higher education policy blog

What education policy experts are watching for in 2022

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, daphna bassok , daphna bassok nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy @daphnabassok stephanie riegg cellini , stephanie riegg cellini nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy michael hansen , michael hansen senior fellow - brown center on education policy , the herman and george r. brown chair - governance studies @drmikehansen douglas n. harris , douglas n. harris nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy , professor and chair, department of economics - tulane university @douglasharris99 jon valant , and jon valant director - brown center on education policy , senior fellow - governance studies @jonvalant kenneth k. wong kenneth k. wong nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy.

January 7, 2022

Entering 2022, the world of education policy and practice is at a turning point. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic continues to disrupt the day-to-day learning for children across the nation, bringing anxiety and uncertainty to yet another year. Contentious school-board meetings attract headlines as controversy swirls around critical race theory and transgender students’ rights. The looming midterm elections threaten to upend the balance of power in Washington, with serious implications for the federal education landscape. All of these issues—and many more—will have a tremendous impact on students, teachers, families, and American society as a whole; whether that impact is positive or negative remains to be seen.

Below, experts from the Brown Center on Education Policy identify the education stories that they’ll be following in 2022, providing analysis on how these issues could shape the learning landscape for the next 12 months—and possibly well into the future.

I will also be watching the Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking sessions and following any subsequent regulatory changes to federal student-aid programs. I expect to see changes to income-driven repayment plans and will be monitoring debates over regulations governing institutional and programmatic eligibility for federal student-loan programs. Notably, the Department of Education will be re-evaluating Gainful Employment regulations—put in place by the Obama administration and rescinded by the Trump administration—which tied eligibility for federal funding to graduates’ earnings and debt.

But the biggest and most concerning hole has been in the  substitute teacher force —and the ripple effects on school communities have been broad and deep. Based on personal communications with Nicola Soares, president of  Kelly Education , the largest education staffing provider in the country, the pandemic is exacerbating several problematic trends that have been quietly simmering for years. These are: (1) a growing reliance on long-term substitutes to fill permanent teacher positions; (2) a shrinking supply of qualified individuals willing to fill short-term substitute vacancies; and, (3) steadily declining fill rates for schools’ substitute requests. Many schools in high-need settings have long faced challenges with adequate, reliable substitutes, and the pandemic has turned these localized trouble spots into a widespread catastrophe. Though federal pandemic-relief funds could be used to meet the short-term weakness in the substitute labor market (and mainline teacher compensation, too ), this is an area where we sorely need more research and policy solutions for a permanent fix.

First, what’s to come of the vaccine for ages 0-4? This is now the main impediment to resuming in-person activity. This is the only large group that currently cannot be vaccinated. Also, outbreaks are triggering day-care closures, which has a significant impact on parents (especially mothers), including teachers and other school staff.

Second, will schools (and day cares) require the vaccine for the fall of 2022? Kudos to my hometown of New Orleans, which still appears to be the nation’s only district to require vaccination. Schools normally require a wide variety of other vaccines, and the COVID-19 vaccines are very effective. However, this issue is unfortunately going to trigger a new round of intense political conflict and opposition that will likely delay the end of the pandemic.

Third, will we start to see signs of permanent changes in schooling a result of COVID-19? In a previous post on this blog, I proposed some possibilities. There are some real opportunities before us, but whether we can take advantage of them depends on the first two questions. We can’t know about these long-term effects on schooling until we address the COVID-19 crisis so that people get beyond survival mode and start planning and looking ahead again. I’m hopeful, though not especially optimistic, that we’ll start to see this during 2022.

The CTC and universal pre-K top my list for 2022, but it’s a long list. I’ll also be watching the Supreme Court’s ruling on vouchers in Carson v. Makin , how issues like critical race theory and detracking play into the 2022 elections, and whether we start to see more signs of school/district innovation in response to COVID-19 and the recovery funds that followed.

Electoral dynamics will affect several important issues: the selection of state superintendents; the use of American Rescue Plan funds; the management of safe return to in-person learning for students; the integration of racial justice and diversity into curriculum; the growth of charter schools; and, above all, the extent to which education issues are leveraged to polarize rather than heal the growing divisions among the American public.

Early Childhood Education Education Policy Higher Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Emily Markovich Morris, Laura Nóra, Richaa Hoysala, Max Lieblich, Sophie Partington, Rebecca Winthrop

May 31, 2024

Online only

9:30 am - 11:00 am EDT

Annelies Goger, Katherine Caves, Hollis Salway

May 16, 2024

One Thought to Start Your Day

One thought to start your day is our founder and ceo alex usher’s popular daily blog, brimming with up-to-the-minute insights and informed opinions on today’s higher education industry., search the blog.

• Administration
• Apprenticeships, Skills & Trades
• Artificial Intelligence
• Colleges and Polytechnics
• Funding and Finances
• Hello Goodbye
• HESA's AI Observatory
• History Lesson
• Indigenous PSE
• Institutions
• Internationalization
• Now Reading
• PSE Outcomes
• Student Aid
• Teaching & Learning
• Uncategorized
• Universities
• Worldwide PSE

| Alex Usher

A bit of a change this week. Our scheduled episode with Dr. Andrea Peto and Dr. Jo-Anne Dillabough about illiberal … Continued

• Dr. Gero Federkeil
• The World of Higher Education Podcast
• U-Multirank

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for me. It’s end of term/conference season, and so I get a lot … Continued

Much of the current discourse about international students sounds something like this: “We love international students, it’s just that we … Continued

• Colleges Ontario

If you’ve been reading this bog for a while, you’ll know that I occasionally keep tabs on what’s going on … Continued

| Higher Education Strategy Associates

Spotlight Good afternoon all,  Today’s newsletter includes various articles about the impacts of AI on research and science.  Also, here’s … Continued

• Next Page »

Enjoy Reading?

Get  One Thought sent straight to your inbox. Subscribe now.

Latest Blogs

Generative AI: a technology that “makes previously exclusive interactions available to all”?

UK student recruitment numbers down, but is that the whole story?

Lunchtime Reading: Does the Apprenticeship Levy need reforming?

Why is UK HE in Breakdown? A Lecturer’s View

Perceptions of research culture

See all blogs →

Latest News

Trans and non-binary student experiences in higher education

Landmark HEPI and TechnologyOne report shows students studying outside London need £18,600 to have an acceptable standard of living

New research reveals the benefits of the Graduate Route visa

HEPI polling shows only a third of students think England’s system of maintenance support is fair – and most are financially worse off than a year ago

Why a fresh approach is needed for university drop-out rates

See all news →

• Higher Education Today
• American Council On Education
• Carnegie Classifications
• Race and Ethnicity In Higher Education

Policy & Research

Commentary and analysis on today’s most pressing concerns and innovative practices in higher education policy and research. Staffed by ACE’s Research and Government Relations departments, along with guest posts from ACE members and other scholars working in the field to define and assess the critical challenges facing colleges and universities. Together, these posts provide college leaders and public policymakers with the latest on issues such as access, financial aid, data, Congress and the administration, re-imagining diversity and equity on campus, and public higher education finance.

Contributors

Higher Education Isn’t the Enemy

Those who threaten academic freedom, from outside or inside campus, are threatening higher education itself—to America’s peril.

I ’ve spent more than five decades making difficult decisions in finance, government, business, and politics. Looking back, what most prepared me for the life I’ve led was the open exchange of ideas that I experienced in college and law school, supported by a society-wide understanding that universities and their faculty should be allowed to pursue areas of study as they see fit, without undue political or financial pressure. More broadly, throughout my career, I have seen firsthand the way America’s higher-education system strengthens our nation.

I cannot recall a time when the country’s colleges and universities, and the wide range of benefits they bring, have faced such numerous or serious threats. Protests over Gaza, Israel, Hamas, and anti-Semitism—and the attempt by certain elected officials and donors to capitalize on these protests and push a broader anti-higher-education agenda—have been the stuff of daily headlines for months. But the challenges facing colleges and universities have been building for years, revealed in conflicts over everything from climate change and curriculum to ideological diversity and academic governance.

But there is a threat that is being ignored, one that goes beyond any single issue or political controversy. Transfixed by images of colleges and universities in turmoil, we risk overlooking the foundational role that higher education plays in American life. With its underlying principles of free expression and academic freedom, the university system is one of the nation’s great strengths. It is not to be taken for granted. Undermining higher education would harm all Americans, weakening our country and making us less able to confront the many challenges we face.

T he most recent upheavals on American campuses—and the threat posed to the underlying principles of higher education—have been well documented.

In some cases, individuals have been silenced or suppressed, not because they were threatening anyone’s physical safety or disrupting the functioning of the university environment, but rather, it seems, because of their opinions. The University of Southern California, for example, recently canceled its valedictorian’s speech at graduation. Although administrators cited safety concerns, many on campus, including the student herself, said they believe that the true cause lay in the speaker’s pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel views . One does not have to agree with the sentiments being expressed by a speaker in order to be troubled by the idea that they would be suppressed because of their content.

Conor Friedersdorf: Columbia University’s impossible position

In other cases, it is the demonstrators themselves who have sought to force their views on others—by breaking university policies regarding shared spaces, occupying buildings, and reportedly imposing ideological litmus tests on students seeking to enter public areas of campus. Some activists have advocated violence against those with whom they disagree. Even before the unrest of recent weeks, I had heard for many years from students and professors that they felt a chilling effect on campuses that rendered true discussion—including exchanges of ideas that might make others uncomfortable—very difficult.

