refining roles and position descriptions of employees. The emphasis should be efficient, enhanced redesign of roles rather than staffing cuts. Some cuts will come from normal turnover as staff find more attractive opportunities or retire. In most cases, employees will become much more productive, handing off their redundant, lower-level work to agents. For example, Gemini Pro envisions:

    • The admissions counselor who used to answer 500 identical emails now manages a team of AI agents that handle the routine questions, freeing the counselor to spend one-on-one time with high-priority applicants.
    • The IT help desk technician no longer resets passwords. The technicians now train the AI agent on how to troubleshoot new software and directly handle only the most complex, level-three issues.
    • The human adviser now manages a caseload of 500 students (not 150), because the AI assistant handles 90 percent of the administrative churn, allowing the adviser to focus on high-impact mentoring.

    Gemini Pro suggests that this approach can result in a higher-quality, more efficient university that will be able to compete in the years ahead. The final step is the most critical and is the job of everyone, from the president and board on down. We must champion a culture where AI agents are seen as collaborators, not replacements. This is a human-AI “co-bot” workforce.

    The institutions that win in 2027 will be those that successfully trained their managers to lead mixed teams of human and AI employees. This is the single greatest competitive advantage one can build.

    This framework will position the university not just to survive the agentic AI wave but to lead it, creating an institution that is both more efficient and, critically, more human-centered.

    Source link

  • Pricing strategy: the missing lever in university sustainability

    Pricing strategy: the missing lever in university sustainability

    This blog was kindly authored by Vincenzo Raimo, an international higher education consultant, with analysis from CIL Management Consultants.

    UK universities face an increasingly constrained financial landscape. Across all four nations, domestic undergraduate tuition fees are regulated and have failed to keep pace with rising costs. In England, the cap is currently £9,535 and, following the UK Government’s recent announcement, will rise annually in line with inflation from 2026, with eligibility linked to standards. This modest change does little to reverse years of real-terms decline, leaving much of the UK’s undergraduate teaching provision structurally loss-making. In Wales, fees remain capped at £9,535; in Northern Ireland they are £4,855; and for Scottish-domiciled students studying in Scotland, there are no tuition fees at all.

    In this environment, attention naturally turns to those parts of university income that are unregulated, most notably fees for international students and postgraduate programmes. Master’s fees for home students are unregulated in all four nations, and universities are free to set their own international tuition rates.

    Much of the public debate has focused on the fee levels charged by some higher-ranked universities and the narrative that international students subsidise domestic education and research. While this is certainly true for many institutions, it is far from universal.

    Once scholarships, discounts, agent commissions and other costs of acquisition are deducted, the margins on international student recruitment can be modest, and sometimes non-existent. For a growing number of institutions, particularly those struggling to fill domestic places, international recruitment at low net revenue levels has become a way of keeping the lights on. Better, in some cases, to have some income to cover fixed costs than none at all.

    But this is not a sustainable strategy. If international recruitment is to continue underpinning the financial viability of UK universities, much greater attention needs to be paid to pricing strategy.

    The price–profit relationship

    CIL Management Consultants recently analysed how UK universities can use pricing more strategically to support growth and profitability. Their work highlights just how powerful pricing can be as a financial lever compared with more commonly pursued strategies such as chasing volume or cutting costs.

    Their analysis included an illustrative calculation based on a scenario where a university charges tuition fees of £25,000 per international student, enrols 50 students on the course, and incurs a cost of acquisition of £4,000 per student (including scholarships, discounts and agent commissions).

    Under this model, a 5% increase in tuition fees would generate around a 6% uplift in profit, outpacing the gains from a 5% rise in enrolments (around 5%) or a 5% reduction in acquisition costs (around 1%). In other words, price is the strongest profit lever available to universities.

    Despite this, most institutions have historically set their international and postgraduate fees through incremental adjustments or by reference to competitors’ published fees, often without examining what those institutions actually charge in practice, and with little systematic consideration of how those fees influence volume, cost, and overall margin.

    Understanding the margin challenge

    CIL’s work also reinforces what many sector leaders already know: margins are being squeezed from all directions.

