Tag: University

  • Higher Education Inquirer : University of Phoenix’s “TransferPath” App: Convenience or Marketing Hype?

    Higher Education Inquirer : University of Phoenix’s “TransferPath” App: Convenience or Marketing Hype?

    The University of Phoenix has launched TransferPath, a mobile app promising prospective students a quick estimate of how many previous college credits might transfer toward a Phoenix degree. At first glance, it sounds like a win: upload your transcripts, get a pre-evaluation, and move faster toward completing your degree. The EdTech Innovation Hub article covering the launch presents the app as an unambiguously positive innovation—but a closer look raises serious questions.

    The EdTech piece reads more like a press release than investigative reporting. It offers no insight into how pre-evaluations are calculated, whether faculty are involved, or how often initial predictions align with final credit acceptance. Without this transparency, students risk developing false confidence and making financial or academic decisions based on incomplete or misleading information.

    The app also reflects the asymmetry of power between institution and student. While marketed as a convenience, it is ultimately a recruitment tool. The University of Phoenix controls which credits are accepted, and the app’s messaging may funnel students into its programs regardless of whether other paths would better serve their educational goals.

    Missing from the coverage is context. Phoenix’s history as a for-profit institution has drawn scrutiny over retention rates, student debt, and degree outcomes. Presenting TransferPath without acknowledging this background creates a misleading narrative that the app is purely a student-centered innovation. Equity concerns are similarly absent. Students without smartphones, stable internet, or digital literacy may be excluded or misled. There is no evidence that the app serves all students fairly or that its credit predictions are accurate across diverse educational backgrounds.

    TransferPath may indeed offer some convenience, but convenience alone does not equal value. Prospective students deserve clarity, honesty, and rigorous evaluation of how tools like this actually function. They need more than marketing optimism—they need realistic guidance to navigate the complexities of credit transfer, institutional incentives, and long-term outcomes.

    Until such transparency and accountability are provided, TransferPath risks being more of a recruitment gimmick than a meaningful step forward in higher education.

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln committee opposes most academic program cuts

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln committee opposes most academic program cuts

    An academic advisory group at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has opposed most of the program cuts recommended by the institution’s chancellor and is calling for more time before considering major budget reductions. 

    A majority of the Academic Planning Committee members voted against eliminating four of the six programs put on the chopping block by UNL Chancellor Rodney Bennett in September as part of an effort to save $27.5 million annually. 

    The 21-person committee — composed of 10 faculty members as well as deans, administrators, staffers and students — officially issued its recommendation to Bennett in an Oct. 24 memo. 

    Bennett plans to issue his final recommendation in the coming weeks, and the University of Nebraska System regents will consider it in December. 

    In the memo, the committee pointed to concerns raised by faculty about the process Bennett and other UNL leaders used to determine which academic programs to slash. Those issues largely revolved around potential problems with the metrics and the short evaluation period used to make permanent decisions. 

    “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 a note Friday, Bennett thanked the committee for its work and said, “I am now carefully reviewing the APC’s recommendations and continuing consultations with our shared governance partners before finalizing the budget reduction plan.”

    A ‘top-down’ process for judging programs

    Over the past month, the academic planning committee has been collecting feedback from UNL stakeholders through hearings and nearly 3,000 submitted comments, the memo noted.

    Many questioned the validity and usefulness of the statistical metrics and data used to evaluate programs, while also accusing the administration of not being transparent about those measures. 

    Those metrics led to Bennett’s proposal that UNL permanently eliminate degrees in community and regional planning; Earth and atmospheric sciences; educational administration; landscape architecture; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design.

    In past budget deliberations, deans were given a target for reductions and could design unit-specific ways to meet goals, a process the committee described as “bottom-up.” 

    “In the current process, metrics were used in a ‘top-down’ approach to identify lower-performing units, and then a holistic review of those units was undertaken by upper administration,” the committee said. 

    Moreover, leaders only shared metrics to make program decisions confidentially with deans and the academic planning committee, which left faculty scrambling to understand those measures. 

    “No one was able to fully validate the metrics, either through confirming the accuracy of the underlying data or via analysis to confirm that the metrics were statistically valid ways to quantify the desired performance indicators,” the committee said. 

    For example, faculty from multiple units said that programs were revenue-positive, meaning cutting them would cost the university more in lost revenue than it saved in expenses. Others pointed to the extension work done by programs that make them important to the state and help UNL fulfill its mission as a public land-grant university. 

