bbcuk--2019-11-12--Labour promises free jobs retraining for adults

Labour is promising a £3bn plan to offer adults in England free access to retraining to help their job chances and to tackle skills shortages.  Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner wants to "throw open the door" to adults wanting to learn new skills.  The Lib Dems are promising a £10,000 training grant for each adult, which it calls a "skills wallet".  The Conservatives have a National Retraining Scheme for adults needing to update their skills for work.  With concerns about automation threatening jobs and warnings from employers about a lack of skilled staff, the political parties are setting out their stalls for adult education and retraining.  The CBI business group welcomed making training a priority, saying: "Adult participation in education is at its lowest for two decades."  The Edge vocational education charity warned the current skills shortage was costing UK businesses £4.4bn per year.  On Tuesday, Labour's election campaign set out plans to spend an extra £3bn per year to provide free access to vocational learning for adults - which it hopes will reach an extra 300,000 people per year.  Ms Rayner says it will help people "who want to change career, are made redundant or didn't get the qualifications they needed when they were younger".  "For many, adult education is too expensive, too time-consuming or too difficult to get into," she says.  Labour would offer adults up to six years of training, such as for vocational qualifications in the healthcare and engineering sectors or adults wanting to go back to college to get academic qualifications.  Employees would also have a right to paid time off for education and training and there are promises to improve careers advice for adults.  Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Ms Rayner said she wanted to "change the culture" so that "learning is part of everyday life, rather than something that is done to you at a particular point".  It was a "long overdue investment", she said, improving the skills of young people and adults, rather relying on skilled workers from abroad.  The shadow education secretary said access to adult education would be open to all and would be "free at the point of use" without means testing, with funding to come from changes to taxes for high earners and businesses.  Ms Rayner also restated Labour's commitment to scrapping tuition fees for university students in England. "We will abolish tuition fees, no ifs, no buts."  She rejected concerns from vice chancellors about whether university funding would be protected, accusing them of receiving "wild amounts" of pay, and saying they were paid much more than the prime minister.  Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says education should be "like an escalator running alongside you throughout life, that you can get on and off whenever you want".  The Liberal Democrats have put forward their plans for adult education - based on the idea of individuals having a "skills wallet" to pay for training, with government funding being available to be drawn down at different stages of life.  At the age of 25, there would be £4,000 put into the skills wallet, £3,000 at the age of 40 and then £3,000 at the age of 55. • National Retraining Scheme for workers who lose jobs to automation • 'I left school with no exams, but that didn't mean I was thick'  "In an ever changing workplace, people often need to develop new skills but the cost of courses and qualifications shuts too many people out," Lib Dem business spokesman Sam Gyimah says.  The Conservatives in government have begun to test plans for a National Retraining Scheme, supported by £100m announced in last year's Budget.  This is intended to help people train for changing jobs and alternative careers if their jobs are threatened by automation.  There are some local pilot tests for the retraining scheme, available to adults without degrees in low-income jobs.  It is scheduled to be rolled out more widely in 2020.  The Conservatives also highlighted their plans for new vocational qualifications, called T-levels.  Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said Labour was "making promises that it simply won't be able to fulfil".  But Jo Grady, leader of the UCU lecturers' union, warned of "steep falls" in numbers of adult students.  "For too many years, adult learning has been a sorely neglected part of our education system," she said.  Neil Bates, who chairs the Edge vocational educational charity, said employers would want to tackle the £4.4bn cost of skills shortages - and individuals needed to have the skills for "secure, well paid, sustainable jobs".  The chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, Stephen Evans, who was a member of Labour's Lifelong Learning Commission, warned that currently "the number of adults taking part in learning at its lowest levels on record".  "Worse still, it is the adults who could most benefit from access to training opportunities who are least likely to participate," he said.  Employers have complained of skills shortages and Matthew Fell, the CBI's chief policy director, said it was important "lifelong learning is rising to the top of the political agenda".  He said businesses would also welcome support for technical education and giving it a status "on par with academic learning".  All the parties know their record on adult education is pretty poor, writes Sophie Hutchinson.  According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in the past 15 years, overall spending on classroom-based courses has fallen by two-thirds, as have the number of adult learners.  The adult education budget fell by 32% between 2003-04 and 2009-10 under Labour and by a further 47% from 2009-10 to 2018-19 under the coalition and the Conservatives.  Labour now says it would reverse that and more, coming close to doubling the current adult education budget, taking it back to levels similar to 2003.  The Lib Dems also want a boost to lifelong learning - with a "skills wallet" for money for adults to spend on learning.  But there will be a challenge ensuring this is spent on genuine courses - as a previous Individual Learning Account scheme faced widespread fraud.