Even as free speech faces serious threats from inside the campus, academic freedom is under assault from outside. To an unprecedented degree, donors have involved themselves in pressure campaigns, explicitly linking financial support to views expressed on campus and the scholarship undertaken by students and faculty. At the University of Pennsylvania, one such effort pressed donors to reduce their annual contribution to $1 to protest the university’s decision to host a Palestinian literary conference. At Yale, Beverly Gage, the head of the prestigious Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy, felt compelled to resign after the program came under increasing pressure from its donors. Among other things, the donors objected to an op-ed by an instructor in the program headlined “How to Protect America From the Next Donald Trump.”

It’s not just donors. Elected officials and candidates for office are also attacking academic freedom. On a Zoom call whose content was subsequently leaked, a Republican member of Congress, Jim Banks of Indiana, characterized recent hearings with the presidents of Harvard, MIT, Penn, and Columbia—along with upcoming ones with the presidents of Rutgers, UCLA, and Northwestern—as part of a strategy to “defund these universities.” In a recent campaign video, former President Trump asserted that colleges are “turning our students into Communists and terrorists and sympathizers,” and promised to retaliate by taxing, fining, and suing private universities if he wins a second term. Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio, a close ally of Trump’s, has introduced a bill that would punish schools that don’t crack down on demonstrators. The bill would tax the endowment of such schools heavily and curb their access to federal funds.

The methods of these donors and politicians—politically motivated subpoenas and hearings, social-media pressure campaigns, campaign-trail threats—may not violate the First Amendment. They do, however, seek to produce a chilling effect on free speech. The goal of these efforts is to force universities to bow to outside pressure and curtail the range of ideas they allow—not because scholars at universities believe those ideas lack merit, but because the ideas are at odds with the political views of those bringing the pressure.

A ll of this needs to be seen against a foreboding backdrop. At a time when trust in many American institutions is at an all-time low, skepticism about higher education is on the rise. Earlier this year, a noteworthy essay by Douglas Belkin in The Wall Street Journal explored “Why Americans Have Lost Faith in the Value of College.” The New York Times wondered last fall whether college might be a “risky bet.” According to Gallup, confidence in higher education has fallen dramatically—from 57 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2023. The attacks on free expression and academic freedom on campus are both causes and symptoms of this declining confidence.

It is ironic that, at a moment when higher education faces unprecedented assaults, more Americans than ever have a college diploma. When I graduated from college, in 1960, only 8 percent of Americans held a four-year degree. Today, that number has increased almost fivefold, to 38 percent. Even so, I suspect that many Americans don’t realize just how exceptional the country’s university system actually is. Although the United States can claim less than 5 percent of the world’s population, it is home to 65 percent of the world’s 20 highest-ranked universities (and 28 percent of the world’s top-200 universities). Americans can get a quality education at thousands of academic institutions throughout the country.

Despite the skepticism in some quarters about whether a college degree is really worth it, the financial benefits of obtaining a degree remain clear. At 25, college graduates may earn only about 27 percent more than high-school-diploma holders. However, the college wage premium doubles over the course of their lifetime, jumping to 60 percent by the time they reach age 55. Looking solely at an individual’s financial prospects, the case for attending college remains strong.

David Deming: The college backlash is going too far

But the societal benefits we gain from higher education are far greater—and that’s the larger point. Colleges and universities don’t receive tax exemptions and public funds because of the help they give to specific individuals. We invest in higher education because there’s a broad public purpose.

Our colleges and universities are seen, rightly, as centers of learning, but they are also engines of economic growth. Higher graduation rates among our young people lead to a better-educated workforce for businesses and a larger tax base for the country as a whole. Institutions of higher education spur early-stage research of all kinds, create environments for commercializing that research, provide a base for start-up and technology hubs, and serve as a mentoring incubator for new generations of entrepreneurs and business leaders. In many communities, especially smaller towns and rural areas, campuses also create jobs that would be difficult to replace.

The importance of colleges and universities to the American economy will grow in the coming decades. As the list of industries that can be automated with AI becomes longer, the liberal-arts values and critical-thinking skills taught by colleges and universities will become only more valuable. Machine learning can aid in decision making. It cannot fully replace thoughtfulness and judgment.

Colleges and universities also help the United States maintain a geopolitical edge. We continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world to study here. Although many of these students stay and strengthen the country, many more return home, bringing with them a lifelong positive association with the United States. When I served as Treasury secretary, I found it extremely advantageous that so many of my foreign counterparts had spent their formative years in the U.S. That’s just as true today. In many instances, even the leadership class in unfriendly countries aspires to send its children to study here. In a multipolar world, this kind of soft-power advantage matters more than ever.

At home, higher education helps create the kind of citizenry that is central to a democracy’s ability to function and perhaps even to survive. This impact may be hard to quantify, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

It is not just lawmakers and executives who must make difficult decisions in the face of uncertainty. All of us—from those running civil-society groups that seek to influence policy to the voters who put elected leaders in office in the first place—are called upon to make hard choices as we live our civic lives. All of us are aware that the country is not in its best condition—this is hardly news. Imagine what that condition might be if we set out to undermine the very institutions that nurture rigorous and disciplined thinking and the free exchange of ideas.

O f course , there is much about higher education that needs fixing. Precisely because colleges and universities are so valuable to society, they should do more to engage with it. Bringing down costs can help ensure that talented, qualified young people are not denied higher education for financial reasons. Being clear about the principles and policies regarding the open expression of views—even as we recognize that applying them may require judgment calls, and that it is crucial to protect student safety and maintain an environment where learning and research can be conducted—would help blunt the criticism, not always made in good faith, that universities have an ideological agenda. Communicating more effectively with the public would help more Americans understand what is truly at stake.

But the fact that universities can do more does not change a basic fact: It is harmful to society to put constraints on open discussion or to attack universities for purposes of short-term political gain. Perhaps some of those trying to discourage the open exchange of ideas at universities believe that we can maintain their quality while attacking the culture of academic independence. I disagree. Unfettered discussion and freedom of thought and expression are the foundation upon which the greatness of our higher-education system is built. You cannot undermine the former without damaging the latter. To take one recent example: After Governor Ron DeSantis reshaped Florida’s New College along ideological lines, one-third of the faculty left within a year. This included scholars not only in fields such as gender studies, which many conservatives view with distaste, but in areas such as neuroscience as well.

We can have the world’s greatest higher-education system, with all of the benefits it brings to our country, or we can have colleges and universities in which the open exchange of views is undermined by pressure campaigns from many directions. We can’t have both.

UNESCO-IESALC

• The Institute
• Public Consultations CRES+5
• Equity and Inclusion
• Recognition of Academic Degrees
• New Regional Convention
• Practical information for recognition by country
• Quality and relevance
• Campus IESALC
• Change Management Program and Agile Methodologies
• ESD BOOTCAMP
• Leadership, Management and Training Program for Sustainable Higher Education 
• Quality Management Programme
• Strengthening Programme for Improvement Plan Projects
• Sustainable University Leadership and Governance. Towards the 2030 Agenda
• Teacher Competency Development Programme (TCDP)
• Technical Competency Development Programme
• Concerted advocacy
• Inclusion 360°: Redefining Higher Education
• Digital Transformations
• Futures of Higher Education
• Internationalization
• Response to COVID-19
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• The Right to Higher Education
• Transforming Education
• Sustainable Development
• Competence Development for Technicians
• Educational continuity in Peru (PMESUT)
• Itinerario Lab
• Pedagogical Design and Education for Sustainable Development Training Program
• Program for the Strengthening of Improvement Plan Projects
• Sustainable University Leadership and Governance Program
• Teacher competence development
• Training Program in Digital Competencies and Transformational Teaching-Learning Models
• CRES 2018 Collection
• ESS Open Journal System
• IESALC Publications

HE Policy Observatory

The HE Policy Observatory

Are you engaged in higher education as a policymaker, researcher or professional? Do you want to access comparative information on higher education systems and policies globally?  You’re in the right place. UNESCO-IESALC is developing an online portal freely accessible to everyone interested in higher education policy. 

Through the HE Policy Observatory, you can gain access to essential, comparable information regarding higher education systems in most UNESCO countries. This information includes:

• The governance structures and regulatory bodies 
• Key legislations around higher education
• Quality assurance regimes 
• Policies aimed at funding and ensuring equitable access to higher education
• Policies for the recognition of higher education qualifications   

The second version of the observatory (set for early 2024), you’ll be able to seamlessly compare this information with the mains higher education statistical indicators collected by the UNESCO Institute of Statistics. These indicators include data on tertiary teaching staff , student mobility , enrolment and graduation rates , resource allocation (government expenditure in HEIs and R&D), and contextual metrics (such as GDP per capita and demography). It will provide you with increased opportunities to make informed decisions and drive meaningful change in higher education policy and practice.

The Role of Higher Education Policy

Across the world, higher education policy plays a crucial role in shaping the future of societies by contributing to sustainable socio-economic development and holding the power to amplify or reduce societal inequalities. Higher education policy directly impacts student access to degree programs, innovation, cultural enrichment, and civic engagement. Informed policy is critical to drive the development of higher education in different countries as higher education systems are often complex, heterogeneous, and rapidly evolving.

The HE Policy Observatory will support you to: 

• Access  detailed, reliable, systematised and transparent  information about higher education globally in a user-friendly platform
• Gain a  better understanding  of higher education systems and policies across countries in all world regions
• Conduct  comparative analysis  of higher education systems across countries and identify key policy trends

Learning from Higher Education Systems around the world

HE governance is particularly unique, articulating government policies, institutional autonomy, and academic freedom. Since HE is becoming increasingly international, with a rising number of students and institutions participating in cross-border higher education activities, policymakers could greatly benefit from learning from good practices worldwide. However, this information is currently scattered across multiple resources and platforms, and no mechanism allows the comparison of HE national policies globally. 