    But the comments from faculty and other UNL stakeholders weren’t just critical — they were also creative, suggesting alternative ways that programs and the university could save on costs or generate new revenue, the committee said. In fact, every unit had ideas of ways to generate revenue and save costs.

    “Given that a budget deficit has been looming for years, it is unfortunate that the process was invoked with so little time to engage the creativity and collective intelligence of the full University community,” the committee said. “When the energy of our faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders is unleashed on the problem of the budget deficit, creative and selfless solutions can emerge.”

    Source link

  • How to stop sounding like every other university

    How to stop sounding like every other university

    Today’s students quickly spot generic, rinse-and-repeat marketing from a university. Cut through the sameness slop and create a positioning strategy that actually connects.

    Higher education is at a crossroads. Enrollment is declining. Public perception is shrinking. And nearly every institution is saying the same thing: excellence, innovation, community.

    Meanwhile, students and families are asking tough questions about the real-world value of a degree. In this new reality, universities can no longer rely on tradition or reputation alone. To thrive, they need clarity and courage. And they need a positioning strategy that captures who they are—and why that matters.

    A strong positioning strategy doesn’t just shape marketing. It shapes culture, recruitment, retention, and reputation. It helps universities tell a truer story about themselves—and connect that story to the students, faculty, and partners who will carry it forward.

    Here are the six elements every successful university positioning strategy must include.

    1. Target your audiences carefully.

    A strong positioning strategy starts with targeting specific student subsets.

    Are you recruiting first-generation students or career changers? Honors scholars or working professionals? Local residents or international learners? Understanding who you’re trying to reach—and what drives their decisions—anchors every other element of your strategy.

    And don’t forget the people behind the scenes: faculty, staff, and donors. The best universities understand that attracting the right people internally is just as important as recruiting students externally.

    2. Focus the Geography of Your Recruitment

    Where will you focus your recruitment efforts? Know where your target audiences are —geographically and digitally —so you can reach them. Which regions, cities, or even online communities align best with your programs and brand?

    Now is the time to revisit your recruiting map. Shifts in demographics and enrollment trends mean yesterday’s strongholds may not be tomorrow’s growth markets.

    3. Build on Academic Strengths

    What academic programs will attract your target audiences? Identify your institution’s strengths and areas of expertise. The programs you offer need to align with your audience’s needs.

    Whether it’s a renowned nursing program, an emerging data science initiative, or a distinctive liberal arts approach, clarity here will shape everything else—your messaging, recruitment, and even partnerships.

    Then, make your offerings accessible through the pathways your target audiences need—undergraduate, graduate, online, hybrid, or evening programs. It is likely that students need different pathways, so be flexible here.

    4. Price with Intention

    Your pricing strategy should reflect your positioning. Are your audiences looking for value, accessibility, or prestige? There’s no one right answer, but there is a wrong one: misalignment.

    Align your tuition, scholarships, and financial aid strategy with your audiences and geography. A well-designed tuition calculator that delivers real-time estimates can make the difference between interest and enrollment.

    5. Prioritize Student Support

    Recruitment may fill your seats, but support keeps them filled.

    Universities that build cultures of belonging—through mentoring, mental health support, financial assistance, and strong academic advising—don’t just retain students. They create lifelong advocates.

    Is your first-year experience intentionally designed for retention? Do you proactively re-engage at-risk students? Do your clubs and organizations reflect the diversity of your student body? These increase the likelihood of success at your university.

    6. Create an Experience That Feels Alive

    Students don’t just want a degree—they want a life during those years.

    We hear it time and again: what ultimately draws students in is a sense of belonging, fun, and possibility. Your positioning should capture the energy of your campus and the spirit of your city.

    Show it. Don’t just say it. Make it clear that students like the ones you are targeting are having a great college experience.

    That emotional pull is often the difference between “accepted” and “enrolled.”

    Integration is the Secret to Success

    Each of these elements—audience, geography, programs, cost, support, and experience—needs to work together. Every decision in one area affects the other. When they are unaligned, your messaging will suffer.

    When your strategy is integrated and authentic, your university doesn’t just stand out. It stands for something.

    From Survival to Significance

    In a marketplace crowded with sameness, differentiation is the ultimate advantage.

    A powerful university positioning strategy gives you more than just messaging—it gives you momentum. It helps you attract the right students, engage the right partners, and chart a sustainable path forward.