    • Capped domestic fees leave undergraduate teaching structurally loss-making for many institutions.
    • Rising operational costs, particularly staff, energy, and estates, continue to erode surpluses.
    • High fixed cost bases limit flexibility, with cuts risking reductions in quality or capacity.

    In this context, the international market has become the pressure valve. But unless pricing is managed strategically, even international markets will fail to deliver the surpluses universities depend upon.

    Three levers for strategic pricing

    CIL identify three main levers universities can use to improve pricing power and strengthen their financial position:

    1. Premium to domestic tuition fees: establishing deliberate price differentials that reflect a university’s strategic positioning, course value, and market dynamics. Currently, most universities operate with only a few broad fee bands, typically with humanities and much of the social sciences in the lowest band, lab-based subjects higher, and business or MBA programmes at the top.

      A true pricing strategy would be far more nuanced. It would use evidence on student demand, graduate outcomes, and perceived market value to differentiate pricing across and within disciplines, rather than relying on legacy bands. Some programmes could justifiably command greater premiums; others might need lower pricing to maintain competitiveness or support diversity.

    2. Cost of acquisition: developing clear internal pricing rules to manage scholarships, discounts, and agent commissions. For many institutions, these often-hidden costs now absorb a significant share of international tuition income. Transparent frameworks for managing these levers are essential to protect margins.
    3. Responsive pricing: using dynamic adjustments during the application and enrolment cycle to optimise both numbers and yield. This approach, widely used in other sectors, allows universities to flex pricing and incentives in response to market performance, course capacity, and demand signals.

    When applied together, these levers can transform a reactive pricing approach into a proactive, strategic tool for sustainability.

    From volume to value

    The sector’s dominant mindset has too often been volume-driven: more international students, more income. Yet volume without margin is a dangerous illusion of success. CIL’s analysis reminds us that an overreliance on high-volume, low-margin recruitment can rapidly undermine financial resilience, particularly when acquisition costs are rising.

    Strategic pricing, by contrast, focuses on value, identifying where universities can sustain premiums, where scholarships genuinely drive conversion, and where cost reductions can be achieved without compromising quality or reputation.

    This is not simply a commercial exercise. It’s about ensuring that the financial model underpinning UK higher education remains viable enough to support teaching, research, and public value in the long term.

    Making pricing strategic

    For universities, developing a coherent pricing strategy means integrating finance, recruitment, marketing, and academic planning functions around shared objectives. It also means looking across all offerings to ensure fee levels reflect the real value, demand, and cost to deliver each programme.

    Above all, it requires cultural change. Pricing cannot be left to annual cycles of incremental uplifts or reactive discounts. It needs to become a core component of institutional strategy linked to brand, market position, and mission.

    Pricing for purpose and sustainability

    Price should not be treated as a purely commercial consideration or an uncomfortable topic best left to finance teams. It is a strategic tool that, when used intelligently, can help universities balance their academic mission with financial sustainability.

    A well-designed pricing strategy can sustain access by ensuring that scholarships and discounts are targeted where they make the greatest difference; it can maintain quality by protecting the resources needed to deliver excellent teaching and research; and it can enable innovation by generating the headroom for new programmes, partnerships and investment.

    Reframing price as part of a university’s purpose, rather than as an administrative exercise or a market reaction, allows institutions to align financial decisions with their educational and societal goals. It invites governing bodies and senior leaders to ask not just what can the market bear, but what price best reflects the value we deliver, the students we want to attract, and the impact we want to have?

    If the UK sector is to thrive amid constrained funding and rising costs, it must learn to price with both principle and precision. Getting price right is not about maximising income; it is about ensuring that universities remain able to deliver their mission sustainably for the long term.

    Source link

  • Deakin University underpaid staff $3m – Campus Review

    Deakin University underpaid staff $3m – Campus Review

    Deakin University has found it underpaid casual staff $2.9 million over the last eight years, adding to the growing list of wage underpayments in the sector.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Regis University Partners with Collegis Education to Modernize IT Infrastructure and Strengthen Denver’s Higher Ed Innovation Footprint

    Regis University Partners with Collegis Education to Modernize IT Infrastructure and Strengthen Denver’s Higher Ed Innovation Footprint

    Multi-year collaboration to strengthen cybersecurity, streamline systems, and drive operational innovation across campus.

