Tag: Working

  • The complex working lives of commuter and non-commuter students

    The complex working lives of commuter and non-commuter students

    Author:
    HEPI Guest Post

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Adrian Wright, Martin Lowe, Dr Mark Wilding and Mary Lawler from the University of Lancashire, authors of Student Working Lives (HEPI report 195).

    The cost‑of‑living crisis has reshaped the student experience, but its effects are not felt evenly. For example, commuter and non‑commuter students encounter these pressures differently. The Student Working Lives (HEPI Report 195) project highlights these contrasts, revealing different needs and constraints. We ask a practical question: How can universities support both groups?

    The commuter paradox

    Commuter students face distinct time pressures, undertaking more paid work and travel per week on average and spending the same amount studying as their non-commuting counterparts.

    Table 1: Workload including travel for commuter and non-commuter students
    Table 2: Hours of paid work versus average grade of commuter and non-commuter students
    Table 3: Hours of paid work versus average attendance of commuter and non-commuter students

    Despite attending fewer classes, commuters achieved stronger academic results, although for both groups, performance declined once working hours exceeded 10.  This suggests that while commuters generally outperform their peers, both groups are susceptible to the effects of increased working hours.

    Table 4: Job quality for commuter and non-commuter students

    Our research shows that students in higher‑quality work were 20% more likely to achieve stronger academic results, highlighting work experience as a potential lever for improving academic success. We found non-commuters experience marginally tougher conditions. New data shows this extends to stress, anxiety or depression caused by or made worse by work (+5%) and under casual and zero-hour contracts (+4%), while commuters report better access to staff development (+12.2) and career guidance (+ 7.5).

    Our data shows disadvantages for both groups, but neither is homogeneous. Background, proximity to campus, work, and institution, also shape their likelihood of success. This is not a simple categorisation; both groups need attention and support to address their specific needs.

    Recommendations

    1. Condense and make timetables consistent

    Uneven and variable timetabling increases travel costs and can threaten engagement. Universities should condense timetables and offer dedicated campus days to enable students to access support and social opportunities. Publishing schedules in advance helps all students, particularly those with existing work or caring responsibilities, organise regular shift patterns around their studies. Although often framed as a commuter issue, a focused timetable improves belonging for all students.

    1. Consider what matters for students in their context

    While further categorisation of student groups may be useful in national policy making, the complexities of each group call for more understanding of what factors are most important in a student’s context, (including work, proximity to university, household type, mode of travel etc.)

    1. Reposition careers services to improve student employment

    Universities should rebalance careers services and strengthen regional employer partnerships to expand access to meaningful and fair paid work. This would align student jobs with local skills needs that boost regional growth and graduate retention. Embedding support for workplace rights and expectations ensures all students can participate safely and confidently in the workforce during their studies, better preparing them for graduate roles in the future.

    1. Introduce curriculum interventions to utilise paid work experiences

    Credit-bearing paid work interventions support students by aligning existing work commitments with graduate attributes while reducing the need for additional in‑class time, balancing overstretched workloads. By formally valuing paid work and guiding students to articulate these competencies, institutions can help all students use employment as a meaningful part of their university journey, strengthening employability and long‑term prospects.

    Conclusion

    The findings are nuanced, however, across all groups, one thing is certain: students need paid work. The sector’s role is to ensure that employment supports rather than hinders learning by easing financial and time pressures, improving job quality, and strengthening the connection between work and study.

    Source link

  • What’s Actually Working for Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    What’s Actually Working for Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Editor’s Note By Dean Hoke: This winter, Small College America completed its most ambitious season yet—13 conversations with presidents, consultants, and association leaders who are navigating the most turbulent period in higher education history. What emerged wasn’t theory or wishful thinking. It was a working playbook of what’s actually succeeding on the ground. This article synthesizes the five insights that matter most.

    When Hope Meets Reality

    Jeff Selingo doesn’t mince words.

    “Hope is not a strategy,” he said bluntly in Season 3 of Small College America.

    Jeff Selingo, a Best Selling Author and higher education advisor, named what every small college leader knows but hates to admit: the old playbook is dead. The demographic cliff isn’t coming—it’s here. Traditional enrollment models are broken. And no amount of wishful thinking about “riding out the storm” will change that.

    But here’s what surprised me across 13 conversations this season: nobody was sugarcoating reality, yet the conversations weren’t depressing.

    They were energizing.

    From Frank Shushok describing how Roanoke College built a K-12 lab school that creates a pipeline from kindergarten forward, to Teresa Parrott explaining why Grinnell took over a failing daycare center instead of issuing a mission statement about community engagement, from Gary Daynes doubling down on Salem College’s women’s mission when conventional wisdom said to go co-ed, to Kristen Soares navigating 2,500 California bills every legislative session—Season 3 captured something rare.

    Leaders who have moved past denial and into action.

    What emerged wasn’t abstract strategy consulting. It was concrete, operational intelligence from people doing the work. Here are the five insights that separate institutions that will thrive from those that won’t.

    1. Stop Marketing, Start Building Pipelines

    The traditional enrollment model—recruit high school seniors, get them to visit campus, send them glossy viewbooks, hope they choose you over 47 other colleges—is dead. Small colleges know this. But most are still acting like better marketing will solve it.

    It won’t.

    As Selingo pointed out, “At some point you have to come up with another segment of students if you’re tuition dependent because there just aren’t enough of those students to go around.”

    Translation: You cannot market your way out of a demographic crisis.

    The institutions seeing results aren’t the ones with slicker viewbooks or better social media strategies. They’re the ones building actual infrastructure for new student populations.

    What does that look like in practice?

    At Roanoke College, President Frank Shushok has approached enrollment not as a marketing problem, but as a pipeline design problem.

    Roanoke’s lab school creates a K–12 pathway while simultaneously solving a community need. Students who attend the lab school encounter the college early, come to trust it, and see it as part of their educational journey long before senior year. That’s not recruitment—that’s ecosystem building.

    The same logic shows up in Roanoke’s employer partnerships. The T-Mite Scholars program flips the traditional internship model: students complete two internships, receive a guaranteed job interview upon graduation, and receive tuition support from the employer. That’s not workforce development with a side of enrollment. That’s workforce development with enrollment as the byproduct.

    This pipeline mindset also appears at scale in California, as described by Kristen Soares, President of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. California’s Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) program creates guaranteed, transparent pathways from community colleges into four-year institutions—no credit games, no hidden requirements, no “we’ll evaluate your transcript and get back to you.” Just clear bridges that actually work for the students who need them most.

    Notice what these examples have in common: they aren’t marketing campaigns. They are operational partnerships designed to reduce friction and create consistent flows of students.

    As Shushok observed, “I think what you’re starting to see is some incredibly creative, adaptive, and agile institutions—because it requires a level of courage and resilience and tenacity.”

    The bottom line is straightforward: if your enrollment strategy is still primarily marketing-driven, you’re playing the wrong game. Build infrastructure. Create pipelines. Solve real community problems.
    The students will follow.