Expected user benefits

By using the HE Policy Observatory, you will:

• Gain a clear overview of higher education systems in different countries, as well as of international trends in higher education policy.   
• Be able to make decisions based on up-to-date evidence and data, for example when designing higher education programs and initiatives 
• Collaborate internationally by sharing knowledge and learning from successful strategies and approaches in peer countries
• © UNESCO IESALC 2023
• Disclaimer of use
• Website Privacy Notice
• Opportunities

State laws threaten to erode academic freedom in US higher education

Associate Professor of Political Science, Trinity College

Disclosure statement

Isaac Kamola is the Director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom housed at the American Association of University Professors, which seeks to promote and defend academic freedom within higher education. The center is funded by the Mellon Foundation.

Trinity College provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Over the past few years, Republican state lawmakers have introduced more than 150 bills in 35 states that seek to curb academic freedom on campus. Twenty-one of these bills have been signed into law.

This legislation is detailed in a new white paper published by the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom , a project established by the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP. Taken together, this legislative onslaught has undermined academic freedom and institutional autonomy in five distinct and overlapping ways.

1. Academic gag orders

As detailed in the report, state legislators introduced 99 academic gag orders during legislative sessions in 2021, 2022 and 2023. All of the 10 gag orders signed into law were done so by Republican governors. These bills assert that teaching about structural racism, gender identity or unvarnished accounts of American history harm students.

These gag orders are widely known as “divisive concept” or “anti-CRT” bills. CRT is an acronym for critical race theory, an academic framework that holds racism as deeply embedded in America’s legal and political systems. The partisan activists, such as Christopher Rufo , have used this term to generate a “ moral panic ” as part of a political response to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.

For example, in April 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 7, the “ Stop Woke Act .” The law defines a “divisive concept” as any of eight vague claims. They include claims that “Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist.”

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker described this law as “ positively dystopian .” He noted that the government’s own lawyers admitted that the law would likely make any classroom discussion concerning the merits of affirmative action illegal. The vague wording of these gag orders has a chilling effect , leaving many faculty unsure about what they can and cannot legally discuss in the classroom.

2. Bans on DEI programs

The expansion of diversity, equity and inclusion – or DEI – services on campus was a major outcome of the racial justice protests in 2020. By 2023, however, the legislative backlash was in full swing. Forty bills restricting DEI efforts were introduced during the 2023 legislative cycle, with seven signed into law.

For example, Texas’ Senate Bill 17 drew directly from model policy language developed by Rufo and published by the Manhattan Institute , a right-wing think tank. SB 17 banned diversity statements and considerations in hiring. It also restricted campus diversity training and defunded campus DEI offices at Texas’ public universities.

As detailed in the AAUP white paper, only a handful of people testified in favor of SB 17, and almost all had stated or unstated affiliations with right-wing think tanks. In contrast, more than a hundred educators and citizens testified, or registered to testify, against the bill. Since its passage, Texas public universities have seen the closing of DEI programs and reduced campus services for students from minority populations. For example, after the Legislature accused the University of Texas-Austin of violating SB 17, the school was forced to shut down its DEI office. This involved laying off 40 employees .

3. Weakening tenure

Tenure was developed to shield faculty members from external political pressure. The protections of tenure make it possible for faculty to teach, research and speak publicly without fear of losing their jobs because their speech angers those in power. As detailed in the report, however, during the 2021, 2022 and 2023 legislative sessions, 20 bills were introduced, with two bills weakening tenure protections signed into law in Florida and another in Texas .

In Florida, for example, SB 7044 created a system of post-tenure review, empowering administrators to review tenured faculty every five years. The law further empowers administrators to dismiss those whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory. The law also requires that faculty post course content in a public and searchable database.

The AAUP criticized the law , noting that SB 7044 has “substantially weakened tenure in the Florida State University System and, if fully implemented as written,” would effectively “eliminate tenure protections.” Now even tenured faculty have reason to fear that what they teach might be construed as a “divisive concept,” as CRT, or as promoting DEI.

4. Mandating content

Lawmakers in several states have also passed legislation mandating viewpoint diversity, establishing new academic programs and centers to teach conservative content and shifting curricular decision-making away from the faculty.

For example, Florida’s Senate Bill 266 expanded the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida, without faculty input or oversight. The original proposal for the Hamilton Center stated that the center’s goal was to advance “ a conservative agenda ” within the curriculum.

SB 266 also gave the governing boards overseeing the university and college systems the authority to decide which classes count toward the core curriculum. This power was exercised in November 2023 after Manny Diaz, the education commissioner in Florida, requested that the boards remove an introduction to sociology course . He stated on social media that the discipline had been “ hijacked by left-wing activists and no longer serves its intended purpose as a general knowledge course for students.”

5. Weakening accreditation

The accreditation process is an obscure area of academic governance whereby colleges and universities regularly subject themselves to external peer review. Nonprofit accrediting agencies conduct these institutional performance reviews.

As detailed in the report, during the 2021-23 legislative cycles, six bills were introduced – three of them were passed into law – weakening the accreditation process, thereby making it easier for political interests to shape university policy.

For example, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, warned the school’s board of trustees that establishing the School of Civic Life and Leadership without faculty oversight and consultation raised serious concerns about institutional independence. The Legislature responded with Senate Bill 680 , which would require that North Carolina public universities choose a different accrediting agency each accreditation cycle. Eventually passed as part of the omnibus House Bill 8, this policy allows schools to “shop” for an accrediting agency less likely to object to such political interference in the curriculum.

These five overlapping and reinforcing attacks on academic freedom and institutional autonomy threaten to radically transform public higher education in ways that serve the partisan interests of those in power.

• Academic freedom
• US higher education
• Education law
• Higher ed attainment
• Diversity, equity and inclusion

Data Manager

Research Support Officer

Director, Social Policy

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Higher Education Policy

• ISSN : 0952-8733 (print)
• ISSN : 1740-3863 (electronic)
• Journal no. : 41307

Higher Education Policy is an international, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on issues of significance in higher education policy. The journal publishes original analyses, whether theoretical, empirical or practice-based. The range of coverage extends from case studies of developments in individual institutions, to broad examination of policy-making at the system, national and regional levels.

The journal addresses issues in higher education related to governmental and institutional policies and governance, including analyses of developments in quality assurance; funding of higher education; accountability; academic freedom; institutional autonomy; competition; academic careers; stratification; organizational strategies and change; access and exclusion. Given the many developments in higher education, the journal is keen to address contemporary themes like rankings and excellence and authors are invited to think outside the box as well.

Higher Education Policy assembles special issues which devote coverage to a single subject. Recent specials have addressed the consequences of global competition for local scholarship; student engagement; higher education research in East Asia; and early career researchers.

The journal reaches an international audience which includes researchers specializing in higher education, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners working in the field of higher education.

Higher Education Policy is the quarterly journal of the International Association of Universities (IAU).

Latest issue

Volume 37, Issue 2, June 2024

Original Article

The College Admission Policy Evolution from 2003 to 2020 in China—A Social Network Analysis

Kun Yan , Han Wu , Kaiming Bu , Lingli Wu

Game of Brains: Examining Researcher Brain Gain and Brain Drain and Research University Policy

Yuan Chih Fu , Juan José Moradel Vásquez , Bea Treena Macasaet , Angela Yung Chi Hou , Justin J. W. Powell

Time Matters in Higher Education: How the ECTS Changes Ideas of Desired Student Conduct

Laura Louise Sarauw

Publishing with us

For authors.

• Accessibility
• Contacting editors
• Contacting sales reps
• eBook collections
• Help overview
• Rights and permissions

Information for

• Book reviewers
• Booksellers
• Journalists

Other sites and products

• Macmillan Education
• Macmillan International Higher Education
• Palgrave Journals
• Springer Link
• Springer Nature

Palgrave Macmillan publishes journals, monographs and reference books in print and online.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice

On a mission to redefine the future of higher education

The Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice

On a mission to center learners in the future of higher education.

About CHEPP

The Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice (CHEPP) is a non-partisan higher education research, policy, and advocacy organization, promoting solutions that deliver transformative outcomes for all learners.

Who are today’s learners?

Today’s learners are working adults. Caregivers. Veterans. They are living with low income, or with food or housing insecurity. While these students don’t fit the profile of the traditional college student, they are the majority of today’s learners—it’s time to build systems that support and empower them.

37% of today’s learners are 25 and older.

24% of today’s learners are parents or have other dependents.

40% of today’s learners work full-time, and 49% are financially independent.

36% of today’s learners don’t know where their next meal will come from.

At CHEPP, we believe:

Post-secondary education unlocks social and economic mobility.

A learner’s lived experience is an asset to their education and institution, not a barrier to success.

Learning and progress should be measured by a demonstration of knowledge and skills, not time spent in a classroom.

Learner-centered design should shape all post-secondary education policy and practice change.

As a public good, post-secondary institutions bear responsibility to relentlessly focus on student success and equitable outcomes.

Get In Touch

CHEPP is actively seeking partners. Get in touch to learn more and work together.

Welcome to the Higher Education Policy Observatory

This platform allows you to access information and conduct comparisons on higher education systems and policies implemented around the world. It contains 45 indicators covering a diversity of topics, from governance structures to quality assurance schemes and social justice programs. While all the information displayed in the HE Policy Observatory is public, it is now accessible, and integrated, in a single place for the first time.

• Country profiles providing detailed information on key aspects of higher education systems in a single country.
• Country comparisons allowing to compare up to 3 countries and see how their higher education systems are similar or different.
• World and regional overviews presenting comparable information on the different indicators of the HE Policy Observatory through graphs and maps.

Click on a menu below to start exploring, comparing, and contributing to the future of global higher education policies.

Missing country or outdated information in the Higher Education Policy Observatory?