    DENVER, Colo. — [November 11, 2025] — Regis University today announced a new five-year partnership with Collegis Education, a nationally recognized provider of higher education technology and data solutions, to modernize and strengthen the university’s IT infrastructure. The collaboration marks a major step in Regis’ ongoing digital transformation strategy, designed to enhance cybersecurity, improve data integration, and deliver more efficient, 24/7 technology services across campus.

    In the fall of 2023, Regis launched a comprehensive assessment of its IT infrastructure. The results made clear that gaps in existing systems limited the university’s ability to serve students, faculty, and staff efficiently. Addressing these challenges required reimagining how technology services are delivered to ensure systems are reliable, responsive, and aligned with the needs of a modern learning environment.

    “Technology is foundational to how we teach, learn, and work, and this partnership represents a major investment in Regis University’s future,” said Stephanie Morris, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Regis University. “Partnering with Collegis allows us to modernize our IT operations, strengthen security, and provide a more unified and responsive experience for our community, all while maintaining our commitment to operational excellence and fiscal responsibility.”

    Regis selected Collegis through a competitive RFP process, following staff recommendations based on prior positive experiences with the company at other institutions. Throughout the evaluation, Collegis distinguished itself by demonstrating a deep understanding of universities’ operational complexities and by recognizing the central role technology plays in supporting teaching, learning, and student success. 

    As part of the partnership, Collegis will help Regis integrate core systems, including Colleague, Salesforce, and Workday, to create a more seamless experience for students, faculty, and staff.  This will allow Regis to improve efficiencies, access diverse levels of expertise, provide 24/7 service availability, and improve system integrations. 

    The collaboration will provide Regis with access to a broad range of higher education IT expertise and scalable resources. Collegis’ team will collaborate closely with Regis leadership to deliver high-performing systems, improved uptime and reliability, and integrated data systems that strengthen university operations and inform decision-making.

    “We are proud to partner with Regis University, an institution with a deep commitment to innovation and service,” said Kim Fahey, CEO of Collegis Education. “Our role is to help Regis leverage technology to empower its mission to support a secure, connected, and efficient digital ecosystem that enhances the student experience and strengthens institutional resilience.”

    Under the agreement, Collegis will assume management of day-to-day IT infrastructure operations, while Regis will continue to oversee technology strategy and governance. Faculty, staff, and students will continue to access support through familiar channels—including the online self-service portal and ITS help desk—with the added benefit of 24/7 availability and expanded system monitoring.

    The transition will take place over the coming year, with listening sessions and open forums held throughout the process to ensure transparency, collaboration, and feedback from the Regis community.

    “Partnership success is realized when operational excellence, trust, and shared purpose combine to deliver reliable technology services; improved faculty, staff, and student experiences; and measurable value to the university’s mission,” said Morris. “With Collegis as a strategic partner, we will be able to evolve to meet changing institutional needs and empower our faculty to teach, our students to learn, and our community to thrive.”

    About Regis University

    Established in 1877, Regis University is a premier, globally engaged institution of higher learning in the Jesuit tradition that prepares leaders to live productive lives of faith, meaning and service. Regis University, one of 27 Jesuit universities in the nation, has two campus locations in the Denver metro area and extensive online program offerings with more than 6,000 enrolled students. It is a federally designated Hispanic-Serving Institution. For more information, visit www.regis.edu.

    About Collegis Education

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

    Media Contacts:

    Collegis Education

    Alyssa Miller

    [email protected]

    973-615-1292

    Regis University

    Sheryl Tirol

    [email protected]

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

    Source link

  • What does specialisation for a university mean in a defence-led economy?

    What does specialisation for a university mean in a defence-led economy?

    Every Monday at 11.30am, a siren echoes across Plymouth.