    2. Is Your Mission Statement Hurting You

    Teresa Parrott, Principal TVP Communications dropped what might be the most important insight of the entire season: small colleges need to shift “from mission to impact.”

    What she means matters right now.

    Most small college websites lead with mission statements like “We develop well-rounded citizens who think critically and serve their communities.”

    It’s lovely. It’s inspiring to people who already work at the college. And it’s entirely unpersuasive to everyone else.

    Legislators don’t care about your mission. Prospective students’ parents don’t care about your mission. Community members wondering why they should support you don’t care about your mission.

    They care about what you actually do.

    Compare generic mission language to Grinnell College’s approach. When their town’s daycare center was failing, Grinnell didn’t release a statement about their commitment to the community. They took over the daycare center. When the community golf course struggled, they stepped in to sustain it.

    As Parrott put it, “They are so embedded in their community that they really are almost a second arm of the government.”

    That’s not rhetoric. That’s concrete, documentable community impact.

    Or take Gary Daynes, President of Salem College insight about resource sharing at Salem: “It makes zero cents to build a football field. Seems like you could share with the local high school.”

    Simple. Obvious. Rarely done.

    But when colleges actually do it—by sharing theaters, athletic facilities, cultural resources, and programming—they become infrastructure their communities can’t imagine losing. They become politically and economically essential.

    The shift is this: Stop leading with what you believe. Start leading with what you do.

    Not “We believe in service.” Try “We trained 45% of the nurses in this region.”

    Not “We value community.” Try “We operate the only daycare center in town.”

    Not “We develop leaders.” Try “Our graduates run 23 local businesses and employ 400 people.”

    The institutions sufficiently community-embedded to make these claims are politically protected. The ones still leading with inspirational language become vulnerable the moment budgets get tight.

    The takeaway: Your communications team shouldn’t be writing mission statements. They should be documenting measurable community impact and leading with it everywhere.

    3. Lean Into What Makes You Different

    Selingo said it most directly: “There is more differentiation in higher education than we care to admit, but the presidents haven’t leaned into that enough.”

    Translation: You’re already different. You’re just afraid to say it loudly.

    Daynes decided to reaffirm its commitment to educating girls and women. That’s not chasing the market—it’s the opposite. But Daynes explained they looked at their data and realized the women’s college identity was a strength, not a liability they needed to downplay.

    Faith-based institutions are deepening their religious identities rather than treating them as mere historical affiliations that make the college vaguely Methodist or nominally Catholic.

    Health-focused campuses are building employer pipelines instead of trying to be liberal arts generalists who happen to have a nursing program.

    The pattern is clear: institutions trying to be less distinctive are struggling. Institutions doubling down on what makes them unique are finding traction.

    But here’s the critical part Daynes emphasized: distinctiveness has to be operational, not just marketing.

    If you’re a “community-engaged college,” you need actual programs embedded in the community—shared facilities, pipeline programs, workforce partnerships—not just a tagline on your website.

    If you’re “career-focused,” you need employer partnerships with real job placement data and students who can point to specific outcomes.

    If you’re faith-based, that identity needs to shape curriculum, student life, residential programs, and institutional decisions in ways students and families can see and experience.

    When distinctiveness is only branding, students and families see through it immediately. When it’s operational, it becomes your competitive advantage.

    The takeaway: Generic positioning is a slow death. Find what makes you genuinely different, operationalize it across your institution, and communicate it relentlessly.

    4. Real Partnerships vs. Press Releases

    Shushok nailed the mindset shift small colleges need to make: “Partnerships are everything in this moment. And once you get past that you’re competing with any of these entities, you start to realize, no, these are partners.”

    K-12 schools. Community colleges. Employers. Local governments. Hospitals. These aren’t competitors or nice-to-haves anymore. They’re essential infrastructure for institutional survival.

    But Daynes offered the crucial warning: “It’s easy to sign MOUs. It’s harder to sustain them.”

    Read that again.

    Translation: Your partnership announcements don’t mean anything.

    What matters is actual student flow. What matters is shared staffing. What matters is programs that operate year after year, not photo ops at signing ceremonies where everyone shakes hands and nobody follows through.

    Ask yourself right now: Do you know how many students transferred in from your community college “partners” last year? Do you have dedicated staff managing those relationships, or is it an extra duty for someone already overwhelmed?

    If you don’t know those numbers or don’t have dedicated staff, you don’t have partnerships. You have press releases.

    The partnerships that work have dedicated staffing to manage relationships and smooth student transitions, clear metrics measuring student flow rather than signed agreements, operational integration where partner institutions actually share resources, and financial skin in the game from all parties.

    Roanoke’s “Directed Tech” program with Virginia Tech counts the senior year as both undergraduate completion and the first year of a master’s degree. That’s not a partnership; that’s structural integration that changes the economics and value proposition for students.

    California’s ecosystem, where UC, CSU, community colleges, and independent institutions work together on workforce development, isn’t an inspirational collaboration story. It’s an economic necessity backed by 2,500+ pieces of legislation every two years, as Soares noted.

    When the state is writing hundreds of bills requiring coordination, you can’t fake it with a handshake and a press release.

    The bottom line: Count your partnerships that produce actual student flow and resource sharing. If that number is zero or close to it, stop announcing new partnerships and start making the ones you have actually work.

    5. Liberal Arts is Workforce Development (Stop Being Defensive About It)

    The false choice between liberal arts and workforce preparation came up in nearly every conversation. And every single guest rejected it.

    Shushok’s framing was the clearest: “Technical skills get you the first job. Human capacity skills enable 15 career reinventions.”

    Think about that.

    In a world where AI can write code, analyze data, generate reports, and automate technical tasks, what becomes more valuable—technical skills that become obsolete in five years, or the ability to adapt, think critically, communicate clearly, work across differences, and solve novel problems?

    As Shushok put it, “We might find that the liberal arts, the humanities, the small colleges, if we allow ourselves to be shaped by this moment, are exactly what the doctor ordered for the 21st century.”

    The problem: small colleges are still communicating defensively about the liberal arts instead of offensively.

    Stop saying “The liberal arts are ALSO important for careers.”

    Start saying, “The liberal arts are the ONLY preparation for a 40-year career in an unpredictable economy.”

    Stop apologizing for not being pre-professional.

    Start explaining why pre-professional education is increasingly obsolete in an age of AI and constant technological disruption.

    And most importantly: build the bridges so students can actually see the connection.

    That means boards that understand finance, politics, and operations—not just fundraising. CFO leadership that addresses structural challenges honestly. Political engagement that mobilizes entire institutions, not just government relations staff. And communications teams that function as impact documenters, not mission statement writers.

    Kristen Soares noted that 92% of California’s clinical workforce is trained at private colleges. That’s not despite the liberal arts foundation—it’s because of it.

    Nurses need critical thinking to make life-and-death decisions in ambiguous situations.

    Mental health counselors need empathy and adaptability to serve diverse communities.

    Teachers need communication skills and the ability to think on their feet.

    The liberal arts aren’t tangential to workforce needs. They’re central. But you have to stop defending them and start operationalizing the connection in ways students, families, and employers can see.