The information in the Higher Education Policy Observatory will change as higher education systems and national legislations evolve. If you come across any information that needs updating, we would love to hear from you. Also, while the Higher Education Policy Observatory already covers around 150 national higher education systems worldwide, some higher education systems are still missing from the platform. UNESCO-IESALC stands ready to collaborate with national authorities to integrate new information in the platform.

Reach out to us via our contact details on the About page . We look forward to hearing from you!

   Síguenos

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Instagram
•   Youtube
• © UNESCO IESALC 2023
• Descargo de responsabilidad
• POLÍTICAS DE PRIVACIDAD
• Oportunidades
• Contáctenos

Did you spot incorrect data?

You can report it using this quick form .

May 2024 - The 2024 Landscape of Credit for Prior Learning in U.S. and Canadian Higher Education, Survey Calls for Artificial Intelligence Policies in Higher Education, and Annual Survey Examines Attitudes toward Higher Education

Dr. wendy kilgore |, may 28, 2024.

• AACRAO Research Insights
• AACRAO Research Resources
• artificial intelligence
• community college
• Learning Mobility
• online education
• Race/Ethnicity Reporting
• student debt
• Student Experience
• student loan debt
• Transcript Withholding
• value of degree

May, 2024 Eye on Research

An Announcement in Lieu of a Commentary

The Department of Education recently released a “Dear Colleague” letter in response to questions about transcript holds. We are working on interpreting the information and will update the membership with answers soon.

On the same day this blog is released (May 29, 2024),  we will hold a webinar at 2pmEST on transcript holds. We will share benchmarking perceptions about the impact of new transcript-hold related information and practice plans. During this same webinar, we will release AACRAO’s guidance on the use of partial-transcript holds. If you are unable to attend the webinar, it will soon be archived on the AACRAO website.  

We understand the challenges of navigating changes in federal regulations and remain committed to providing our members with resources and support to plan a course of action.

AACRAO Research Update

Enhancing Accessibility and Inclusion: The 2024 Landscape of Credit for Prior Learning in U.S. and Canadian Higher Education AACRAO, in partnership with CAEL, conducted a survey to benchmark CPL policy and practice. This report examines the current state of undergraduate credit for prior learning (CPL) in the U.S. and Canada. Its goal is to foster dialogue and action toward a more inclusive, effective higher education system. The report highlights the importance of acknowledging and integrating learning that occurs outside traditional academic environments.

Key points include the following.

82% of responding institutions offer one or more CPL pathways; 46% report an increase in pathways offered over a 3-year period.

Challenges for institutions include resource intensity, staffing constraints, lack of systemization, faculty buy-in and institutional awareness of CPL.

Recommendations for enhancing accessibility and inclusion include fostering a culture that values all forms of learning, allocating sufficient resources, developing clear policies and procedures, providing training, improving communication, investing in technology, promoting transferability of CPL credit, assessing impact on learner success and disaggregating data.

Institutional Perceptions and Plans Related to Transcript-Hold Regulation Changes AACRAO is pleased to announce that on June 25, 2024, we will release a comprehensive report based on our recent survey regarding institutional preparedness for the upcoming federal regulation change on transcript holds. The survey was distributed to AACRAO members and completed in collaboration with NACUBO. It dealt with topics related to the processes and policies of the registrar's and bursar's offices when dealing with unpaid balances. Institutions from states with, and without, transcript-hold bans participated, providing a broad range of insights.

We understand the challenges of navigating federal-regulation changes and are committed to providing our members with resources and support. Look for the release of our report on June 25th, as we work together to address the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Informational and Level-of-Interest Gathering Virtual Roundtable AACRAO Research held a roundtable discussion at the conference in early April 2024. From that discussion, an idea emerged to measure interest from our membership in two areas. The first suggestion relates to serving as a volunteer for a 2-3 year commitment to test comprehensive surveys before they are sent out, with some type of incentivization for doing so. 

The second is to have a set group of institutions work with AACRAO to create and send out annually a survey to learners that aligns with a key initiative. We have found a learner perspective on key issues is an enlightening and useful addition to institutional benchmark data. 

AACRAO worked with WICHE on their recognition of learning initiatives and was able to pair institutional benchmark data with learner perceptions . AACRAO also partnered with ACE for their National Task Force on the Transfer and Award of Credit paring benchmarking and learner perceptions . Finally, we partnered with the University of Arizona to examine factors that influence the number of excess credits at graduation and spoke with learners about their experiences. 

Because AACRAO is about to release the CPL institutional benchmark, we believe this year is an ideal time to redeploy the survey on learner perceptions of CPL we used with WICHE to discover whether learner experience has changed since 2019. Having institutional partners share this survey with their learners would be ideal.  

One or more 1-hour roundtable discussions will be held this summer to solidify these ideas. The date is to be determined. If you are interested in sharing your thoughts, please complete this form by June 14, 2024,  EOD Eastern time to express your interest. Depending on the number of volunteers, we may need to limit the size of the roundtables. If selected, you will be contacted as time-and-date details are finalized.

Call for Participants

IQ/ID invites enrollment managers and admission officers to participate in an anonymous survey to help identify issues regarding the post-SFFA landscape, team turnover and other systemic issues impacting the profession. You can participate in this study by completing this  20-minute online survey . Please contact Allison Bahme, Solutions Architect for IQ/ID, with questions regarding this study at [email protected].

IQID Technology, Inc. is a venture-backed, higher education tech startup. We help enrollment leaders create excellent, inclusive student experiences by using AI to gather insights that improve their communication patterns.

Current Higher-Education Research and Related Topics

Survey Calls for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policies in Higher Education According to a recent Inside Higher Ed study of chief academic officers , there is an urgent need for institutional policies controlling the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, in higher-education settings. Although most provosts recognize potential advantages of artificial intelligence, there are concerns about plagiarism and academic integrity due to learners' uncontrolled use of these tools. 

The need to create AI regulations to protect academic integrity and take advantage of AI's pedagogical potential is widely acknowledged. Colleges and institutions must be proactive in creating clear policies to uphold academic standards and encourage the appropriate use of AI as its capabilities evolve. Some concerns stated by survey respondents include:

76% of provosts believe AI will be "very" or "somewhat" helpful for learner learning in the future

79% of provosts believe, without regulations, AI systems could facilitate widespread plagiarism and cheating

about 7% of universities have formal policies in place regarding AI

34% of institutions are in the process of developing guidelines

Learners Feel Confident about Using Their Higher Education to Be Successful in Their Career or Post-Degree Studies A recent report from the career website Handshake provides insights into the mindset and readiness of the graduating class of 2024 as they prepare to enter the workforce or pursue further education. Soon-to-be graduates voice concerns about burnout, job satisfaction, financial security and the economy, despite being confident in their ability to apply newly acquired abilities. The report clarifies variables impacting the job application choice, changing career interests across disciplines and a willingness to consider nontraditional career paths, such as entrepreneurship.

71% of job-seekers and 87% of those with offers feel confident about using curricular experiences in their next stage. Figure 1.

Top concerns include burnout (61%), not enjoying work (54%), inability to advance (53%) and covering basic expenses (59%).

Learners are branching out from traditional roles for their majors; 73% expressed interest in entrepreneurship opportunities.

Source: Catching up with the Class of 2024. (2024). Handshake.com. Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://joinhandshake.com/network-trends/class-of-2024-graduation/

Study Uses Racial Equity to Assess College Value The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) has introduced a new Race and Economic Mobility (REM) metric to assess the true value of a college education by accounting for economic outcomes, based on an institution's racial composition. A recently released study shows differences between graduates from Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and non-HSIs in terms of earnings, debt loads and earnings premiums. Results highlight the necessity of putting race at the forefront of college-value assessment and addressing structural injustices that keep marginalized groups' economic immobility alive. 

Learners from 2-year HSIs earned 11% more than non-HSI counterparts.

Borrowers from 4-year HSIs owed a higher share of their original loan balances after 10 years, compared to non-HSI borrowers.

Both 2-year and 4-year HSIs had similar percentages of completers, with an earnings premium similar to their non-HSI counterparts.

The REM metric’s goal is to provide a more accurate assessment of college value by capturing economic mobility through a racial equity lens.

Community College Learners Need Better Career Preparation, According to New Report A new report from the Center for Community College learner Engagement highlights the need for improved career guidance and experiential-learning opportunities at community colleges. A survey of over 83,000 learners across 199 2-year institutions found many learners lacked sufficient information about in-demand jobs, earning potential and skills needed for their desired careers. 

Findings underscore the importance of proactively integrating career exploration into the community college experience to support learners' long-term economic mobility and align academic pathways with labor-market realities.

42% of learners stated their college provided little/no information about regionally in-demand jobs

46% received little/no data on average earnings for their chosen career field

learners using career services and participating in internships reported better career preparation

19% of learners completed an internship; providing these opportunities poses resource challenges

Case Study Focuses on Flexible and Remote Modalities for Graduate Instruction This Case Study explores the increasing demand for flexible learning modalities, such as HyFlex (courses allowing learners to choose between in-person or online attendance), and remote-attendance options for in-person courses. The report presents findings from an exit survey of graduate learners at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Findings reveal learner preferences, experiences and perceived challenges with these modalities. 

Study findings underscore the importance of proactive planning, updated classroom technologies, instructor training and clear policies to implement flexible options that enhance accessibility while maintaining an engaging learning experience.

97% of learners want options for virtual attendance moving forward, citing accessibility benefits like attending while sick or accommodating other health needs

learners preferred lectures (49%) and labs (33%) in the HyFlex format but favored fully in-person for discussion-based courses (57%)

key challenges include limited classroom technologies, instructors' proficiencies with tools/techniques for inclusive multimodal teaching and redesigning courses for new modalities

Recommendations emphasize gathering stakeholder feedback, increasing training and resources, updating learning spaces, developing institutional policies and providing instructional support for flexible courses. 