    The question isn’t whether your university needs a positioning strategy. The question is: how bold are you willing to be?

    Source link

  • The network effects of a university collapse

    The network effects of a university collapse

    Universities are bound together more tightly than ministers like to admit. They share credit lines, pension schemes, suppliers, and reputations. Contagion, once started, moves faster than policy can catch it.

    The question up until recently was the wrong one: could a university fail. The grown-up question is what happens next: to students who haven’t applied yet, to local communities, and to neighbouring universities. We have to begin with the obvious: students come first.

    Failure at one institution produces contagion effects, the magnitude of which depends on regional centrality and clustering. Government should focus on keeping that transmission reproduction number (or R number – remember that from Covid?) below one. This piece maps some of those transmission channels – I’ve modelled small changes to the bottom line of an average neighbouring university, based on student spend, pensions, interest rates and group buying.

    Our patient zero – that is, the first to fall – is a provider that is OfS-registered and regionally significant, and I have estimated the price shock for its financially average neighbour. Of course, I have to assume no rescue package from government (they have signalled as such).

    The calculations below are based on the average university using 2023–24 HESA data, excluding FE colleges with HE provision. Each percentage change is illustrative rather than predictive and actual outcomes will depend on local factors.

    Stay at home

    Student demand runs on policy signals and vibes as much as price. In 2024 we saw sponsored study visas fall year-on-year and dependants drop sharply, while PGT overseas remained twitchy.

    Throw a closure into that salad and you start to see conversion eroding. Bursary spend and fee waivers will rise to keep offers attractive. A percentage point here or there looks insignificant but adds up across multiple providers.

    International students will start looking elsewhere: Australia, Canada, Germany. Or they’ll just stay at home. Better to choose a sure thing than risk having your course disrupted halfway through. Home students may be similarly spooked – but have fewer alternatives.

    There are a few antidotes: multiple guaranteed transfer corridors, decent student protection plans, and teach-out clarity. And most importantly, comms that make sense to agents and parents.

    Illustrative hits to an average university elsewhere:

    • Additional bursary spend on international: £80m × 0.5% = £400k
    • Reduced international demand: £80m × 0.5% = £400k

    Protect the USS

    Multi-employer pension schemes, like USS and LGPS, can go very squiffy when a member exits. In that case, the rules force the member to pay a large exit bill called “Section 75”, and the sums can be eye-watering. It’s a standard expectation of a “last man standing” scheme.

    Trinity College, Cambridge wrote a cheque for about £30m to leave USS in 2019. USS has suggested that, for a sample of employers (mainly Oxbridge colleges), a crystallised bill could represent anywhere from 4 to 97 per cent of their cash and long-term investment balances, averaging around 26 per cent.

    In practice, an insolvent provider wouldn’t cough up, so other universities would absorb the orphan liability. But there isn’t a mechanical “spread the S75 bill this year” formula; it would show up, if at all, via the valuation and rate-setting process. The scheme is currently in surplus, so additional contribution costs are uncertain. Of course, not all universities are enrolled in USS, but the vast majority are enrolled in multi-employer schemes.

    Illustrative hit to a USS-enrolled university elsewhere:

    • Salary base: £181m × 72% = £130m
    • USS proportion: £130m × 70% (say) = £91m
    • 1 pp rate bump: £91m × 1% = £910k

    Save livelihoods

    Universities drive jobs, rents, transport and culture. Liverpool estimates £2.2bn GVA and 26,630 jobs supported nationwide, roughly one in fifty locally. Northampton reports £823m GVA and 10,610 jobs. National estimates put the sector above £116bn.

    Remove the local provider and the GVA virtuous circle turns vicious. Cafés lose footfall, landlords lose tenants (poor them), and pubs are no longer full of students. The extent depends on how rooted the provider is in its community.

    Government will find itself paying anyway. Either pre-emptively with small civic grants to keep key services alive, or retrospectively with bigger cheques after the rot sets in. Maybe it will finally put a stop to town and gown tensions.

    Illustrative hit to an average university elsewhere:

    • No direct cost to other universities
    • Material GDP and tax impacts for government
    • Likely need for community grants.

    Flatten the yield curve

    Lenders rarely treat a closure as an isolated blip; being hawkish, they would probably reprice the entire university category.

    Add 50 basis points to a £90m facility and you’ve created a recurring £450k drag until you refinance. All in all, that’s not a huge bite out of your cash flow, but it will certainly make you more cautious.