thedailyecho--2019-12-11--Fareham College up for award for training builders

A COLLEGE in Hampshire is being saluted for responding to employers’ needs by training young people for the civil engineering and construction trades.  Development worth an estimated £15billion is planned in the county over the next five years but the construction sector is unable to meet the demand for the necessary skills.  Fareham College worked with the Solent Civil Engineering Group to design a Civil Engineering and Groundworks Training Initiative. It consists of an apprenticeship programme, workforce upskilling and a purpose-built Civil Engineering Training Centre.  The initiative has earned Fareham College selection as a finalist in the Association of Colleges Beacon Awards. It is up for the City & Guilds Award for College Engagement with Employers.  The not-for-profit Association of Colleges (AoC) is the national voice for further education, sixth form, tertiary and specialist colleges in England.  Andrew Kaye, principal and chief executive of Fareham College, said: “Employability is at the heart of the Fareham College mindset. Working together with employers to directly address a recognised sector challenge, through the development of a skilled workforce, is invaluable for our students, for our employers and for the local and regional economic development as a whole.  “To be recognised for our efforts towards employer engagement as a finalist in the AoC Beacon Awards is an excellent achievement for the college and our partners.”  The college says its £4.1million Civil Engineering Training Centre will deliver a wide range of apprenticeships and professional development courses.  David Richadson, director of CETC and construction at the college, said: “The Civil Engineering Training Centre offers unique civil engineering apprenticeship programmes and professional training. This state-of-the-art facility is pioneering a change in the way in which construction industry training will be delivered, allowing us to provide long-term support to this important sector.”  Applications to study at the Civil Engineering Training Centre are now open to start training in March 2020. Applications close on Friday, January 17.  The AoC Beacon Award winners will be announced at the TES FE Awards in association with the AoC Beacon Awards national ceremony in London on Friday, March 20.


thedailycaller--2019-03-21--Get 65 Hours Of Training On Salesforce For Just 20

Get 65 Hours Of Training On Salesforce For Just $20

Salesforce is one of the most in-demand skills in today’s technology-driven economy. Don’t get left behind. The Salesforce Certification Training Bundle will give you the tools you need to launch yourself up the corporate ladder.  Formerly $900, the course was reduced to $29.99. In a limited time deal, the course is on sale for $19.99 in the Daily Caller shop today.  Save over $850 for a limited time when you get this Salesforce Certification Training Bundle in the Daily Caller Shop  The Salesforce Certification Training Bundle offers an introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Data Science with no prior coding experience necessary. The 26 courses are in plain English so even beginners can become experts.  The Salesforce Cloud Consultation will earn you entry in IT’s hottest new field. These skills will allow you to make your own hours as a consultant to Fortune 500 companies.  The Salesforce Platform App Builder Developer 401 Certification gives you the tools to create your own apps without any coding experience. You could create the next billion dollar company after completing the 195 lessons.  Keeping up with the newest technology is essential to moving up in your career. The Salesforce Certification Training Bundle doesn’t just give you the skills for a new job, it will train you to start your own company. Take charge of your future when you buy the course for 90% off. In a special offer, this course bundle is only $19.99 in the Daily Caller shop.  Like this deal? Check out Vault, the best way to secure your online data for just $9.99/mo.  You can find even more great deals like this at The Daily Caller Shop.


usnews--2019-11-24--Virtual Assessment to Expand Driver Training in Ohio

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio will use over 400 virtual driving terminals placed at driver schools and examination locations to determine the skills that would-be drivers need to work on.  The Columbus Dispatch reports that data could lead to changes in the state’s driver-training program.  Gov. Mike DeWine says the terminals are not simulators but meant as diagnostic tools. Drivers will still have to pass on-road exams to get their licenses.  DeWine says the data will be shared with the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.  During a 14-month pilot project, researchers at the hospital had seen that drivers who used the terminals had done better in their on-road exams.  The state plans to follow the records of participating drivers to combine the data with future crash and citation reports.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


thetelegraph--2019-01-07--Foreign Office to publish training course online for first time so public can learn art of diplomacy