Annual Survey Examines Attitudes toward Higher Education The 2024 State of Higher Education (download required) study by Lumina Foundation and Gallup surveyed over 14,000 U.S. adults, aged 18-59, without a college degree. The survey included currently enrolled learners, those who previously stopped out before completing and those who never enrolled. The study found a widespread belief in the value of higher-education credentials, particularly for career advancement, and a growing interest in pursuing alternative pathways, such as certifications.

Significant barriers remain, however. Key points in the report include:

Credentials are highly valued by the vast majority.

59% of adults who are not enrolled have thought about enrolling in the last 2 years, an increase from previous years.

Present or potential learners pursue higher education mainly for career reasons, such as getting promoted or having more satisfying roles.

The primary obstacles to enrollment continue to be cost and lack of financial aid, but flexibility in course delivery is essential, particularly for nontraditional and stopped-out learners.

More than 33% of enrolled learners have recently thought about dropping out; emotional strain and mental-health issues were cited as more important contributing factors than money.

Approximately 16% of registered learners report feeling uncomfortable, disrespected, unsafe or discriminated against periodically in their program; this has had a detrimental effect on their opinion of the caliber of their education.

Study Explores Faculty Passion and Work-Life Balance and Their Relationship to Learner Success The study , published in BMC Psychology, examines how faculty members' ability to control their emotions and work enthusiasm might enhance their professional well-being, increase their effectiveness as teachers and impact learner achievement. The survey was conducted among 401 Chinese faculty members who taught English as a foreign language in higher education. They stressed the necessity for professional development training that focuses on pedagogy and encourages excitement, emotional well-being and confidence in teaching abilities. Study results stress the significance of faculty mental health and its impact on their efficacy in the classroom. Five essential ideas emerged from the study:  

•  many faculty members rely on their own educational experiences or mentorship instead of professional teaching preparation
•  work passion is characterized by an individual's excitement, delight and dedication to their undertakings and can enhance faculty well-being, motivation and effectiveness as teachers
•  the ability to regulate one's emotions, experiences and expressions can help teachers become more resilient, which can positively impact learners' behavior in the classroom
•  results indicate faculty well-being can predict teaching efficacy, which includes self-determination, autonomy, enthusiasm, resilience, persistence and occupational well-being
•  training should support good teaching, with an emphasis on professional zeal, individual well-being, useful techniques for controlling emotions and creating a safe space for candor and candid conversations

Survey Examines Voters’ Perceptions of Higher Education in this Election Year The survey conducted by Third Way with Global Strategy Group and GS Strategy Group reveals voters across the political spectrum recognize the challenges faced by higher education. Despite the perceived divide between left and right, there is a shared desire for reform. Figure 2. This reaffirms the value of higher education in preparing learners for good jobs and demonstrating that policymakers can deliver tangible results. Key points include the following:

higher-education challenges are significant but not insurmountable

voters on both political sides favor reforms that prioritize learner outcomes and hold institutions accountable for those outcomes

policymakers are not adequately representing voters’ interests, underscoring the importance of higher-education reform to reaffirm its value

critical objectives include preparing learners for well-paying jobs and demonstrating policymakers can deliver practical solutions 

focusing on value in higher-education reform is a politically advantageous strategy for policymakers, taxpayers and, most important, learners

Source: “Third Way,” n.d. https://www.thirdway.org/report/voters-want-less-talk-and-more-action-on-higher-ed-value.

Study Looks at Tuition Discounting at Private Nonprofit Colleges and Universities The latest study from the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) reveals the average tuition discount rate at private institutions exceeded 50% during 2023-2024. Institutional grants and merit scholarships are being used more often as a recruitment/retention strategy. Despite criticisms surrounding the practice of tuition discounting, institutions continue to prioritize affordability amidst economic and pandemic-related challenges. 

Key points in the study include the following:

The average tuition discount rate reached historic highs, with 56% for first-time, full-time learners and 52% for all undergraduates at private nonprofit institutions. Figure 3.

Over 90% of undergraduates at these institutions received some form of institutional grant aid in 2023, reflecting the widespread use of tuition discounting as a recruitment and retention tool.

Tuition discounting raises concerns about diverting funds from learners with high financial need; however, institutions view it as a necessary component of their enrollment strategy, prioritizing affordability despite economic and pandemic-related enrollment challenges.

Source: NACUBO. “Annual NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Finds Financial Aid Awards and Undergraduate Enrollment on the Rise at Private Colleges and Universities,” n.d. https://www.nacubo.org/Press-Releases/2024/Annual-NACUBO-Tuition-Discounting-Study-Finds-Financial-Aid-Awards-on-the-Rise.

Report Captures Expert Panel’s Views of Trends Shaping the Future of Higher Education Following the pandemic, higher-education institutions continue to encounter substantial obstacles and persistent disruptions. These factors encompass the decreasing public view of the importance of higher education and the necessity to prove its value in the face of dwindling learner enrollments. 

The advancing functionalities of data analytics and the rise of generative AI present novel possibilities and dangers. AI offers the potential to revolutionize education in ways that many institutions do not completely understand nor have they accommodated. 

This Horizon Report on Teaching and Learning from EDUCAUSE summarizes expert conversations about current and upcoming issues, offering a view into the possible future of higher education. Video summaries of each chapter of the report are also available. Some issues discussed include the following:

Despite talks of a return to "normalcy," higher-education institutions continue to confront challenges and disruptions in the post-pandemic era.

Public perceptions of the value of postsecondary education continue to decline, compelling institutions to demonstrate their worth and address declining enrollments.

The advancement of data and analytics capabilities presents opportunities and risks for institutions, necessitating careful navigation.

Generative AI holds the potential to revolutionize teaching and learning, but many institutions are unprepared for the transformative impact it may bring.

Study Evaluates a learner-Housing Voucher Program A study by Education Northwest evaluated a housing voucher program at Tacoma Community College (TCC) in Tacoma, Washington. The program is designed to address housing insecurity among learners, which can be a significant barrier to persistence and academic success. This is often truer for community college learners who are more likely to be parents, have a limited income and attend nonresidential campuses. 

The College Housing Assistance Program (CHAP) provided rent subsidies to eligible learners in an aim to improve overall well-being and academic outcomes. Figure 4. (A webinar is also available.) Key findings include:

eligible learners had to be enrolled, completing a minimum number of credits and prove their status as homeless or unable to meet basic housing expenses 

vouchers to subsidize rent for private market apartments were provided, with learners receiving an average discount of $450 on $1,000 rent

positive outcomes included higher graduation rates, increased employment, improved food security and greater financial stability for those who used the vouchers

only 25% of learners used a voucher because of challenges in completing paperwork, finding suitable housing and providing upfront costs; TCC later established a fund to help learners pay security deposits

Source: Northwest, Education. “Homelessness and Housing Insecurity Among Community College learners Evaluation Report.” Education Northwest, n.d. https://educationnorthwest.org/publications/tacoma-housing-voucher-program-evaluation.

Report Highlights Continuing Racial Disparities in Degree Attainment The American Council on Education's new report highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in college degree attainment, despite increasing diversity among college learners. While educational attainment has risen across all racial and ethnic groups, increases for White and Asian learners have outpaced other groups, widening existing gaps. 

The report shows a significantly lower percentage of American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander adults hold bachelor's degrees, compared to their White and Asian counterparts. These disparities extend to higher degree levels as well. Additionally, the report reveals differences in how undergraduates finance their education, with Black or African American learners being the most likely to take out loans. The report highlights the need to address these persistent disparities and ensure equitable access to higher education opportunities for all learners.

Report Discusses the Current Transfer Environment and Suggests Changes A new report from The Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice (CHEPP) discusses barriers and costs associated with the current credit-transfer system in higher education, which fails to acknowledge the diverse pathways and experiences of today's learners. The report presents case studies of institutions that have implemented transfer-friendly practices, which have fostered a culture of flexibility, dedicated resources and partnerships to facilitate the credit-transfer process. Key points include:

current credit-transfer systems in higher education present barriers that lead to lost credits, increased costs and delays in degree completion for transfer learners

challenges include a lack of information, slow processes and institutional policies that reject or fail to apply transfer credits appropriately

costs associated with lost transfer credits extend beyond tuition and fees and include enrollment costs, human costs (such as suboptimal choices) and opportunity costs (lost wages and earnings)

institutions should create systems and practices to reduce costs, align institutional and learner interests and support learner success through credit recognition and transfer-friendly policies

case studies highlight successful transfer-friendly practices, such as a culture of flexibility, dedicated resources, partnerships and degree-program designs that incorporate diverse sets of credits

Related Content

Access AACRAO Research Resources.

Join the opt-in list to stay up-to-date on AACRAO's latest research.

The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) is committed to improving college access and success in higher education for all students—with a focus on students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, and other historically marginalized populations—by providing timely research to inform public policy decisions.

Defining higher-ed policy for AI in teaching and learning

There is a critical need for institutions of higher education to adopt a framework to guide both ai policy and practice.

Key points:

• Students need to be prepared for a world with AI–and higher-ed must keep pace
• The link between AI fluency and the next education revolution
• Defining a path to equitable AI in higher education
• For more news on AI, visit eCN’s Teaching & Learning hub

The overall approach to the use of AI in higher ed is perhaps best described in terms of three groups: those who want to ban its use outright (often driven by concerns related to loss of employment, and fears of increased cheating and loss of ethical critical thinking abilities by students), those who are content to wait (thereby putting their students at risk of not being employable), and those who are moving forward over a continuum from individuals, and departments, to the entire university.