    To fix this, listen to your finance directors: stagger your maturities and fix your rates well in advance. Or, radical thought – stop yanking at your credit lines and make do with what you have.

    Illustrative hit to an average university elsewhere:

    • Additional interest costs: £90m × 0.50% = £450k

    Herd immunity

    Group buying is one of the few places with cash on the table. In 2023–24, the UK Universities Procurement Consortia (UKUPC) members put about £2.4bn through frameworks and reported roughly £116.1m (4.84%) in cashable savings. The Southern Universities Procurement Consortium (SUPC) talks about £575m of member spend and average levy rebates of around £30,000 per full member.

    If fewer universities use those routes, frameworks lose clout, and with that, discounts and rebates. The more volume that stays in the collective pot, the better the prices – but for critical services, it’s still wise to have a backup supplier in case one fails.

    Another group issue is shared services. Up until recently, they were seen as a poisoned chalice, but are now growing out of necessity. The usual worries are well-rehearsed: loss of control, infighting and VAT jitters. Still, some experiments, like Janet and UCAS, have been tremendously successful, although pricing relies on throughput.

    Shared IT, payroll, procurement or estates often come with joint and several obligations. If one partner hits trouble, you start to see real governance friction.

    The practical fixes are contractual. Ringfence any arrears so they do not spill onto everyone else, and rebalance charges on a published, defensible formula.

    Illustrative hit to an average university elsewhere:

    • Frameworked spend: £131m (total non-staff) × 60% (frameworked, say) x 4.84% (cashable savings) x 10% (diminution) = £380k.
    • Shared services: impossible to quantify.

    What ministers can do without a podium

    I’ve modelled small changes to the bottom line (again, illustratively) – in this example one university going under could cost others £2.5m, or 50 per cent of the average university’s 2023–24 surplus. This number isn’t rigorous or comprehensive, but serves as an interesting thought experiment.

    The rational response is a resolution regime that protects students and research, temporary liquidity for solvent neighbours, clear transfer routes when the worst happens, and deployment of short, targeted grants for civic programmes.

    A single collapse could probably be absorbed; a string of them could set off an irreversible domino effect with far-reaching consequences. Ministers need to plan for this now – or else risk a very hefty civic bailout.

    Source link

  • Blexit Escorted Off Hampton University Campus

    Blexit Escorted Off Hampton University Campus

    Campus security at Hampton University escorted members of Blexit off the historically Black university’s campus this past weekend after the Black conservative group tried to join homecoming festivities as part of its “Educate to Liberate” HBCU tour. The group claims it was silenced by the university. Hampton leaders say Blexit didn’t follow proper protocols for visiting the campus.

    Blexit, which is affiliated with the Charlie Kirk–founded Turning Point USA, planned to visit 10 HBCUs during homecoming events with the goal of “bringing conservative values to life, fostering critical thinking, and sparking powerful conversations on HBCU campuses,” according to Blexit’s website. The group also made stops at Howard University and other campuses, though it canceled a visit to Florida A&M University, promising to announce a new date.

    Craig Long, a Blexit member, claimed on Instagram that Hampton University shut down the group’s dialogue with students.

    “Instead of celebrating that spirit of open discussion, the university shut it down—claiming we ‘didn’t go through the proper channels,’” Long wrote. “Let’s be honest: this wasn’t about paperwork. It was about politics. We were silenced because we are Blexit—because we stand for Christian values, conservative principles, and independent thought that challenge the mainstream narrative.”

    Hampton University leaders pushed back on Long’s description of the incident. They wrote in a statement that Blexit didn’t complete the application to participate in homecoming as a vendor or pay the associated fees. Out of 36 vendor applications submitted, the university approved 18, and Blexit “was among those that did not meet the stated requirements,” according to the statement. Those vendors were notified the week before the event that they would not be allowed on campus. University leaders framed the procedures as a “matter of public safety” to know who’s on campus, with nearly 15,000 people visiting for homecoming.

    “Hampton University welcomes organizations and speakers representing a variety of perspectives, provided they follow established protocols,” the statement read. “BLEXIT failed to meet those standards.”



    Source link

  • Deadly Lincoln University mass shooting: Vigil held on campus; investigation continues (Fox 29 Philadelphia)

    Deadly Lincoln University mass shooting: Vigil held on campus; investigation continues (Fox 29 Philadelphia)

     

    Detectives believe multiple shooters were involved in a mass shooting that occurred during Lincoln University’s homecoming that left a 20-year-old Wilmington, Delaware man dead and six others injured.