For centuries, the skills of British diplomats have been the envy of the world, with discussions about their strategies and tactics taking place behind closed doors.  But now the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) will for the first time publish its training course online so that any member of the public can learn the art of diplomacy.  The induction course, titled Diplomacy in the 21st century, teaches valuable lessons such as think carefully about turning down a meeting with someone, even if they seem “boring” and “unimportant”, because they may be the country’s future leader.  Those who enroll on the free online course will also learn diplomatic tradecraft such as protocol and networking, as well as “digital diplomacy” and useful social media tools.  Martin Bell, deputy director at the FCO’s diplomatic academy, is featured on the course’s introductory video saying: “My two tips on networking would be around never forgetting that you might have a revolution in your country tomorrow.  “So the person who wants to see you today, who seems very unimportant and perhaps even boring, might become incredibly important tomorrow.”  The course, developed in partnership with the Open University, will form part of the induction to the Foreign Office that is given to all new employees at embassies around the world.


cnn--2019-10-08--Biden higher education plan includes two years of free community college

The former vice president's plan, unveiled Tuesday morning, also aims to cut student loan obligations -- particularly for those with public service jobs.  The plan formalizes measures that Biden has frequently discussed on the campaign trail. It builds on the existing higher education framework, rather than including further-reaching proposals such as four years of free college and wiping away all student debt.  It's also a step away from what Biden called for in 2015, as he announced he would not run for president in 2016. He said then that "we need to commit to 16 years of free public education for all our children" and the nation should "make the same commitment to a college education today that we made to a high school education 100 years ago." Instead, it builds on the two-year proposal that Biden and former President Barack Obama had advocated for while in office.  Similarly, Biden's plans on student debt are less ambitious than his two main progressive challengers. Sanders has proposed wiping away all $1.6 trillion of existing US student loan debt, while Warren says she would eliminate 95% of that debt. Biden, instead, proposes waiving $10,000 per year -- up to five years -- for those with public service jobs, such as teachers and members of the military. He would guarantee that those earning less than $25,000 owe nothing on their undergraduate federal student loans, while everyone else's payments are capped at 5% of their discretionary income above $25,000 -- halving the current 10% cap. Biden's plan also includes new spending aimed at improving access to college for low-income individuals, minorities and undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. It would double the maximum value of Pell Grants and includes new money for historically black colleges and universities and for tribal colleges and universities. Biden's campaign has put his wife, Jill Biden, a longtime community college professor in northern Virginia, at the forefront of its higher education plan. "My students inspire me," she told reporters on a call previewing her husband's higher education plan. "They're single parents and veterans. They juggle multiple jobs and care for their families. Many of them are first-generation college students. They work so hard and ask for only one thing in return: opportunity. And every American deserves that."