Given the increasing need for students to be prepared for a data- and AI-driven world, and the tremendous potential for AI to transform higher ed from a “one-size fits all” place- and time-driven archaic system to a personalized and agile knowledge enterprise enabling learning at scale, there is an increasing need for the establishment of institutional-level policies for the development, implementation, and use of AI tools/platforms for teaching and learning.

Although a number of general framework documents already exist, [1] , [2] , [3] these are largely written from the perspective of independent technology development by third parties, followed by use by institutions of higher education rather than from an integrated approach with agency remaining at the institutional level right from the outset. While the former is based on the situation largely at play currently, the latter is one that needs to be the norm following well-defined levels and steps that are learner- and learning-centered, with enhanced access, and attainment in mind. [4]

Acknowledging that the role of higher education is not just to serve individual aspirations but rather to contribute to the public good, including through the building of socio-cultural understanding and enhancement of socio-economic mobility of the learner, and thence the economic upliftment of the communities in which they reside and work, it is important that any framework for development and implementation of AI in higher education start with the basic consideration of ethics, responsibility, and equity:

• Ethical AI relates to fundamental principles and values. It provides guidelines that align the use of AI with societal values such as fairness, transparency, privacy, and security . Floridi [5] described it as beneficent, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability. Thus, ethical AI is predictive and prescriptive in nature and emphasizes the balance between risk and potential, value and principles, resulting in a need for technical and behavioral standards for the development and application of AI tools emphasizing the tactical aspects of accountability, fairness, and explainability to ensure that real-world implications of bias, discrimination, privacy, malicious disinformation, and harmful decision making are addressed.
• Responsible AI effectively puts the philosophy and principles of ethical AI into action to assure that the technology developed, and the tools resulting thereof, are robust/reliable, fair, and trustworthy through guaranteed levels of reliability and oversight .
• Equitable AI builds on the foundations of ethics and responsibility to ensure that the true potential of AI to transform learning and the acquisition, sharing, and development of knowledge is available to all learners irrespective of position in society or station in life. It can be defined as learners having affordable access to technology and AI platforms/tools, the infrastructure needed to use them, adequate levels of training and expertise to assure adoption of tools to meet the specific mission of the institution, the resources to attain AI literacy in that context, and the agency to actively use the tools .

From a systems perspective, ethical AI provides the values, principles, and foundations; responsible AI ensures use of tactics that meet those guidelines; and equitable AI assures the implementation of strategy for the benefits of AI to accrue to all learners, both in terms of gaining access to knowledge and in enabling its use for socioeconomic mobility. Building on a foundation of these three levels, and once the purpose of AI has been determined in the context of the specific type of institution and the nuances of the learner population that is intended to be served, a framework for higher-ed policy can be developed using the four pillars of (1) governance, (2) ethics and accountability, (3) pedagogy, and (4) operations. The prioritization enables emphasis to be on the specific context of the institution through governance, as well as the nuances of mission and the local context in which the tools would operate through pedagogy.

1. Governance : This is a foundational pillar that focuses on value alignment with institutional mission, goals, and societal values and norms. It establishes rules and policies and sets bounds of risk tolerance and standards of oversight. It sets the stage for ethical standards, pedagogical implementation and integration, and operational deployment through aspects such as:

• Oversight : Clear delineation of the ultimate decision authority to override/modify AI-based processes and decisions to ensure consistent alignment (defined as the process of ensuring that the system operates as intended and is beneficial, rather than harmful, to users).
• Data Governance : Setting standards for data collection, use, and storage, as well as for the clarity in emerging areas such as IP, copyright, and AI-based course curation, where discussions are just beginning but faculty, students, and staff need transparency and clear direction, even if transitionary.
• Transparency : In terms of what is implemented through AI, its rationale, and how student learning and records are affected.
• Monitoring and Retraining : Establishing protocols and procedures for constant evaluation and improvement of AI systems and ensuring adequate levels of personnel capacity to maintain institutional control and agency.

2. Ethics and Accountability: Once governance structures are in place, a focus on ethics and accountability ensures that standards, policies, and procedures are upheld through aspects such as:

• Fairness : Prioritizing accessibility and inclusivity of use while ensuring that the tools do not perpetuate, or create new, bias.
• Transparency : Extends from the data on which the tool was trained, awareness of its origins, and whether it is authentic or synthetic, the context and history of its origins, and identification and subsequent mitigation of bias, to the ability to explain decisions made through, or by, the tool, including of criteria and factors used. This is to ensure that users know when they engage with systems incorporating AI and understand both its limitations and their rights.
• Traceability and Explainability : This focuses on the ability to trace system process from input to output and eschew black-box processes. The institution must be able to not only explain how the system is trained and what domain knowledge was used, but also how a decision is made, and the criteria and factors used. It is critical that the institution be able to verify whether the system is responding as designed and/or if bias or other non-designed facets have been introduced post-deployment.
• Responsibility and Accountability : Beyond responsibility in the regulatory context, it is important that the institution be responsible not just for deployment, but also of data used for training, output, validation, and continued verification. It is crucial that AI tools not be anthropomorphized and that there be clarity in terms of the chain of responsibility and the awareness of accountability and methods of redress.
• Privacy and Security : This extends not only to the adequate protection of data used in training and testing, but also that generated through use. In addition to traditional levels of cybersecurity, new levels will be needed to address emerging threats such as M/L attacks and confabulation. In addition, enhanced regulations and security will be needed related to address the collection and use of biometric data.
• Robustness and Reliability : The tools must operate as intended over the full range of conditions, with minimization of unintended and unexpected harm, and must be resilient against attempts to manipulate analysis and output, as well as the foundational knowledge and datasets.

3. Pedagogy: This pillar relates to the central aspect of teaching and learning and must necessarily address aspects related not just to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities of critical thinking and reasoning as traditionally defined, but also on the direct implementation of AI tools to strengthen and enhance learning by students. While the emphasis must be on the curriculum through a focus on innovative teaching methods, curated and personalized content and learning plans, curricular integration, and increased emphasis on ethical reasoning and critical thinking, focus must also be on aspects such as:

• Accessibility and Affordability : Ensuring that AI tools/technologies are not only accessible to all learners, but also that these in turn enhance accessibility and affordability of higher education and its ability to enable greater socioeconomic mobility.
• Assessment and Evaluation : Employing AI tools to enable greater authentic assessment and real-time feedback at scale. In addition, continuous assessment and evaluation of the outcomes of the use of AI tools, along with feedback and improvement, are essential, as is the encouragement of innovative methodologies of teaching and research to both understand efficacy and to assess student learning behavior, outcomes, and impact. It is critical that use of AI tools should not lead to depersonalization of learning through excessive automation.
• Engagement and Interaction : Utilizing AI, including in conjunction with AR/VR/XR, to enhance interaction and “learning by doing,” in addition to increasing engagement and providing greater scaffolding and holistic support mechanisms.
• Data Security : While protection of student data is paramount, transparency regarding its use, including of all data generated through use, must be maintained.
• Faculty Development and Support : The ability to succeed will depend directly on an institution’s ability to train faculty and staff and support them–not just in the use of AI tools and platforms, but also in the development of specialized tools by including them in discussions with vendors and program developers right from the outset.
• Regulatory Modifications : Aspects such as regular and substantive interaction, interpretation, and perhaps modification of the credit hour, transferability of courses between institutions, and course accessibility across institutions must be highlighted through a student-centered focus rather than one based on an institution’s convenience or historical practice of exclusion. Whereas the use of AI has the potential to positively transform learning at scale, this will only be possible by re-envisioning processes and modalities, removing artificial barriers, and staying focused on the mission of student success.

4. Operations : While the use of AI tools can provide significant benefits across campus, the current framework focuses on teaching and learning through aspects such as:

• Robustness and Reliability : Systems should be stable and able to perform as intended under all expected conditions.
• Traceability and Explainability : Ensuring that decisions are not only explainable, but also traceable, to the originating datasets and algorithms for purposes of accountability and improvement.
• Safety and Security : Constant surveillance of security measures across the phygital systems ecosystem to protect operations from malware and attacks.

Given its transformational potential to enhance access and attainment in higher ed, as well as its increasing adoption and use in the workplace, there is a critical need for institutions of higher education to adopt a framework to guide both policy and practice, ensuring agency in shaping a future of greater access and attainability.

[1] OECD. Opportunities, guidelines, and guardrails for effective and equitable use of AI in education, 2023.

[2] Sebesta J, Davis VL. Policies & Practices. Toolkit. Dec 2023. https://wcet.wiche.edu/resources/ai-practices-and-policies-toolkit/

[3] Brandon E, Eaton L, Gauvin G, Papini A. Cross-campus approaches to building a generative AI policy. Educause Review, Dec 12, 2023. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2023/12/cross-campus-approaches-to-building-a-generative-ai-policy

[4] Karbhari VM, Defining a path to equitable AI in higher education . eCampus News , April 12, 2024.

[5] Floridi L. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. In Ethics, Governance and Policies in Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 144, pp. 5-17, Springer International Publishing AG.

Sign up for our newsletter

• Recent Posts

Vistasp M. Karbhari is a Professor in the Departments of Civil Engineering, and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, where he served as President from 2013-2020. He is a Fellow and Board Member of Complete College America and can be followed on Twitter at @VistaspKarbhari and on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/vistaspmkarbhari .

• New tool empowers users to fight online misinformation - May 31, 2024
• Modeling mental health for students - May 30, 2024
• Defining higher-ed policy for AI in teaching and learning - May 23, 2024

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Higher Education Needs More Socrates and Plato

By Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Harun Küçük

Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Küçük are on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where Dr. Emanuel is a professor and the vice provost for global initiatives and Dr. Küçük is an associate professor of the history and sociology of science.