    It’s the routine test signal to take cover in the event of a nuclear incident and a haunting sound that reminds us that Devonport dockyard – western Europe’s largest naval base, and the area’s biggest employer – dominates the edge of our city.

    It’s also a timely signal that Plymouth is entering a new era of defence-driven growth – and the University of Plymouth is right in the middle of it.

    Being special

    The words specialism and specialist appear frequently in the Government’s recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper. So, what moves do we make, here in Plymouth, and what does our approach suggest for the higher education sector more broadly?

    As I begin my second year as vice chancellor, I’ve seen Plymouth shift from a city with potential to one with purpose – shaped by maritime defence, marine autonomy, and national security. The city is one of five places allocated a Defence Growth Deal, alongside Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Yorkshire. The newly formed “Team Plymouth” is bidding for a share of the £250 million in funding announced alongside that, and has been also designated as the UK’s National Centre for Marine Autonomy. And all of this is within a context where £4.4 billion is being invested into Devonport over the next ten years in support of our national deterrence and assurance of our maritime infrastructure upon which our freedoms depend, with the promises of further billions in the decades to come.

    But this isn’t just about submarines. It’s about how the city’s largest university steps up – not only because investment in defence research and development is good news for us (see the politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending), but because there is a national and international imperative to protect our seas. We have a role to play – and, I would suggest, a duty – in delivering the skills, innovation, and dual-use technologies needed to do this better and faster than others.

    Our university is globally recognised for its work in all things marine and maritime – notably in sciences and engineering – but our offer also spans subject areas from the arts, humanities and a business school, through to providing national resilience of a different kind via our faculty of health (including both medicine and dentistry) which holds more than 40 per cent of our students. Civic specialisation doesn’t mean that only part of the university needs to step up. This opportunity is not just about engineers; every discipline has its role to play in ensuring we support and deliver a rich array of graduates and researchers.

    The future of defence

    Defence has changed significantly since the Russian invasion into Ukraine back in February 2022, and international conflict is the current mother of invention. The need for autonomous devices on and under the sea, and the pace of innovation, demands diverse skill sets: creatives, technologists, business leaders, psychologists, project managers and more. And, as our city grows through the “defence dividend”, there will be new jobs, higher aspirations, reduced inequality, improved health, better housing, a more vibrant culture, and stronger communities. Along with this will be a demand for artists, historians, lawyers, doctors, nurses, dentists and more.

    But there is some jeopardy, and colleagues are asking reasonable questions. Is this a distraction, just when we need to continue to be extra-focused and vigilant about being a well-run, efficient university offering students the best possible experience?

    Compared with strategic shifts universities have made in the past, this one feels like a well-founded decision. Devonport isn’t going anywhere. CASD runs until at least 2070. Defence funding is long-term and strategic – unlike some other sources we’ve all banked on that have since disappeared (remember the Global Challenges Research Fund?). Furthermore, we’re not abandoning our legacy of innovation in areas like microplastic pollution, trans-cranial ultrasound, and sustainability. If defence is the bow wave, then behind it can be a flotilla of other opportunities.

    The White Paper asks us to specialise; we’ve done it before (for example marine sciences, offshore renewable energy) and will do it again. But we also serve the South West of England. We have won three Queen’s Anniversary Prizes, and colleagues often proudly cite the 1994 award for partnering with further education providers and widening access to education in a scattered rural community. To stop doing that kind of work because we disinvested from some disciplines where there is demand would be a mistake. Specialism must be balanced with serving our communities in Devon, Cornwall and the wider region.

    Right place right time

    We’re the right university in the right city at the right time. Plymouth has been leading the way in tackling maritime cybersecurity for years. But now we’re at the centre of the UK’s marine autonomy agenda, we need to grow. And there are big questions to answer: how many graduates will be needed, in what disciplines, taught in what mode, and at what level? How do we work across HE and FE to build clearer, more exciting pathways for 16 and 17-year-olds into jobs in defence and other sectors, or retraining and upskilling adults who want to progress or change their careers? Getting the views of businesses, the Ministry of Defence and others, then sharing intelligence across the education sector will be vital to helping us make the best decisions.