    The takeaway: The liberal arts are perfectly suited for workforce needs. Stop defending. Start operationalizing. Build the bridges.

    So what do you actually DO with all this?

    Season 3 didn’t just surface problems—it revealed a working playbook. Here’s what leaders who are successfully navigating this moment have in common:

    • They’re building infrastructure for new student populations instead.
    • They’re documenting measurable community impact and leading with it.
    • They’re deepening what makes them genuinely distinctive.
    • They’re measuring student flow and resource sharing.
    • They’re operationalizing the connection to careers.

    Shushok’s insight about “recalibration versus balance” might be the most critical leadership lesson of the season. As he put it, “Balance is not a destination, but constant recalibration.”

    Small college leadership today isn’t about finding the right strategy and executing it for five years. It’s about continuous adjustment based on what’s actually working.

    That means:

    • Boards that understand finance, politics, and operations—not just fundraising

    • CFO leadership that addresses structural challenges honestly

    • Political engagement that mobilizes entire institutions, not just government relations staff

    • Communications teams that function as impact documenters, not mission statement writers

    As Daynes reflected, “I love small colleges. There are folks of intense gifts amongst the faculty and staff who have chosen to be the places that they are.”

    That’s the source of optimism throughout Season 3.

    Not naive hope that things will get better on their own.

    But grounded confidence in devoted people willing to do hard, creative work.

    Jeff Selingo’s blunt assessment—”Hope is not a strategy”—wasn’t meant to demoralize. It was meant to liberate.

    Small colleges that thrive in the next decade will  be the ones that:

    • Build operational infrastructure for new student populations

    • Document and communicate measurable community impact

    • Operationalize distinctiveness throughout the institution

    • Create partnerships that produce actual student flow

    • Connect liberal arts to career outcomes without defensiveness

    • Recalibrate constantly based on what’s working

    The leaders in Season 3 aren’t waiting for permission or hoping for a miracle. They’re building lab schools. They’re taking over daycare centers. They’re sharing facilities with high schools. They’re creating guaranteed pathways to graduate programs. They’re documenting their impact and leading with it.

    They’re doing the work.

    And they’re proving that hope—real, grounded hope based on action rather than wishful thinking—comes from building things that work.

    Looking Forward: Three Conversations to Start This Week

    If you’re a president, provost, trustee, or senior leader, here are three conversations you can start right now if you haven’t already done so :

    1. With your enrollment team: Ask them to map every actual pipeline you have for new students—not marketing campaigns, but structural pathways that produce consistent student flow. If the list is short or non-existent, that’s your answer. Start building infrastructure, not marketing plans.

    2. With your communications team: Ask them to document your measurable community impact in the last 12 months. Not what you believe or aspire to do—what you actually did. How many jobs did you create? How many nurses did you train? What facilities do you share? What problems did you solve? If the answer is vague or mission-statement-heavy, you have work to do.

    3. With your board: Present them with a simple question: “If we could only communicate three things about our institution to prospective students, legislators, and community members, what would they be?” If the answers are about mission and values rather than concrete impact and distinctive programs, you need to shift the conversation.

    These aren’t theoretical exercises. They’re diagnostic tools that reveal whether your institution is still operating from the old playbook or building the new one.

    Selingo was right: hope is not a strategy. But action, infrastructure, partnerships, impact, and constant recalibration is a playbook that works.

    —

    Season 3 of Small College America featured conversations with 13 leaders in the field of higher education. Thanks to everyone who participated, and especially my co-host Kent Barnds and my Producer and lovely wife Nancy Hoke.

    • Raj Bellani, Chief of Staff, Denison College
    • Gary Daynes, President, Salem College
    • Josh Hibbard, Vice President of Enrollment Management, Whitworth University
    • Dean McCurdy, President, Colby Sawyer College
    • Jon Nichols, Faculty member and author
    • Teresa Parrott, Principal TVP Communications
    • Karen Petersen, President, Hendrix College
    • Michael Scarlett, Professor of Education, Augustana College
    • Jeff Selingo, Best Selling Author and higher education advisor
    • Frank Shushok, President, Roanoke College
    • Kristen Soares, President, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
    • Gregor Thuswaldner, Provost, La Roche University
    • Jeremiah Williams, Professor of Physics, Wittenberg University

    The conversations continue.

    Small College America returns in February with a new season featuring candid discussions with presidents, faculty, and leaders navigating the most consequential moment in higher education.

    Hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds, the series explores the evolving role of small colleges, their impact on communities, and the strategies leaders are using to adapt and endure.

    Listen or watch past episodes on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and many others, or preview what’s coming next, and follow the series at www.smallcollegeamerica.net.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    This blog was kindly authored by Martin Lowe, Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding and Mary Lawler from the University of Lancashire, authors of Student Working Lives (HEPI report 195).

    The clearest finding of our recent HEPI report, Student Working Lives, was the growing prevalence of paid work among students and its profound impact on their experiences and outcomes.

    This trend is not confined to disadvantaged groups; it is now a reality for the majority of students, with the Advance HE and HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey revealing how 68% of students now work during term time. Yet, despite its significance, paid work remains largely absent from regulatory frameworks designed to promote equality of opportunity in higher education.

    As the Office for Students (OfS) reviews its approach to access and participation, we argue that paid work should be recognised as a distinct risk on the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR). Doing so would enable providers to respond more effectively to the challenges students face and ensure that widening participation efforts reflect the realities of modern student life.

    A risk-based future for access and participation

    Since taking office, the Labour Government has placed widening participation as a central pillar of its higher education agenda. From the introduction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to the creation of a new Access and Participation Task and Finish Group, ministers have signalled their determination to open doors to learners from non-traditional backgrounds.

    This ambition was reiterated in the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, which proposed a significant shift in the regulatory approach in England:

    We will reform regulation of access and participation plans, moving away from a uniform approach to one where the Office for Students can be more risk-based.

    While this statement attracted less attention than the more headline-grabbing measures on tuition fees and maintenance grants, it represents a potentially transformative change. A risk-based model could allow the OfS to focus on the most pressing barriers to equality of opportunity, provided those risks are accurately identified.

    The existing EORR complements this approach. Having been introduced under the leadership of outgoing Director of Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, John Blake, the register has already been widely welcomed by the sector. By identifying factors that threaten access and success for disadvantaged student groups, it enables providers to design interventions tailored to their own context. Rather than simply seeking to address outcome gaps, the EORR encourages institutions to tackle the underlying causes.

    However, the register is not static. If it is to remain relevant, it must evolve to reflect emerging challenges. One such challenge is the growing necessity of paid work alongside study, a risk that intersects the financial pressures felt by students but extends far beyond them.

    Paid work is more than a financial issue

    The current EORR already identifies ‘Cost Pressures’ as a risk, acknowledging that rising living costs can undermine students’ ability to complete their course or achieve good grades. Yet this framing is too narrow on its own. Paid work is not merely a symptom of financial strain; it’s a complex factor that shapes engagement, attainment, and progression into graduate employment.