The right attacks colleges and universities as leftist and woke. Progressives castigate them as perpetuating patriarchy and white privilege. The burdens of these culture war assaults are compounded by parents worried that the exorbitant costs of higher education aren’t worth it.

No wonder Americans’ faith in universities is at a low. Only 36 percent of Americans have confidence in higher education, according to a survey by Gallup last year, a significant drop from eight years ago. And this was before colleges and universities across the country were swept up in a wave of protests and counter-protests over the war in Gaza.

But the problems facing American higher education are not just the protests and culture war attacks on diversity, course content, speech and speakers. The problem is that higher education is fundamentally misunderstood. In response, colleges and universities must reassert the liberal arts ideals that have made them great but that have been slipping away.

By liberal arts, we mean a broad-based education that aspires to send out into society an educated citizenry prepared to make its way responsibly in an ever-more complex and divided world. We worry that at many schools, students can fulfill all or most of their general education requirements and take any number of electives without having had a single meaningful discussion that is relevant to one’s political life as a citizen.

Over the past century, what made American higher education the best in the world is not its superiority in career training, but educating students for democratic citizenship, cultivating critical thinking and contributing to the personal growth of its students through self-creation. To revive American higher education, we need to reinvigorate these roots.

In Europe and many countries elsewhere, colleges and universities have undergraduates specialize from Day 1, focusing on developing area-specific skills and knowledge. College students are trained to become doctors, lawyers or experts in international relations, English literature or computer science.

In the United States, European-style specialization for medical, legal, business or public policy careers is the purpose of post-collegiate professional schools. Traditionally, the American college has been about imparting a liberal arts education, emphasizing reasoning and problem solving. Those enduring skills are the critical ingredients for flourishing companies and countries.

Historically, students arriving on American college campuses spent a majority of their first two years taking classes outside their projected majors. This exposed them to a common curriculum that had them engage with thoughtful writings of the past to develop the skills and capacity to form sound, independent judgments.

Over the past half century, American colleges and universities have moved away from this ideal , becoming less confident in their ability to educate students for democratic citizenship. This has led to a decline in their commitment to the liberal arts, a trend underscored in the results last year of a survey of chief academic officers at American colleges and universities by Inside Higher Ed. Nearly two-thirds agreed that liberal arts education was in decline, and well over half felt that politicians, college presidents and university boards were increasingly unsympathetic to the liberal arts.

Today, there is almost no emphasis on shared courses among majors that explore and debate big questions about the meaning of equality, justice, patriotism, personal obligations, civic responsibility and the purpose of a human life. Majors that once required only eight or 10 courses now require 14 or more, and students are increasingly double majoring — all of which crowds out a liberal arts education. Ambitious students eager to land a prestigious consulting, finance or tech job will find it too easy to brush aside courses in the arts, humanities and social and natural sciences — the core of a liberal education.

The devaluing of the first two years of a shared liberal arts education has shortchanged our students and our nation. Educating young adults to be citizens is why the first two years of college still matter.

To that end, the so-called Great Books have long been the preferred way to foster citizenship. This approach is not, contrary to critics on the left and right, about sanctifying specific texts for veneration or a mechanism for heritage transmission.

Books by Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman as well as Wollstonecraft, Austen, Woolf, Baldwin, Hurston and Orwell are worthy of introductory collegiate courses for students of all majors. These writers address the fundamental questions of human life. They explore the ideas of self-determination, friendship, virtue, equality, democracy and religious toleration and race that we have all been shaped by.

As students address those big questions, the Great Books authors provide a road map as they challenge and criticize one another and the conventional wisdom of the past. The Socrates of Plato’s dialogues is the exemplar — asking about beliefs and then subjecting them to respectful but critical analysis and skepticism.

These books are best studied in small seminar discussions, which model and inculcate in students democratic behavior. This discourse is an antidote to the grandstanding in today’s media and social media.

The teacher is less an expert in specific writers and more a role model for intellectual curiosity, asking probing questions, offering critical analyses and seeking deeper understanding. In an idealized Socratic fashion, these discussions require listening at length and speaking briefly and, most important, being willing to go where the argument leads.

Parents who are paying for college might question the value of spending $80,000 a year so that their son or daughter can read Plato, Hobbes and Thoreau instead of studying molecular biology or machine learning. But discussing life’s big value questions in seminars gives students personal engagement with professors that can never be reproduced in large lecture halls. Discussions among students on their deepest thoughts cultivates curiosity and empathy, and forges bonds of friendship important for citizenship and fulfilling lives.

Although we like to set ourselves apart from the past by appeals to modernity, the fundamental questions that we find ourselves asking are not always modern, and the latest answer is not always right. But how would you know how to think beyond the readily presented check boxes if you haven’t done the work of laying things out and putting them back together for yourself?

War was no less a concern for Thucydides, Tacitus and Thoreau than it is today. Discussing Great Books allows students to gain distance from the daily noise and allows their reason to roam free among principles and foundations rather than becoming absorbed in contemporary events. Our biggest problems are often best addressed not by leaning in but by stepping away to reflect on enduring perspectives.

Liberal arts education is not value neutral. That is why it is indispensable today. Freedom of thought, critical reasoning, empathy for others and respectful disagreement are paramount for a flourishing democratic society. Without them, we get the unreasoned condemnations so pervasive in today’s malignant public discourse. With them, we have a hope of furthering the shared governance that is vital to America’s pluralistic society.

Ezekiel Emanuel and Harun Küçük are on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where Dr. Emanuel is a professor and the vice provost for global initiatives and Dr. Küçük is an associate professor of the history and sociology of science.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Volumes and issues

Volume 37 march - june 2024.

• June 2024, issue 2
• March 2024, issue 1

Volume 36 March - December 2023

• December 2023, issue 4
• September 2023, issue 3
• June 2023, issue 2
• March 2023, issue 1

Volume 35 March - December 2022

• December 2022, issue 4

SPECIAL ISSUE: Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education: Policy Implications for Student Mobility, Teaching and Learning, Research and University Governance

• June 2022, issue 2
• March 2022, issue 1

Volume 34 March - December 2021

• December 2021, issue 4
• September 2021, issue 3
• June 2021, issue 2
• March 2021, issue 1

Volume 33 March - December 2020

• December 2020, issue 4

SPECIAL ISSUE: Globalization and Resurgent Nationalism in Higher Education

• June 2020, issue 2
• March 2020, issue 1

Volume 32 March - December 2019

• December 2019, issue 4
• September 2019, issue 3
• June 2019, issue 2

SPECIAL ISSUE: Taking Account of 20 years of Quality Assurance in German Higher Education

Volume 31 March - December 2018

• December 2018, issue 4
• September 2018, issue 3
• June 2018, issue 2
• March 2018, issue 1

Volume 30 March - December 2017

SPECIAL ISSUE: The Role of Higher Education in the Socio-Economic Development of Peripheral Regions

• September 2017, issue 3
• June 2017, issue 2

Critical and Alternative Perspectives on Student Engagement

Volume 29 March - December 2016

SPECIAL ISSUE: Measuring Up: Consequences of Global Competition and Metrics on Local Scholarship

• September 2016, issue 3
• June 2016, issue 2
• March 2016, issue 1

Volume 28 March - December 2015

Special Issue: Higher Education Research in East Asia

• September 2015, issue 3
• June 2015, issue 2

Special Issue: Higher Education Transformations for Global Competitiveness in Asia

Volume 27 March - December 2014

Special Issue: Early Career Researchers and Changing Working Conditions in Academia

• September 2014, issue 3
• June 2014, issue 2
• March 2014, issue 1

Volume 26 March - December 2013

• December 2013, issue 4
• September 2013, issue 3
• June 2013, issue 2
• March 2013, issue 1

Volume 25 March - December 2012

• December 2012, issue 4

Special Issue: Collaboration and Competition in Research

Special Issue: Transnational Education and Student Mobility in Asia

• March 2012, issue 1

Volume 24 March - December 2011

Sustainability in Higher Education

• September 2011, issue 3
• June 2011, issue 2
• March 2011, issue 1

Volume 23 March - December 2010

• December 2010, issue 4
• September 2010, issue 3

Special Edition: Two great European ideas: Comparing Humboldt and Bologna

• March 2010, issue 1

Volume 22 March - December 2009

• December 2009, issue 4
• September 2009, issue 3
• June 2009, issue 2
• March 2009, issue 1

Volume 21 March - December 2008

Realizing the Global University: Comparative Perspectives and Critical Reflections

Academic Vigour in Changing Contexts

Diversity of Missions

World-Class Universities

Volume 20 March - December 2007

Sustaining Diversity: Differentiating Higher Education Systems in a Knowledge Society

• September 2007, issue 3
• June 2007, issue 2
• March 2007, issue 1

Volume 19 March - December 2006

• December 2006, issue 4

Redefining the Social Contract

Incorporating the University

Transitions in Higher Education

Volume 18 March - December 2005

Intercultural Learning and Dialogue

Knowledge Flow and Capacity Development

• June 2005, issue 2

Reform – Contemplated and Reconsidered

Volume 17 March - December 2004

On Prizes, Entrepreneurialism and Bologna

The Vision of Reform

Science, Training and Career

The Business of University Research: Cross national perspectives

Volume 16 March - December 2003

• December 2003, issue 4
• September 2003, issue 3
• June 2003, issue 2
• March 2003, issue 1

Volume 15 March - December 2002

• December 2002, issue 4
• September 2002, issue 3
• June 2002, issue 2
• March 2002, issue 1

Volume 14 March - December 2001

• December 2001, issue 4
• September 2001, issue 3
• June 2001, issue 2
• March 2001, issue 1