    Some vice chancellors have had to navigate sensitive situations around the defence industry on campus, with links to defence businesses being scrutinised. I am sure that will happen here, and we will have the discussion – we are a university and welcome debate. But maritime defence has been in Plymouth’s DNA for generations, as a naval port of vital strategic importance. Also, the technologies we develop have more than one application – one person’s defence alert system is another’s environmental monitoring equipment.

    We need to move fast, because others outside the UK will. And we are up for it. If Cranfield is our nation’s defence aerospace university, Plymouth is poised to become its marine autonomy counterpart.

    The stakes are high – not just because of financial pressures on universities, but because this challenge is about the UK’s security, on and under the sea. And it’s about how universities like Plymouth adapt to a new kind of industrial strategy.

    Source link

  • Big university endowments grew 11.5% in FY25, TIFF says

    Big university endowments grew 11.5% in FY25, TIFF says

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Amid volatile markets and shifting investment strategies, big U.S. university endowments posted their second straight year of double-digit gains, according to an analysis from TIFF Investment Management. 
    •  Endowments worth over $1 billion that have reported earnings so far made average returns of 11.5% in fiscal 2025, TIFF found. That’s on top of 11.2% average annual returns experienced sectorwide the previous year, according to the National Association of College and Business Officers-Commonfund endowment study. 
    • The strong earnings from college endowments come as Republicans aim to convert more of those funds into government revenue. “The Endowment Tax is coming,” the TIFF report noted.

    Dive Insight:

    Of the colleges that have reported their endowment earnings, the University of Wisconsin-Madison posted the highest return rate at 16.2%, followed by one of the University of California’s fund pools (15.8%) and the University of Michigan (15.5%).  

    For now, endowments have enjoyed strong returns and minimal, if any, federal taxes. The TIFF report attributed strong growth in fiscal 2025 — which ended in the summer for universities that recently reported — to outperforming private investments, such as in private equity and venture capital. Within private equity, investments in growth and pre-IPO companies in particular helped boost earnings. 

    For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s endowment — the top-performing among a group of elite colleges that also includes the Ivy League and Stanford University, with a return rate of 14.8% — had a little over a third of its assets in private equity, according to TIFF. University of Michigan had 9% in private equity and 28% in venture capital. 

    Endowment returns were also helped along by strong performances in both equities and bonds in what TIFF described as “an unusual year,” with both safer and higher-risk securities yielding returns amid broad economic concerns. International equities, artificial intelligence-related stocks, like Nvidia, and other diversifying investments such as gold also gave endowments a lift, TIFF said. 

    Endowment returns will face new pressure in 2026. The massive spending bill signed by President Donald Trump this summer is set to raise taxes next year on the richest private university endowments by multiple percentage points. 

    The current endowment tax — a flat rate of 1.4% enacted in 2017 — only applies to the wealthiest few dozen endowments in the country. 

    The spending bill creates a tiered tax system for colleges with 3,000 or more tuition-paying students that starts at 1.4% on returns for endowments valued at $500,000 to $749,999 per student. It then jumps to 4% and 8% based on endowment assets per student. 

    For the largest endowments, that translates into a tax bill of many millions of dollars per year. Harvard University, for example, anticipates it will pay $300 million a year to the government, CFO Ritu Kalra said in October. That compares to $44 million in taxes and other fees in fiscal 2024.

    “That means hundreds of millions of dollars that will not be available to support financial aid, research, and teaching,” Kalra said in an official Q&A following the release of the university’s annual financials. 

    Yale University President Maurie McInnis said in July the tax will cost the institution around $280 million in its first year and likely more after that. 

    Even universities with smaller tax bills are also anticipating financial pain. 

    In July, Washington University in St. Louis’ leader cited in part an estimated $37 million in additional costs from the new taxes in explaining the need for budget measures. WashU has laid off 316 staffers and eliminated another 198 unfilled positions since March.

    Source link

  • How to reform university governance in the UK – The Post-18 Project

    How to reform university governance in the UK – The Post-18 Project

    Advance HE (2025) Shaping the future of higher education governance: Ten priorities to enhance higher education governance. News & Views. London: Advance HE.