    Our research shows that paid work is a necessity for most students, regardless of background, with average hours worked remaining static across each Indices of Deprivation (IMD) quintile. However, its impact is uneven. Students having to work more than 20 hours per week, those employed in particularly demanding sectors and those balancing caring responsibilities may all face challenges due to increased workload. However each should be supported in different ways.

    Figure 1: Likelihood of obtaining a ‘good’ honours degree by work hours

    These patterns matter because they influence both academic performance and participation in enrichment activities that support retention and employability. Paid work is a structural feature of student life that can amplify existing inequalities, but present specific nuances depending on the local context.

    Our analysis highlights how the risks associated with paid work differ across institutions and how regional labour markets shape patterns of student employment. For instance, our survey indicates a higher proportion of students working in health and social care in Lancashire, where the sector represents 15% of total employment. In contrast, Liverpool’s relatively large share of hospitality student workers reflects the sector’s prominence, accounting for around 10% of jobs in the city region. These different contexts can help steer local interventions to reduce risk associated with particular sectors.

    Figure 2: Employment by top four sectors (multiple responses accepted)

    Recognising paid work as a formal risk would help empower institutions to develop context-sensitive strategies. These might include the crediting of paid work within the curriculum, embedding guidance on employment rights within pastoral support, or designing schedules that accommodate students’ working patterns.

    Access and participation – two sides of the same coin

    As the OfS explores separating out the “Access” and “Participation” strands of its regulatory framework – as outlined in their recent quality consultation – paid work should feature prominently in supporting both ambitions. Widening access is not simply about opening the door; it is about ensuring wider groups of students see themselves as being part of that experience. For some mature learners, carers, and those with financial dependencies (who may feel excluded by the traditional delivery model of higher education) the support to balance paid work and study is critical.

    Ignoring this reality risks undermining the very goals of widening participation. Higher education must adapt to the evolving profile of its students, who increasingly diverge from the outdated stereotype of the full-time undergraduate.

    Our recommendation is for the OfS to prioritise paid work as a key aspect of the future of Access and Participation regulation, inserting it as a distinct risk within the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register. Doing so would:

    • signal its importance as a structural factor affecting equality of opportunity;
    • enable targeted interventions that reflect institutional and regional contexts;
    • support innovation in curriculum design, pastoral care, and timetabling;
    • and promote collaboration between universities, employers, and policymakers to improve job quality and flexibility.

    This is not about discouraging students from working. For many, employment provides valuable experience and skills. Instead, it is about recognising that when work becomes a necessity rather than a choice, it can compromise educational outcomes, especially for those already at the margins.

    The OfS has an opportunity to lead the sector in addressing one of the most pressing challenges facing students today. By treating paid work as a formal risk, it can help ensure that access and participation strategies are grounded in the lived realities of learners.

    As we look to the future, one principle should guide the sector: widening participation does not end at the point of entry. It extends throughout the student journey, encompassing the conditions that enable success. Paid work is now not only part of that journey, but a critical factor.

    Source link

  • New HEPI and the University of Central Lancashire Report: Student Working Lives

    New HEPI and the University of Central Lancashire Report: Student Working Lives

    Author:
    Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding, Mary Lawler and Martin Lowe

    Published:

    A new major report from HEPI and the University of Central Lancashire reveals the realities of UK student life and highlights how paid work is increasingly an everyday part of the student experience.

    Student Working Lives (HEPI Report 195), written by Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding, Mary Lawler, Martin Lowe, draws on extensive research to show how students are juggling study, employment and caring responsibilities in the midst of a deepening cost-of-living crisis. The findings paint a striking picture of students for whom paid work has become a necessity, not a choice. Findings suggest two-thirds of students work to cover their basic living costs, and 26% of students work to support their families.

    The report looks at the type of work students are employed in, as well as the impact this has on their study. It calls for systemic reform across the higher education sector to design a higher education that moves away from assuming a full-time residential model, and supports student realities.

    You can read the press release and access the full report here.

    Source link

  • NZ warns against exploitation as working hours for int’l students rise

    NZ warns against exploitation as working hours for int’l students rise

    As part of its plan to grow the international education sector — which includes doubling its contribution to $7.2 billion and increasing international enrolments to 119,000 by 2034 — New Zealand has introduced new immigration changes.

    The changes extend in-study work rights to all tertiary students on approved exchange or study abroad programs and clarify that most students who change providers or lower their study level will need a new visa.

    Apart from these, eligible tertiary students in post-school education, such as universities and polytechnics, and secondary students in Years 12-13 can now work up to 25 hours a week. Secondary students will continue to require parental and school approval for in-study work.

    The increased limit applies to all new visas granted from November 3, even if the application was submitted earlier.

    Moreover, students already holding visas with a 20-hour work limit will need to reapply, either through a variation of conditions or by obtaining a new study visa, to access the increased allowance.

    Stakeholders have noted the importance of making sure that the relaxed rules do not result in students being exploited for low-paid or exploitative work.

    The increase to in-study work rights comes at a time when New Zealand has 40,987 study visa holders eligible to work, with 29,790 of those visas expiring on or before 31 March 2026 and 11,197 after.

    The New Zealand government says the change will make the country “more competitive globally” and improve the overall student experience, at a time when international student satisfaction remains strong at 87%.

    “International students make a significant contribution to the economy, with each student spending around $45,000 on average in 2024 – supporting local businesses, tourism, and job creation,” Jeannie Melville, deputy COO for immigration at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, told The PIE News.

    “As part of the International Education Going for Growth Plan, changes were announced to immigration settings to support sustainable growth and enhance New Zealand’s appeal as a study destination. These changes aim to maintain education quality while managing immigration risk.”

    International students have the same minimum employment rights as any other worker, including being paid at least the minimum wage and working within visa conditions
    Jeannie Melville, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

    The rise in working hours is a “confidence signal” that will help with living costs and shows that New Zealand is welcoming, according to Frank Xing, director of marketing and operations at Auckland-based Novo Education Consulting.

    But authorities are still expected to keep a close eye on the changes amid past concerns of international students working long hours for below-minimum wages, being denied sick leave, and struggling to find jobs.

    The New Zealand government has taken steps to address workplace exploitation in the past, including launching the multilingual Introduction to Your Employment Rights module to help migrant workers understand their agreements and rights.

    “International students have the same minimum employment rights as any other worker, including being paid at least the minimum wage and working within visa conditions. Exploitation, such as underpayment or forcing excessive hours, is a criminal offence under the Immigration Act and we do act against employers who exploit workers.

    “Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has strengthened protections for migrant workers, including the Worker Protection Act that took effect in January 2024,” Melville said, adding that this allows authorities to issue infringement notices, publish the names of non-compliant employers, and stop them from supporting migrant visa applications for a period.

    “We have also tightened visa settings and improved monitoring to reduce exploitation risks.”

    According to ex and current international students The PIE spoke with, employers often pushed them to work beyond the weekly hour limit, and while students tried to balance extra hours by reducing them later or carrying them into holiday periods, any overtime during term time was usually unpaid until the breaks.

    Some students also alleged mistreatment or harsh behaviour at their workplaces, though experiences varied by employer.