Volume 13 March - December 2000

• December 2000, issue 4
• September 2000, issue 3
• June 2000, issue 2
• March 2000, issue 1

Volume 12 March - December 1999

• December 1999, issue 4
• September 1999, issue 3
• June 1999, issue 2
• March 1999, issue 1

Volume 11 March - December 1998

• December 1998, issue 4
• June 1998, issue 2-3
• March 1998, issue 1

Volume 10 March - September 1997

• September 1997, issue 3-4
• June 1997, issue 2
• March 1997, issue 1

Volume 9 March - December 1996

• December 1996, issue 4
• September 1996, issue 3
• June 1996, issue 2
• March 1996, issue 1

Volume 8 March - December 1995

Organizing Higher Education for the 21st Century

Managing the Autonomous University

The Role of Universities in Developing Areas

Management in African Universities

Volume 7 March - December 1994

The Mobility of Brains

Higher Education and European Integration

Cross-National Perspectives on the Academic Profession

The Changing Graduate Training System

Volume 6 March - December 1993

The Changing Role of the State

Process in Higher Education

Higher Education in East Asia

Academic Mobility: Strengthening the Internationalization of the University

Volume 5 March - December 1992

Different Systems, Different Issues

Intermediary Bodies

Research and Training: Towards Innovative Strategies of Financing

University Action for Sustainable Development

Volume 4 March - December 1991

Leverage and Change

Reconstructing Higher Education

Student Mobility: Reciprocity and Exchange

Volume 3 March - December 1990

At the Frontiers of Practice and Theory

Mobilizing for Change

Higher Education: Public Service and Private Commitment

Higher Education and Culture

Volume 2 March - December 1989

Informatics and Education: Implications for Higher Education

Problems of Higher Education in Latin America

Higher Education: Resource, Service or Good?

Access to Higher Education

Volume 1 March - December 1988

Points of Tension: Higher Education and Society in the late 1980s

The Response of Higher Education to New Priorities

Conflict and Peace: A Challenge for Universities

Higher Education and Development: A Reappraisal

For authors

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

‘Rip-off’ degrees rhetoric ignores awkward facts about apprenticeships

The uk needs a skills strategy that values the full variety of training and education pathways and reflects regional needs, says neal juster.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

The benefits of going to university are enormous.

Over their working lives, the average UK graduate is at least £100,000 better off compared with non-graduates even after student loan repayments, higher taxes and time out of the workforce are taken into account. And, as a recent study showed, that figure has held up despite huge advances in participation since 1997.

Two-thirds of working-age graduates are in highly skilled jobs, compared with less than a quarter of non-graduates, and by the age of 31, graduates typically earn 37 per cent more than non-graduates.

An innovation-led, levelled-up UK economy will need more graduates, not fewer. In Lincolnshire, the share of the population educated to Level 4 (equivalent to the first year of a bachelor’s degree) is almost half that of London. However, our region will need to be at the forefront of national efforts on food security, defence and green energy transition, requiring a highly skilled workforce.

If we are to achieve this, apprenticeships should not be pitched against university study in the eyes of aspirational young people or in the fight for public funding. However, with the quality and value of university degrees thrust back into the media spotlight on the general election campaign trail this week, this facile debate forces reflection on some inconvenient truths about the current state of apprenticeships.

Both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development have highlighted that the number of apprenticeship starts has fallen by about a third since the apprenticeship levy was introduced in 2017, with the sharpest declines among under-19s.

The problem appears to be one of supply, not demand. Research by Ucas and the Sutton Trust shows that while 40 per cent of school leavers interested in going to university also express an interest in apprenticeships, there were just 5,000 starts on higher apprenticeships (equivalent to the first year of a degree) among under-19s in 2021/22. Most apprentices are 25 or over and already in work, and the proportion from underprivileged backgrounds is lower than in universities.

Young people are understandably drawn by the opportunity to “earn as you learn”, but the completion rate for apprenticeships is just 54 per cent – far below the average for undergraduate degrees (about 90 per cent). One in three apprentices would not recommend an apprenticeship to friends or family, while about three quarters of final-year undergraduates are satisfied with their course overall.

Issues of quantity and quality in apprenticeship provision are not a  result of lack of funding either. At least £2 billion of unspent apprenticeship levy funding has been returned to the Treasury since 2017, according to recent analysis based on Freedom of Information requests. In 2022/23, the levy raised £580 million more than was actually allocated to fund apprenticeships .

By contrast, per-undergraduate funding is at its lowest real-terms level since the late 1990s , and support for living costs has seen the biggest real-terms cut since the 1960s . This is the outcome of seven years of tuition fee freezes, the scrapping of maintenance grants, successive below-inflation increases in maintenance loans, and the freezing since 2008 of parental income thresholds for student loan qualification. This has a disproportionate impact on students from low-income backgrounds, whose life chances stand to benefit most from degree study.

At the University of Lincoln , 97 per cent of undergraduates come from state schools and one in five are from low-participation neighbourhoods. Nine out of 10 of our recent graduates are in work or further study 15 months after graduation and almost four in five are working in highly skilled roles that fit with their future plans.

The reasons some students drop out are complex: mental health and well-being is an increasingly common factor, but we provide comprehensive support services to help our students with the many challenges young people face today.

Closing down degrees based on salary outcomes overlooks the deep-rooted regional disparities in employment markets, average salaries and living costs, unfairly penalising universities outside the South-East, which serve some of the country’s most deprived regions.

High-quality apprenticeships should be part of the skills mix, and universities are already playing their part, delivering well-structured degree apprenticeships by collaborating effectively with industry and providing expert student support.

This academic year, Lincoln is the training provider for more than 1,000 apprentices studying across more than 30 different advanced, higher, degree and master’s apprenticeship programmes spanning healthcare, business, construction and food manufacturing. Employers range from local SMEs to multinationals, as well as local authorities, charities and NHS trusts.

Universities are adept at building provision around local and regional need. At Lincoln, just over a decade ago we created the UK’s first dedicated new school of engineering for more than 20 years in collaboration with Siemens. More recently, in partnership with the University of Nottingham , we opened a new medical school to address chronic NHS skills shortages in the region.

Our teaching and research have been co-designed with employers, right down to the layout of our facilities and elements of the curriculum. Through our provision of degree apprenticeships, student placements, graduate recruitment, internships and knowledge transfer partnerships, we work daily to match organisations with the talent flowing through our university.

The UK needs a skills strategy that values the full variety of training and education pathways, from short courses, through apprenticeships and undergraduate study to postgraduate research. These need to be properly funded, with adequate oversight across all routes to ensure good outcomes for students and good value for employers and taxpayers. Universities like ours are ready and waiting to be involved in that conversation .

Neal Juster is vice-chancellor of the University of Lincoln .

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

We can’t stop the ‘rip-off degrees’ debate – but we can change its terms

Singling out particular disciplines makes no sense, but we need cross-subject standards that are recognisable to employers, says Ian Pace

You might also like

New grant delays hit Australian researchers

Postdocs risk being ruled ineligible after biding their time to optimise prospects of success

Degree-awarding powers confirmed for Dyson Institute

Inventor’s Wiltshire-based training centre is first to go through new Office for Students process

Dutch research funding cuts will ‘reverse years of progress’

Incoming right-wing government plans to reduce spending by €1 billion, just as efforts to reduce precarity and overwork were starting to have an effect

Featured jobs

Harvard adopts policy of institutional neutrality on controversial issues

• KirkCarapezza

Harvard announced Tuesday that it will no longer take official stances on controversial domestic and international issues, aligning itself with a growing number of colleges and universities that have adopted policies of institutional neutrality.

The change follows months of turmoil on Harvard’s campus, including student protests over the war in Gaza, and the resignation of president Claudine Gay, who left the role amid criticism that her response to a Congressional inquiry about whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate Harvard’s rules was vague and legalistic.

Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, who co-chaired a faculty working group recommending the change, emphasized that university leaders are not elected officials and should refrain from taking official positions on contentious issues, such as the war in Gaza.

“[The old approach] was not well-suited to an era of social media and political polarization, in which essentially every important issue that arises could be the subject of commentary,” he said, “and in which university administrators were increasingly expected to wake up every morning, look at the news and figure out what their positions should be on every global issue.”

Feldman emphasized that university leaders are not elected officials and should not act like politicians with foreign policies. He said the old approach, which consumed Gay’s final days in office, left very little time for doing work related to academics.

Not everyone agrees with the change.

“I worry about it, personally,” said history professor Alison Frank Johnson, a Gay supporter who had warned of ‘ creeping authoritarianism ’ in academia after Gay’s resignation. “It’s vague and it’s not clear who has the authority to decide what counts as mission critical or who is allowed to speak.”

Nico Perrino, executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a group that advocates for free speech, welcomed the announcement.

“Universities dedicated to the pursuit of truth should refrain from issuing statements on social and political issues,” Perrino wrote in a statement. “Doing so chills debate and discussion, which are for students and faculty to have, not for institutions to decide.”

According to FIRE , eight colleges and universities, including Vanderbilt and Columbia universities and the College of the Holy Cross, have adopted similar policies. Those were set out in the University of Chicago’s 1967  Kalven Report , released during the Vietnam War era.

Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, opposes the idea of institutional neutrality, because it can be difficult to enact.   “Harvard suffered a good deal of reputational damage due to recent public stances,” she said. “Still many campus leaders argue that presidents have a moral obligation and a professional duty to join the public debate over the most pressing social issues of the day.”

Such a policy could reinforce the idea of colleges as disengaged ivory towers, she said.

More Education

Former Gardner Pilot Academy leader terminated after releasing video

Parents frustrated by lack of BPS planning

Concord to vote again on middle school name

Parents of campus activists speak out