    Source link

  • 3 Arrests Made at University of Michigan Protest

    3 Arrests Made at University of Michigan Protest

    The arrests were made on the campus in Ann Arbor on Wednesday evening.

    Courtesy of the University of Michigan.

    Three pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested on the University of Michigan campus Wednesday, MLive Media Group, a local news organization, reported.

    The TAHRIR Coalition, a campus student group, led the protest in response to an event held by the university’s Students Supporting Israel chapter, which featured several Israel Defense Forces soldiers.

    Melissa Overton, the university’s deputy chief of public safety and security, told MLive that the individuals arrested were not affiliated with the university. She said the protesters blocked the exit to an underground parking garage and refused to move when ordered to. 

    They were charged with resisting and obstructing police, attempting to disarm an officer, disorderly conduct, and outstanding warrants, Overton said. The case has been forwarded to a prosecutor, she noted.

    Erek Mirque, a member of TAHRIR, told MLive that the arrests came as a surprise and that he was unaware of any confrontation with officers before the arrests.

    “We did not expect the situation to escalate the way that it did,” he said.

    Source link

  • Canberra steps forward as ‘TAFE university’ – Campus Review

    Canberra steps forward as ‘TAFE university’ – Campus Review

    The University of Canberra will offer shorter courses to students who have completed a TAFE course in a bid to fast track tertiary harmonisation at the institution.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • What Did the University of Virginia Agree To?

    What Did the University of Virginia Agree To?

    In agreeing to follow sweeping guidance from the Department of Justice earlier this week, the University of Virginia committed to eliminating all DEI programming and adhering to the Trump administration’s broad interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions policies.

    The nine-page DOJ memo, released in July, also bans the participation of transgender athletes in sports and the use of “ostensibly neutral proxies” for race, like geographic location. It came just three months after a federal court struck down a similar directive from the Department of Education and was viewed by many policy experts as even more wide-reaching and restrictive. The guidance hasn’t yet faced a legal challenge.

    Attorney General Pam Bondi originally wrote in the memo that the provisions outlined were a list of “non-binding suggestions” designed to “minimize the risk of [legal] violations.” But now, at least for UVA, it has become obligatory “so long as that guidance remains in force and to the extent consistent with relevant judicial decisions.” Failure to comply could risk the university’s federal funding.

    Under the agreement, the DOJ says it will temporarily pause all pending civil rights investigations, but if at any point Trump officials determine the flagship institution is making “insufficient progress toward compliance,” the DOJ reserves the right to resume investigation, pursue enforcement actions or terminate federal funding. In the meantime, UVA will be required to provide “relevant information and data” to the agency on a quarterly basis through 2028.

    “So if [UVA] feels confident that they can comply, then this could be a good outcome for the school. The investigations are closed and they don’t admit liability,” said Scott Goldschmidt, a partner and civil rights specialist at the law firm Thompson Coburn LLP. “But if there is any issue, or the government sees otherwise, then all bets are off, and they could be in a worse position than when they signed the agreement.”

    In Goldschmidt’s view, it’s all a part of the DOJ’s effort to encourage colleges to accept “their interpretation of law” without facing a legal challenge.

    “It was nonbinding,” he said of the guidance, “which is, again, why it’s so interesting that UVA seemed to pre-emptively comply with this over the summer and now has turned it into mandatory guidance by this agreement.”

    Starting in April, the DOJ used a series of letters to accuse UVA officials of actively attempting to “defy and evade federal anti-discrimination laws.” By early June, experts say, the assistant attorney general pressured former UVA president James Ryan to resign. Still, in the wake of the Justice Department’s pressure campaign, the institution’s interim president, Paul Mahoney, rejected the Trump administration’s even more sweeping “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” last week.

    UVA is just the latest institution to cut a deal with the Trump administration, though unlike those previous agreements, the public university won’t have to pay anything. This is also the first agreement to be made that deals primarily with the Justice Department’s guidance and diversity, equity and inclusion rather than alleged mishandling of antisemitism on campus.

    As other colleges and universities face related investigations, this deal could become a new framework for the administration and how it negotiates to bring higher education to heel.

    So, here’s a look at three key aspects of the agreement.