    Despite these concerns, Melville noted that students can report any instances of exploitation by calling Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111, which she described as “a confidential and safe way to make a report”.

    According to Xing, the changes in working hours don’t replace core factors like academic fit, career pathways, and post-study visas that drive student applications but they will help international students avoid situations where they can be taken advantage of.

    “Extending legal working hours should also reduce the temptation to accept low-paid, cash-in-hand jobs. Of course, vigilance is still needed,” he said.

    He called for better student education on their employment rights, as well as stronger penalties for employers who break the rules and easier reporting channels for students.

    “It’s early days since the rule took effect – around 10 days – but we’re already seeing more enquiries mentioning ‘25 hours’ alongside programme and city choice, especially as other destinations tighten settings,” Xing added, noting that current international students have also requested help from their Licensed Immigration Advisers to apply for a variation of conditions to move from 20 to 25 hours.

    It’s early days since the rule took effect – around 10 days – but we’re already seeing more enquiries mentioning ‘25 hours’ alongside programme and city choice, especially as other destinations tighten settings
    Frank Xing, Novo Education Consulting

    The increase to 25 hours per week isn’t limited to students. New Zealand has also extended part-time work rights to dependent child visitor visa holders and skilled Migrant Category Interim visa holders.

    The move comes as a record number of New Zealanders leave amid a weakening economy, with relaxed migrant work rules seen as a way to fill workforce gaps and support students’ transition into future employment.

    “In certain professions, like healthcare, the number of hours of relevant work experience is a very important factor – it can directly affect your employability and career progression,” stated Vijeta Kanwar, director of operations, New Zealand Gateway.

    “For example, some job vacancies specify that a candidate must have 100 or even 500 hours of work experience. In that context, gaining five extra hours a week over a year can significantly increase the total experience a student has, enhancing their opportunities when pursuing post-study work.”

    “We’ve seen more enthusiasm from students, especially those looking to gain international work experience. They’re quite excited because, in many professions, the number of hours of work experience you gain, especially if it’s linked to your intended career, has huge importance.”

    Just in June this year, New Zealand announced that degree holders from countries including India, France, Germany, Italy, Sri Lanka, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland can now bypass the qualification assessment process for certain immigration categories.

    Subject to New Zealand’s cabinet discussions, the government is also set to introduce a new short-term work visa for some vocational graduates and streamline visa processes, according to INZ.

    Source link

  • Northwestern, Cornell Still Working to Unfreeze Federal Funds

    Northwestern, Cornell Still Working to Unfreeze Federal Funds

    The Trump administration reportedly froze nearly $6 billion in grants and contracts, but most of that has since been restored.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | arlutz73 and Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images

    Thanks to a series of settlements and court orders, some universities that had their grants frozen by the Trump administration earlier this year have seen that funding restored.

    But others are still trying to unfreeze the grants and learn more about why they were suspended in the first place.

    Since March, the Trump administration has said that it put nearly $6 billion on hold at nine universities. Three universities—Columbia, Penn and Brown—cut deals with the administration to restore the funding, while the University of California, Los Angeles, and Harvard got the money back via court orders. The fate of the remaining four freezes—at Duke, Cornell, Northwestern and Princeton Universities—remains uncertain.

    Princeton has seen about half of its frozen grants restored, President Christopher Eisgruber told the alumni magazine in late August. Roughly $200 million was put on hold initially.

    Eisgruber said Princeton never learned why the funds were frozen, beyond media reports that connected it to concerns over antisemitism on campus. A Princeton spokesperson confirmed the magazine’s report but declined to share more details about the status of the remaining grants.

    At Northwestern, the Trump administration reportedly froze about $790 million in early April, though officials said at the time they never received formal notification about why the funds were put on hold. Since then, Northwestern officials have said they are working to restore the grants—a process that apparently hasn’t gone smoothly.

    Northwestern University interim president Henry Bienen told The Daily Northwestern in an Oct. 17 interview that “a negotiation really requires two parties, at least, and at the present time, there’s not been anybody on the other end of the line.”

    As the freeze persists, Northwestern has said it will continue to support researchers’ “essential funding needs” at least through the end of the calendar year. Bienen told the student newspaper that supporting the research costs $30 million to $40 million a month.

    The university has laid off more than 400 employees and instituted other measures to cut costs, though officials said those moves were driven by more than just the funding freeze.

    Cornell University is also in talks with the administration to find a solution to the freeze. However, President Michael Kotlikoff recently shared new information about the impact of the freeze that calls into question the Trump administration’s figures.

    Trump officials told media outlets in April that they froze more than $1 billion at Cornell. But Kotlikoff said last week in his State of the University address that Cornell is actually facing about $250 million in canceled or unpaid research funds. (The university’s research expenditures totaled $1.6 billion in the 2023–24 academic year.)

    Like Northwestern and Princeton, Cornell hasn’t received a formal letter about the freeze, though media reports suggested that the administration froze the grants “because of concerns around antisemitism following pro-Palestinian activities on campus beginning in fall of 2023,” Kotlikoff said.

    Following news stories about the freeze, Kotlikoff said the university “started receiving stop-work orders ‘by direction of the White House’: halting research on everything from better tests for tick-borne diseases, to pediatric heart assist pumps, to ultrafast lasers for national defense, to AI optimization for blood transfusion delivery. At the same time, many other research grants, while not officially canceled, stopped being paid.” (About $74 million of the $250 million is in unpaid bills, he said.)

    Kotlikoff added that Cornell has been talking with the federal government for six months “to identify their concerns, provide evidence to address them, and return to a productive partnership.” In August, Bloomberg reported that the White House wanted to reach a $100 million settlement with Cornell.

    But Kotlikoff also criticized the administration for not using established legal processes to investigate potential civil rights violations, echoing a point experts have made for months.

    “I want to be clear that there are established procedures in place for the government to handle such concerns,” he said in his State of the University address. “Accusations of discrimination should be supported by, and adjudicated on the basis of, facts. This has not happened.”

    Kotlikoff, who was appointed president in March, made clear in his address to the Board of Trustees and university alumni that Cornell won’t agree to give up control of admissions or curricular decisions, among other things.

    “We will not agree to allow the government to dictate our institution’s policies, or how to enforce them,” he said. “And we will never abandon our commitment to be an institution where any person can find instruction in any study.”

    The administration has also said it froze about $108 million at Duke University, but neither Duke nor the National Institutes of Health responded to Inside Higher Ed’s request for an update.

    Source link

  • What’s Working and Where Further Reform Is Needed

    What’s Working and Where Further Reform Is Needed

    As part of National Transfer Student Week, hundreds of college campuses are hosting public celebrations to uplift their transfer student communities, including many in our home state of California. While these celebrations are important to increase visibility and a sense of belonging, transfer students warrant our attention and support year-round. The data demonstrate why: While 80 percent of community college students nationally aspire to earn a bachelor’s degree, just 17 percent of community college students in California reach that finish line within six years. Moreover, sizable inequities by race and ethnicity, income, and age point to the need for drastic change.