    Berenschot (2017) Van toezicht naar verantwoording: rapportage hoger onderwijs [From Supervision to Accountability: Higher Education Report]. Utrecht: Berenschot.

    Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur (2013) Een lastig gesprek: rapport van de Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur [A Difficult Conversation: Report of the Committee on Proper Governance]. The Hague: Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur.

    Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur (2013) Een lastig gesprek. Over de (interne) dialoog in semipublieke instellingen [A Difficult Conversation: On the (Internal) Dialogue in Semi-Public Institutions]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.

    Commissie onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis (2012) Autonomie verplicht: Rapport onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis [Autonomy required: Report on the financial problems at Amarantis]. Den Haag: Commissie onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis.

    Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025) Post-16 Education and Skills. White Paper CP 1412. London: HM Government.

    Dickinson, J. (2024) ‘We could change the governors, we could change the governance’, Wonkhe blog, 24 January.

    Dickinson, J. (2025) ‘From where student governors sit, Dundee isn’t the only institution with governance challenges’, Wonkhe blog, 24 July.

    Education, Children and Young People Committee (2025) Stage 1 Report on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.

    Gillies, D. (2023) Governance and the public good: the future of higher education governance in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

    Gillen, S. (2023) Building better boards: How to govern for sustainable success. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Goodijk, R. (2012) What’s wrong with supervision in semi-public organisations? Failing supervisors, abuses and suggestions for improvement.

    Jones, S. & Harris, D. (2024) University governance: views from the inside. Council for the Defence of British Universities.

    Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (n.d.) Wet normering topinkomens (WNT).

    Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (2021) Evaluatie wet versterking bestuurskracht [Evaluation of the Law to Strengthen Governance]. Brief regering, Kamerstuk 34 251, Nr. 95. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.

    Office for Students (2019) “Statement on De Montfort University investigation”

    Office for Students (2024) Draft strategy 2025 to 2030. Consultation document. London: Office for Students.

    Office for Students (2024) Subcontractual arrangements in higher education. Insight brief. London: Office for Students.

    Office for Students (2025) Annual financial sustainability analysis: Financial performance and resilience of English higher education providers 2025-26. London: Office for Students.

    Rijksoverheid (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verantwoorde invulling van rijksinspecties [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Responsible Role for National Inspectorates]. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.

    Savage, N. (2025) ‘Weekend Reading: Provoking changes in higher education, some reflections on governance’, HEPI blog. London: Higher Education Policy Institute.

    Scottish Funding Council (2025) SFC’s Expectations of Good Governance. SFC Announcement SFC/AN/19/2025. Edinburgh: Scottish Funding Council.

    Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities (Chair: Sir Alex Jarratt) (1985) Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities [Jarratt Report 1985]. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

    Universities UK, GuildHE, Committee of University Chairs (2024) Franchise governance framework.

    Versterking van de bestuurskracht van onderwijsinstellingen (2015). Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal.

    Westerling, J., Hien, L. and Plumb, N. (2025) Closing the void: Can we reconnect politics with associational life? London: Power to Change.

    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verantwoorde invulling van rijksinspecties [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Responsible Role for National Inspectorates]. The Hague: WRR.

    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verruimd perspectief op rijkstoezicht [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Broadened Perspective on National Oversight]. Den Haag: Amsterdam University Press.

    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2014) Van tweeluik naar driehoeken: Versterking van interne checks and balances bij semipublieke organisaties [From Diptychs to Triangles: Strengthening Internal Checks and Balances in Semi-Public Organisations]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2015) Improving internal checks and balances in semi-public organisations: synopsis of WRR report no. 91 [Van tweeluik naar driehoeken]. The Hague: WRR.

    Source link

  • U.K. University Apologizes to U.S. Scholar Over Publication Ban

    U.K. University Apologizes to U.S. Scholar Over Publication Ban

    Sheffield Hallam University has apologized to a professor whose research into alleged human rights abuses was blocked from publication after political pressure from the Chinese security services.