    1. Ending What Trump Calls Segregation and Preferential Treatment

    The July directive set four core standards for the universities and provided a broad but nonexhaustive list of examples for each.

    First, the DOJ requires the university to eliminate any practices in admissions, hiring or programming that Trump deems “preferential treatment” based on race, sex, religion or “other protected characteristics.” This could include identity-based scholarships, affinity groups or support programs; hiring or promotion practices that prioritize one specific group over another; or designating certain spaces on campus for students of a particular identity.

    Then, officials added in the memo that the use of purportedly neutral characteristics, like geographic location and cultural competency, are also prohibited as they can be used as “substitutes” for protected characteristics and are therefore “unlawful proxies.”

    The department cited essay prompts that suggest applicants write about “overcoming obstacles” as an example, despite the fact that the Supreme Court explicitly said in its ruling on affirmative action that college applicants could still write about their experiences with racism, sexism or religious discrimination so long as universities did not use them to re-establish “the regime we hold unlawful today.”

    The memo also lists segregation and training that officials say promotes discrimination as violations of civil rights law, citing as examples race-based training sessions like “Black caucuses” and “white ally meetings” and measures for selecting contracts that prioritize female-owned businesses.

    But what UVA is required to do under the guidance could change depending on court decisions.

    2. Not Infringing Academic Freedom

    In the text of the agreement and various materials distributed by UVA, university officials appear to intentionally reinforce that these restrictions on admissions, hiring and extracurricular programing will not impede the university’s right to academic freedom.

    “The U.S. does not aim to dictate the content of academic speech or curricula, and no provision of this agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States the authority to dictate the content of academic speech or curricula,” the sixth point of the agreement reads.

    Mahoney’s statement to the UVA committee, as well as a frequently asked questions page on the UVA website, emphasized similar points, saying that no “external monitor” would be involved and that UVA will address any compliance concerns raised by the DOJ independently.

    “Importantly, [the agreement] preserves the academic freedom of our faculty, students, and staff,” Mahoney wrote. “We will also redouble our commitment to … free expression, and the unyielding pursuit of ‘truth, wherever it may lead,’ as Thomas Jefferson put it.”

    This differs from the more recent Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, which would require an institution to restrict employees from expressing political views on behalf of the institution and shut down departments that “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas.”

    3. Pausing Liability but Keeping the University Vulnerable

    The second line of the agreement makes it clear that the document is not “an admission, in whole or in part” and that UVA “expressly denies liability with respect to the subject matter of the investigations.”

    So, as long as UVA complies with the DOJ memo, the investigations will be closed and the university will no longer be at risk of having to pay a multimillion-dollar settlement fee or losing federal financial aid. But Goldschmidt from Thompson Coburn emphasized that such a scenario is “a big if.”

    “If the DOJ at any point finds that UVA did not comply, then everything gets reopened, and all the potential issues, penalties, etc. that could come from a federal civil rights investigation would fall back down on the institution,” he explained.

    And given that the DOJ’s memo is “the most aggressive document that we’ve seen reinterpreting Title VI civil rights laws,” Goldschmidt said, the risk is even greater. So while UVA has already made its decision, he suggested that other universities think it through before they do the same.

    “Schools would really want to think hard and deep about whether there is any wiggle room,” he said, “because the consequences of violating the DOJ’s memo are so strong.”

    Article was updated to reflect a clause in UVA’s agreement that the university is bound by the guidance so long as it remains and consistent with relevant judicial decisions.

    Source link

  • A university system reliant on international students has an obligation to understand them

    A university system reliant on international students has an obligation to understand them

    It is becoming difficult to ignore potential tension between the internationalisation of higher education and plans to cut net migration. Recent UK government policies, such as the reduction of the graduate visa from two years to 18 months, could have severe consequences for universities in Scotland.

    Scottish government funding per home student has not kept pace with inflation. To compensate for the subsequent gap in resources, universities have become more dependent on international enrolments.

    In addition, Scotland faces specific demographic challenges. By 2075, the number of working aged Scots is predicted to fall by 14.7 per cent and, without migration, the population would be in decline. Encouraging young people to remain after graduation could help to balance the ageing population. However, although the Scottish government favours a more generous post-study visa route, this is not supported by Westminster.

    Ability to adjust

    Rhetoric around internationalisation tends to emphasise positive factors such as increased diversity and cross-cultural exchange. Yet, as an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) practitioner, I have long been concerned that learners from diverse linguistic backgrounds are often viewed through a lens of deficiency. There is also a risk that their own needs will be overlooked in the midst of political and economic debate.