    As former transfer students from the California Community Colleges who have worked in various capacities to improve transfer, including working directly with students through admissions, partnering with higher education system leaders to implement statewide legislation like Assembly Bill 928 and educating lawmakers and system leaders on the gaps that persist as policy fellows with the Campaign for College Opportunity, we know these challenges firsthand. Reflecting on our own transfer journeys and professional experience, we have identified three priorities that must be addressed to improve transfer student outcomes.

    1. Align and streamline transfer pathways to create flexibility for learners.

    When we began our community college journeys, we had no idea where the road might lead us: to a California State University, a University of California or a private nonprofit institution. Like many first-time students, we explored our options and built contingency plans. Yet California’s transfer pathways are not designed to provide such flexibility. Eligibility requirements vary across systems, with CSU and UC maintaining their own preferred pathways.

    Adding complexity, individual campuses and academic programs also impose local requirements, as documented in a recent study of five public institutions in California. This means that the same community college class can be treated differently by every campus, even in the same system, and may not end up applying to the intended major. As Just Equations further documented, the campus- and major-specific requirements are especially complicated for math.

    To avoid wasting time and credits, transfer students must commit early to a specific path. Making sense of these requirements, however, falls largely on students. One resource that helped us navigate course transfer in California is ASSIST.org. Nancy was able to use this tool to decide that the flexibility afforded by the general education transfer curriculum recognized by all CSU and UC campuses would be the best path for her. Meanwhile, both Brianna and Carlos relied on the tool to understand which math classes to take for their intended majors. Brianna discovered that the business calculus class she planned to take at American River College would work at her target CSU campus but would disqualify her from every UC campus.

    Unfortunately, while tools exist, students must independently seek them out and interpret complex rules. This adds unnecessary stress and risk of error. While we each ultimately succeeded in transferring and graduating, too many students are thrown off course. California should cut through this confusion by better aligning curricular requirements across the CSU and UC, and across campuses in the same system, so students have breathing room.

    1. Expand access to accurate and timely advising.

    While students in specialized programs often receive consistent advising, all community college students would benefit from personalized, ongoing support. Advising was pivotal for each of us, but only after we made the effort to seek it out and build relationships.

    For Nancy, proactively meeting with a transfer counselor every semester at El Camino College ensured that her general education plan and major requirements stayed on track. Brianna initially struggled to connect with advisers, but after joining her college’s track team, she began working with a consistent counselor who understood her long-term goals and helped her recognize that her coursework qualified her for several associate degrees.

    Through EOPS and athletics, Carlos met with his counselors multiple times each semester to monitor his progress on his plan to transfer to UCLA for economics. Despite his persistence, he was not informed of the calculus prerequisites until a year into his studies, which delayed his graduation from Porterville College. This gap was not the result of inaction on his part but of advising structures that are too underresourced to keep up with the ever-changing terrain of major requirements and hidden prerequisites.

    Together, our experiences highlight both the promise and pitfalls of advising. Consistent guidance turned potential setbacks into opportunities, but these outcomes depended on resources and relationships that are not universally accessible. California can and must do better by guaranteeing timely, accurate advising from the start. That means staffing campuses with sufficient transfer counselors, ensuring continuity with the same adviser, embedding transfer-specific advising across programs, as well as transfer receiving institutions investing more into their future students before the application process begins.

    1. Invest in transfer success and building transfer-receptive cultures.

    Admission to a four-year institution is only the beginning of the transfer journey. Just like first-year students, transfer students need resources and communities to thrive at an entirely new school and system. For Nancy and Carlos, UCLA’s Transfer Summer Program provided an early introduction to key campus resources and a strong peer community. That foundation smoothed their transition and reinforced their sense of belonging. With one in three UC undergraduates entering as transfer students, investing systemwide in transfer-specific programming is essential. Summer bridge programs, structured mentorship and visible campus traditions can ensure transfer students feel valued from the first day they enter campus.

    By contrast, Brianna entered Pomona College as one of just 20 transfer students. While living with fellow transfer students helped build community, formal support was limited. She stepped up as a student leader, serving as the first transfer community residential adviser and partnering with university leaders to design and implement transfer-specific programming.

    These stories illustrate both the power of institutionalizing support services and of recognizing the inherent assets that transfer students bring to the table, because building a transfer-receptive culture must begin with valuing transfer students and treating them as integral contributors to the intellectual and social life of their campuses.

    Looking Ahead

    Our transfer success stories were possible because of our persistence in seeking tools like ASSIST.org, the guidance of dedicated advisers and the support of peer communities that helped us navigate through an unduly complex and high-stakes process. But no student’s success should depend on luck—our higher education systems need to make sure they are student-ready. California has made important progress through reforms like common course numbering, the Associate Degree for Transfer and Cal-GETC. Now it is time to build on that momentum by aligning and streamlining pathways, expanding access to accurate advising and degree planning tools, and investing in transfer-receptive campuses. 

    Brianna Huynh is a former policy fellow at the Campaign for College Opportunity. She is completing her M.S. in mathematics at California State Polytechnic University Pomona, and holds an A.S.T. in mathematics from American River College and a B.S. in mathematics from Pomona College. 

    Nancy Ohia is a current policy fellow at the Campaign for College Opportunity. After graduating from UCLA as a transfer student, Nancy earned her M.P.P. from USC. 

    Carlos Rodriguez is a current policy fellow at the Campaign for College Opportunity. He earned his A.S. in business management from Porterville College and is a current transfer student at UCLA majoring in economics. 

    Source link

  • Working Students Face New Challenges in a Shifting Policy Landscape

    Working Students Face New Challenges in a Shifting Policy Landscape

    Most undergraduates today are juggling academics with paid work, many logging 40 or more hours a week. That load leaves little margin: more non-academic responsibilities, less time for coursework, and fewer opportunities to engage on campus mean these students often feel the effects of federal policy changes first.

    The budget reconciliation bill signed into law on July 4 threatens to make those challenges worse, reshaping student loans and public benefit programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid in ways that risk cutting off critical financial lifelines. On Pell Grants, the news is mixed: the bill restores a revised Workforce Pell program that could open doors to short-term training, but makes other changes that may reduce access for some students.

    For working students already balancing jobs, school, and basic needs, these changes could tip the balance toward longer time to degree, greater debt, or leaving school altogether. Using recent data, we explore how these students are making ends meet now, and what colleges, universities, and policymakers can do to protect and strengthen the supports that help them stay enrolled and graduate.

    Profile of student workers

    According to the 2020 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20), nearly three-quarters of undergraduate students work while enrolled, with around a third of those students working full time. Results from Trellis Strategies’ 2024 Student Financial Wellness Survey (SFWS) identified similar rates of employment, allowing the ability to cross-reference specific questions about overall financial wellness. In this post, we compare SFWS respondents who answered “yes” to the question “Do you work for pay?” with those who answered “no.”

    About half of all SFWS respondents reported using income from their employment to pay for school. However, many working students have additional financial commitments beyond their education. For example, 19 percent of working respondents indicated they provide financial support to a child, and 18 percent provide the same support to their parents or guardians. Overall, about half of working SFWS respondents (47 percent) shared that it was important for them to support their family financially while in college, compared to 38 percent of their non-working peers.