    In late 2024, a study by Laura Murphy, an American professor of human rights and contemporary slavery at Sheffield Hallam, into forced labor practices Uyghur Muslims allegedly face was refused publication by her institution after a campaign of harassment and intimidation from Beijing, The Guardian and BBC News reported.

    Sheffield Hallam staff working in offices in mainland China faced visits from intelligence officials over the research, while access to the university’s websites was blocked for more than two years, hampering student recruitment, officials say.

    In an internal email from July 2024 obtained by Murphy using a subject access request, university officials said “attempting to retain the business in China and publication of the research are now untenable bedfellows.”

    After taking a career break to work for the U.S. government, Murphy returned to Sheffield Hallam in early 2025 and says she was told by administrators that the university was no longer permitting any research on forced labor or on China, prompting her to start legal action.

    Her solicitor, Claire Powell, of the firm Leigh Day, said that Murphy’s “academic freedom has been repeatedly and unlawfully restricted over the past two years.”

    “The documents uncovered paint an extremely concerning picture of a university responding to threats from a foreign state security service by trading the academic freedom of its staff for its own commercial interests,” Powell added.

    Murphy, who claimed her university failed to protect her academic freedom, has now received an apology and the institution has told her it “wish[ed] to make clear our commitment to supporting her research and to securing and promoting freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law.”

    “The university’s decision to not continue with Professor Laura Murphy’s research was taken based on our understanding of a complex set of circumstances at the time, including being unable to secure the necessary professional indemnity insurance,” a spokesperson for the university added.

    These circumstances relate to a defamation case brought by a Hong Kong garment maker which initiated a libel case against Sheffield Hallam after its name was included in a report into forced labor published in December 2023. A preliminary rule at the High Court in London found the report had been “defamatory.”

    The apology comes months after new free speech laws came into effect in England in August, with the Office for Students’ free speech champion Arif Ahmed warning the regulator would take action if universities bowed to pressure from foreign governments regarding contentious areas of research.

    A U.K. government spokesperson said, “Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the U.K. will not be tolerated, and the government has made this clear to Beijing after learning of this case.

    “The government has robust measures in place to prevent this activity, including updated powers and offenses through the National Security Act.”

    The Chinese Embassy in London told the BBC that the university had “released multiple fake reports on Xinjiang that are seriously flawed.”

    “It has been revealed that some authors of these reports received funding from certain U.S. agencies,” the embassy added.

    Murphy told the BBC she has received funding over the course of her career from multiple U.S. research agencies, including the U.S. National Endowment for Humanities for work on slave narratives, the U.S. Department of Justice for work on human trafficking in New Orleans, and more recently from USAID and the U.S. State Department for her work on China.

    The Chinese Embassy said the allegations of “forced labor” in her reports “cannot withstand basic fact-check.”

    Source link

  • University President Elected Lt. Gov. of New Jersey

    University President Elected Lt. Gov. of New Jersey

    Caldwell has served as president of Centenary University since 2023.

    Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images

    As running mate to Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill, Centenary University president Dale Caldwell, a Democrat, won the New Jersey gubernatorial race on Tuesday in a 56 percent–to–43 percent victory over Republicans Jack Ciattarelli and James Gannon. 

    “Every single day of this campaign has been a reminder of what a special place New Jersey is,” Caldwell wrote on X Wednesday. “I’m humbled and honored to be your next Lieutenant Governor.”

    Caldwell has served as president of Centenary, a Methodist university in Hackettstown, N.J., since 2023. Prior to assuming the presidency, he served on Centenary’s board, and he is also a pastor at Covenant United Methodist Church in Plainfield. Caldwell was the university’s first Black president and in January will become New Jersey’s first Black lieutenant governor.  

    “Centenary University would like to congratulate Gov. Elect Mikie Sherrill and Lt. Gov. Elect Dale Caldwell, Ed.D., on their victory in the recent New Jersey gubernatorial election,” university officials wrote in a statement Wednesday. 

    Centenary officials have not yet announced who will serve as interim president or their plans to find a permanent replacement when Caldwell departs in January.

    Source link