    To better understand how students’ sense of identity is affected by moving into new educational and social settings, I carried out interview-based research at a Scottish university. Like other “prestigious” institutions, it attracts a large number of applicants from abroad. In particular, some taught master’s degrees (such as those in the field of language education) are dominated by Chinese nationals. Indeed, when recruiting postgraduate interviewees, I was not surprised when only two (out of 11) came from other countries (Thailand and Japan).

    My analysis of data revealed typical reasons for choosing the university: ranking, reputation and the shorter duration of master’s courses. Participants described being met with unfamiliar expectations on arrival, especially as regards writing essays and contributing to discussion. For some, this challenged their previous identities as competent individuals with advanced English skills. These issues were exacerbated in “all-white” classes, where being in the minority heightened linguistic anxiety and the fear of being judged. They had varied experiences of group work: several reported – not necessarily intentional but nonetheless problematic – segregation of students by nationality, undermining the notion that a multi-national population results in close mixing on campus.

    In a survey administered to a wider cohort of respondents on a pre-sessional EAP programme, the majority agreed or strongly agreed when asked if they would befriend British people while at university.

    However, making such connections is far from straightforward. International students are sometimes criticised for socialising in monocultural groups and failing to fully “fit in”. However, the fatigue of living one’s life in another language and simultaneously coping with academic demands means that getting to know locals is not a priority. At the same time, research participants expressed regret at the lack of opportunity to interact with other nationalities, with one remarking, “if everyone around me is Chinese, why did I choose to study abroad?” Some encountered prejudice or marginalisation, reporting that they felt ignored by “fluent” speakers of English. Understandably, this had a detrimental effect on their ability to adjust.

    Different ways to belong

    To gain different perspectives, I also spoke with teachers who work with international students. EAP tutors believed that their classes offer a safe space for them to gain confidence and become used to a new way of working. However, they wondered whether there would be a similarly supportive atmosphere in mainstream university settings. Subject lecturers did not invoke phrases such as “dumbing down”, but several had altered their teaching methods to better suit learners from non-Anglophone backgrounds.

    In addition, they questioned whether internationalisation always equated to diversity. One commented on the advantages of having a “multicultural quality”, but added that it “has to be a mix” – something which is not possible if, like on her course, there are no Scottish students. Another mentioned that the propensity to “stick with your own people” is not a uniquely Chinese phenomenon, but common behaviour regardless of background.

    A few academics had noticed that most Chinese students take an attitude of, “I’m doing my (one-year) master’s and maybe then I have to move back to China.” Chinese students are less likely than some other nationalities to apply for a graduate visa, suggesting that their investment in a degree abroad is of a transactional nature.

    The majority of survey respondents indicated that they would adapt to a new way of life while living abroad. However, during my last conversation with focal interviewees, I uncovered different levels of belonging, ranging from, “I feel like I’m from Scotland”, to “my heart was always in China”, to “I don’t have any home.” Participants generally viewed their stay as temporary: in fact, all but the Japanese student (who accepted a job in the US) returned to their home country after graduation. Although they described their time in Scotland in mostly positive terms, some were disappointed that it had not provided a truly intercultural experience.

    Meltdown

    It is clear that universities in Scotland have become overly reliant on international tuition for their financial sustainability. At the same time, there is conflict between the devolved administration’s depiction of Scotland as outward looking and welcoming, and the reality of stricter migration policies over which it has no control.

    Discourses which position international students as outsiders who add to high immigration numbers could deter some from coming. If they are seen only as economic assets, their own cultural capital and agency might be neglected. It is also important to problematise the notion of “integration”: even my small study suggests that there are different ways of belonging. No group of learners is homogeneous: even if they come from the same country, individual experiences will differ.

    To navigate the current financial crisis, Scottish universities need to do everything possible to maintain their appeal. With elections being held next year, higher education policy will continue to be a key area of discussion. At present, there are no plans to introduce fees for home students, making revenue from international tuition all the more essential.

    However, at a time of global uncertainty, taking overseas students for granted feels enormously unwise. Instead, it is crucial to ask how they can be made to feel like valued members of the academic community. The answer to this question might be different for everyone, but engaging with students themselves, rather than relying on unhelpful assumptions, would be a start.

    Source link