    This heightened familial commitment is reflected in the fact that many working students—36 percent of those responding to the 2024 SFWS—identify primarily as workers who go to school, rather than students who work. Furthermore, working students attend part-time at higher rates (38 percent) compared to their non-working peers (28 percent).

    How working students pay for college

    Most students who were working at the time the 2024 SFWS was administered self-reported using their employment to pay for college (see Figure 2). Many used personal savings as well, but only seven percent were able to “work their way through college” using employment and/or personal savings alone. Instead, working students, similar to their peers who don’t work, depend upon aid such as grants and loans to be able to access higher education.

    Nationally representative data from NPSAS:20 show that almost 40 percent of working students receive Pell Grants and more than a third borrow federal student loans (non-working students receive federal aid at similar rates).

    For these students, losing part of their federal aid could mean they can no longer afford higher education. This is especially true for those students with limited financial flexibility to fall back on. Working students in the SFWS were more likely to report using credit cards to pay for college and were less likely to receive financial support from parents or family, as compared to their non-working peers.

    Implications of policy changes

    The reconciliation bill passed by Congress in July 2025 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) includes many changes that impact students, with particularly significant consequences for those who work.

    On Pell Grants, the bill offers both opportunities and new concerns. It restores a revised Workforce Pell Grant program, starting July 2026, that expands the traditional Pell Grant to include eligible short-term non-degree programs at accredited institutions, an option that could help working students earn credentials more quickly and move into higher-paying jobs.

    At the same time, the bill restricts Pell eligibility when other scholarships, grants, or non-federal aid fully cover a student’s cost of attendance. Under this system, a working student who receives a private scholarship that might otherwise allow them to decrease their working hours could instead see their Pell Grant decrease. While intended to prevent Pell from being awarded in “full-ride” situations, the change could also affect working students who have substantial financial responsibilities beyond the calculated cost of attendance.

    The bill also includes significant changes to federal student loan programs and repayment options, with most of the changes effective as of July 1, 2026. Parents borrowing Parent PLUS loans will now have annual and aggregate borrowing caps. About one in 10 undergraduate students, including among working students, reported that their parents borrowed loans for their education. Limits on this borrowing may constrain the financial resources of some students, with possible negative consequences for their academic momentum.

    Changes to SNAP and Medicaid will affect state budgets, putting higher education at risk and making it harder for people to enroll in and complete a credential while meeting their basic needs. Many students, despite also working, already face significant barriers such as food and housing insecurity, as found in the 2024 SFWS.

    While no changes were made to student-specific eligibility criteria in SNAP, new work requirements in SNAP and Medicaid prioritize work over education, making it harder for people to complete a credential while maintaining access to food and health assistance. These work requirements will also create new administrative hurdles, which research shows result in people being kicked off of Medicaid despite being eligible.

    The net effect of these changes will relegate more people to low-wage work by delaying or denying their ability to complete credentials that would provide higher wages, lower unemployment and poverty rates, and less use of public benefits. While the Medicaid work requirement changes don’t begin until January 2028, the SNAP changes were effective upon signing of the bill. However, states are awaiting further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on how to administer those changes.

    Any reduction in financial aid or public assistance resources for students may mean that more students will need to work longer hours while enrolled to make ends meet. Besides reducing the number of hours available to study, work schedules can also directly conflict with class schedules and other campus activities.One-quarter of working respondents in the 2024 SFWS reported missing at least one day of classes due to conflicts with their job, and 56 percent of students with jobs agreed or strongly agreed that their job interfered with their ability to engage in extracurricular activities or social events at their school. Students with a weaker sense of connection and belonging at their institution have been shown to have worse academic performance and retention rates than their peers.

    Supporting working students

    While changes to federal student aid programs are still being debated, colleges and universities can ensure they have programs and processes in place to support working students at their campuses. Institutional leaders can:

    • Develop or enhance robust support systems, such as emergency grants, connection to public services, and adequate financial aid, to help students weather financial challenges, develop a stronger connection to their institution, and remain enrolled.
    • Implement strategic course scheduling that can help students more effectively plan employment, child care, transportation, and other needs so they can enroll in and complete more classes in a timely way.
    • Leverage regular data collection to respond to the needs of their specific student body. Participating in the annual Student Financial Wellness Survey is free and provides institutions with a customized report, benchmarking insights, and de-identified student data.
    • Policymakers should consider how programs can best serve students juggling multiple time commitments and financial priorities. Robust social services, such as child care and access to public assistance programs, can allow more working students the opportunity to thrive. Adequate financial aid can help students work less and complete their credentials sooner, opening the door to higher wages.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Working with our places will help us to spread the benefits of higher education more widely

    Working with our places will help us to spread the benefits of higher education more widely

    In the North East of England, fewer than one in three 18 year olds enter higher education, compared to a national average of 37 per cent.

    For higher education institutions, including my own, this is more than a regrettable statistic. It must be a call to action. The Sutton Trust’s Opportunity Index highlights that the North East ranks lowest of all English regions for social mobility prospects, with the poorest students in the region facing some of the most limited chances for progression into higher education and good employment.

    As a country we have undoubtedly made progress in widening participation, but as someone who spends their days thinking about such things, I worry: are we measuring that progress in the right ways? It’s not just about the gateway to university, it’s about the university journey and beyond. Or, to put it in more human terms: are people who previously wouldn’t have gone to university not only getting in, but thriving once they’re in?

    If we carry on measuring widening participation purely by entry stats and graduate salaries, we’ll miss the bigger picture, and what many of us went into higher education to try to achieve: deeper, transformative impact. A university education does more than prepare someone for a job. There is good evidence that links it to longer life expectancy, better health, and greater stability.

    The benefits of university go beyond the individual. Children of university graduates are much more likely to attend university and perform better once there. When a young person from a disadvantaged background earns a degree, it can spark a ripple effect that changes their family’s trajectory for good.

    There’s also a clear economic case for seeing success more broadly. Graduates typically pay more in tax, rely less on welfare services, and are more likely to engage in civic life. In regions like ours, where economic renewal and social mobility are deeply connected, that impact is amplified. A university education doesn’t just boost an individual’s prospects – it helps build stronger, more resilient communities.

    Whole-journey approach

    If we are truly serious about transforming lives and levelling up opportunity, especially in so-called “cold spots” like County Durham, then we need to dig deeper, beyond continuation rates and into attainment and the feeling of belonging. Financial strains, cultural barriers, wellbeing concerns, and more must be recognised and overcome. These are challenges not just for admissions, but across the entire student journey.

    Attainment gaps have a substantial impact, and disadvantaged students can be up to 22.7 months behind advantaged peers by the time they take their GCSEs. GCSE performance is strongly correlated with later life outcomes, including university attendance and employment quality. Early outreach is therefore pivotal in closing these long-standing gaps.

    It’s a challenge we take seriously. We’re not just widening the door – we’re reshaping the whole experience: investing nearly £1.5m in programmes for Key Stage 4 and 5 students, strengthening our foundation programme, and working with Sunderland AFC’s Foundation of Light to create a new health hub in one of our most deprived communities.

    One of the clearest messages of our new access and participation plan is how deeply place and perception are intertwined. Many young people in North East England don’t just lack opportunities – they’re not even sure those opportunities are meant for them. And, sadly, some still perceive Durham to be a place where they wouldn’t belong. Multiple studies show a strong link between a sense of belonging and academic success, particularly for underrepresented groups. So we’re investing in transition support and the Brilliant Club’s Join the Dots programme, which connects incoming students with peer coaches from results day onward.

    What we’re trying to achieve with our strategy cannot and should not be measured solely in continuation rates and degree classifications. Our evaluation strategy includes:

    • Sense of belonging as a core outcome: Building on Durham-led research, we are embedding a validated survey tool into our access and participation work. This tool captures students’ sense of belonging across multiple domains — from college life to academic confidence. These survey findings will help us identify and support groups at higher risk of exclusion.
    • Quasi-experimental design: Where sample sizes allow, we will use matched control groups and multiple regression analysis to compare outcomes between intervention participants and non-participants, tracking progress from outreach through to graduation. Intermediate metrics include not only continuation and attainment but also self-efficacy and engagement.
    • Pre/post measures: Our use of TASO’s validated access and success questionnaire enables pre- and post-intervention analysis of psychosocial outcomes such as academic self-efficacy and expectations of higher education.
    • Theory of change models: These have been developed for each intervention strand and will be regularly updated to ensure our work is aligned with evidence and outcomes over time.

    While our approach is rigorous, we anticipate several challenges. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds face cost-related pressures that may impact belonging and continuation. And persistent concerns about whether students from working-class or Northern backgrounds “belong” at Durham risk undermining recruitment and retention. We aim to confront this through co-designed interventions, but change in perception takes time.

    Co-development is key

    We believe that we can only succeed for the North East by working with others: through Universities for North East England – which includes Durham, Newcastle, Northumbria, Sunderland, and Teesside; and the new Durham Learning Alliance partnership with four local colleges – we must expand educational opportunities and drive economic growth.

    When people see that their goals and dreams are genuinely realisable, they’re far more likely to engage. After all, who are we to define what success should look like for someone else?

    The government’s opportunity mission gives higher education a rare, and much-needed, moment to pause and reset. Let’s not waste it. We’ve got a chance to rethink what success means – not just for universities, but for the people and places we serve. Let’s broaden the conversation beyond who gets through the door. Let’s put co-development at the heart of everything we do. And above all, let’s keep listening – not just to what students need, but to what they hope for. In the end, the real test of progress isn’t just who gets in. It’s who gets on – and how far they go, with us walking alongside them.

    Source link

  • How we’re working across London to build a more diverse higher education leadership pipeline

    How we’re working across London to build a more diverse higher education leadership pipeline

    In 2021, I piloted a city-wide mentoring programme for global majority ethnic staff working in London universities.

    It was born from the bilateral North London Leadership Programme between London Metropolitan University and City St George’s, University of London. Four years later the Global Majority Mentoring Programme is flourishing – but world events show us that we need interventions like these as much as we ever did.

    The Global Majority Mentoring Programme is London Higher’s flagship commitment to championing equality, diversity and inclusion across the capital. It is a cross-institutional scheme that aims to improve career progression for global majority ethnic staff; give mentees a senior mentor from a different institution, outside their institutional hierarchy; and build professional networks across the capital to foster pan-London collaboration. Over 300 participants from 20 institutions have engaged with the scheme, with representation from small specialist institutions, large multi-faculty universities, and everything in between.

    London remains the most ethnically diverse region in the UK. Ten of London’s 32 boroughs (plus the City of London) have a majority non-white population. Newham is London’s most diverse borough, with a population that is 69.2 per cent non-white. In the boroughs of Brent, Redbridge, Harrow and Tower Hamlets, the figure is also above 60 per cent.

    You could also call the capital a microcosm of the wider HE sector. London has the largest concentration of diverse higher education providers in the country. A citywide initiative here has a real opportunity to effect meaningful and visible change. Our universities are proudly outward-looking and global, from research links to equitable international partnerships, yet they are also firmly rooted in place and contributors to local growth, regeneration and prosperity. However, lasting change doesn’t happen overnight; London’s higher education sector was not, and still is not, truly representative of the city it serves.

    Mentoring individuals from global majority ethnic backgrounds aligns with London-wide policy aims and ambitions: there’s a clear evidence base to support this. Along with the London Anchor Institutions’ Network, we’re striving to meet the clear priorities that have been set out for London’s post-pandemic recovery and regeneration, addressing systemic issues of social and economic unfairness. The London Growth Plan and upcoming Inclusive Talent Strategy encapsulate these priorities.

    Growing the pipeline

    We are all acutely aware of the wider narrative around EDI. The second Trump administration’s efforts in the US show us what can happen when a populist government takes up “anti-woke” as a cause. There may be disagreement about the form that EDI work should take and some people may fundamentally disagree with the legitimacy of EDI work as part of a public service agenda.

    However, in a sector in which there is a visible lack of diversity – in all its forms – that worsens, the further upstream in the talent pipeline you go, we need to continue to work to understand the practical and cultural barriers to leadership and drive to overcome them, learning together as we go. A theme that has consistently emerged throughout the programme is gaining a better knowledge of HE, and its systemic complexities and barriers.

    Mentoring programmes like ours create space and connections to make sense of personal experience and explore shared challenges. Participants report feeling a greater sense of empowerment and increased confidence. And tangible impacts on mentees include promotions, collaborations across universities, joint research bids, and even funded PhDs happening as a result of their participation in the scheme.

    Future-proofing

    Career progression and leadership opportunities were identified as key issues from the outset, so it seems appropriate that the programme is supported by Minerva, an executive search and recruitment firm specialising in education. As headhunters responsible for significant appointments, Minerva is in a position of influence to shape the composition of senior university leadership and their boards.

    The programme ensures that a diverse talent pool is in the Minerva team’s line of sight, and can understand more about the challenges global majority colleagues face in moving up the ladder. Minerva also runs yearly masterclass for participants to demystify the executive search process – providing insights into a world that is largely unknown to many of them. This includes a breakdown of recruitment, explanations of things such as the “informal coffee” interview stage, tips on negotiating, conveying a personal brand and profile raising.

    We also tailored a leadership development programme alongside the University of Westminster and Blue Whistle Learning that has been taken up internationally, in countries like the Philippines and South Africa.

    It is my hope that the initiatives like this are viewed not as political footballs or shiny nice-to-haves, but for what they are – interventions based on robust evidence that meet local and sectoral needs and broaden opportunities for collaboration.

    Higher education, especially in London, does not exist in a bubble. It is critical that universities continue to position themselves as integral to driving wider policy change in service of society. A more diverse sector does not mean a watered-down one – it means one that is informed by more voices and perspectives, and therefore better equipped to succeed in tackling the challenges laid out before it.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here. 

    Source link