cnsnews--2019-05-15--Walter Williams Higher Education in America

Walter Williams: Higher Education in America

Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Economics at Ohio University Richard Vedder's new book, "Restoring the Promise," published by the Independent Institute based in Oakland, California, is about the crisis in higher education. He summarizes the three major problems faced by America's colleges and universities. First, our universities "are vastly too expensive, often costing twice as much per student compared with institutions in other industrialized democracies." Second, though there are some important exceptions, students "on average are learning relatively little, spend little time in academic preparation and in some disciplines are indoctrinated by highly subjective ideology." Third, "there is a mismatch between student occupational expectations after graduation and labor market realities." College graduates often find themselves employed as baristas, retail clerks and taxi drivers.  The extraordinary high college cost not only saddles students with debt, it causes them to defer activities such as getting married and starting a family, buying a home and saving for retirement. Research done by the New York Federal Reserve Banks and the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that each dollar of federal aid to college leads to a tuition increase of 60 cents.  For the high cost of college, what do students learn? A seminal study, "Academically Adrift," by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, after surveying 2,300 students at various colleges, argues that very little improvement in critical reasoning skills occurs in college. Adult literacy is falling among college graduates. Large proportions of college graduates do not know simple facts, such as the half-century in which the Civil War occurred. There are some exceptions to this academic incompetency, most notably in technical areas such as engineering, nursing, architecture and accounting, where colleges teach vocationally useful material. Vedder says that student ineptitude is not surprising since they spend little time in classrooms and studying. It's even less surprising when one considers student high school preparation. According to 2010 and 2013 NAEP test scores, only 37 percent of 12th-graders were proficient in reading, 25 percent in math, 12 percent in history, 20 percent in geography and 24 percent in civics.  What happens when many of these students graduate saddled with debt? The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in an October 2018 report, finds that many students are underemployed, filling jobs that can be done with a high school education. More than one-third of currently working college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, such as flight attendants, janitors and salesmen. In addition to this kind of resource misallocation, 40 percent or more college students fail to graduate in six years. It is not unreasonable to ask whether college attendance was a wise use of these students' time and the resources of their parents and taxpayers.  Vedder has several important ideas for higher education reform. First, we should put an end to the university monopoly on certifying educational and vocational competency. Non-college organizations could package academic courses and award degrees based upon external examinations.  Regarding financial aid, colleges should be forced to share in covering loan defaults, namely they need to have some skin in the game. More importantly, Vedder says that we should end or revise the federal student aid program.  Vedder ends "Restoring the Promise" with a number of proposals with which I agree:  —College administrative staff often exceeds the teaching staff. Vedder says, "I doubt there is a major campus in America where you couldn't eliminate very conservatively 10 percent of the administrative payroll (in dollar terms) without materially impacting academic performance."  —Reevaluate academic tenure. Tenure is an employment benefit that has costs, and faculty members should be forced to make tradeoffs between it and other forms of university compensation.  —Colleges of education, with their overall poor academic quality, are an embarrassment on most campuses and should be eliminated.  —End speech codes on college campuses by using the University of Chicago Principles on free speech.  —The most important measure of academic reforms is to make university governing boards independent and meaningful. In my opinion, most academic governing boards are little more than yes men for the president and provost.  Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.


conservativehome--2019-12-18--The Politics of And. Growing the Majority 2) Further education and higher education

The phrase is Tim Montgomerie’s. He used to deploy it roughly as follows. Yes, politics means making choices. But they doesn’t always have to be either/or. The Conservatives can have immigration control and international development. Green growth and more fracking. Same-sex marriage and transferable tax allowances.  The new majority Tory Government won’t necessarily smile on these examples. But it will want to follow the principle. To this end, ConservativeHome is reviving The Politics Of And. In one series, we will examine Securing the Majority. In another, Growing the Majority. Boris Johnson will want to do both.  It is a leitmotif of this series that there are actions which the new Government will want to take which are good for their own sake. But which will also have the side-effect of helping to secure or grow the majority.  One of these is developing its policy on higher and further education. For us, there are three main issues.  First, a sense that the balance between the two isn’t right. As Alison Wolf put it on this site, “public spending per student is more than six times as high in universities as it is in the nation’s colleges. This imbalance looks even harder to justify in the light of regional inequalities.”  Second, there is what is usually and inaccurately labelled a free speech problem in Universities. Free speech is not precisely the issue. Rather, it is ensuring that higher education is a “safe space”, to borrow the jargon, for students with conservative, libertarian, centre-right or even liberal views: that they are made to feel no more or less welcome on campus than anyone else. The issue is already live in relation to Jewish students.  Finally, there is the Conservative Party’s own internal housekeeping. There has been no organised push among academics of any note since Leon Brittan undertook one for Margaret Thatcher during the late 1970s. That should change.  The Tory manifesto is coy about higher education, pledging to “consider carefully” the “thoughtful recommendations of the Augur Review. Wolf was a member of the August Panel and her piece for us is still a must-read. “Today’s young people are effectively offered a single choice. A full degree, now – or nothing,” she wrote. “Overall, Augar’s recommendations are designed to reverse this idiocy.”  She wants “more money for the neediest – cash to get further education back on its feet, to invigorate technical education, to allow adults to retrain and progress, and to reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students”. Nick Timothy wanted to close some universities. Our columnist Neil O’Brien suggests reducing “access to courses that deliver low economic value in terms of graduate earnings premia”.  On free speech and all that, there is new guidance for Universities, produced in the wake of a free speech summit. The question is whether it takes full account of the problem that we are trying to describe. When Sam Gyimah was Universities Minister, he warned as follows: “Let’s say you happen to be quite right-wing, but your lecturer disagrees with your politics. You can suddenly become quite conscious about expressing your views because they mark your essays and grade you.”  We would be very nervous were we a conservative student at a University taught by a lecturer who, say, is prone to mouth off about “the Tories” on social media. These will say that they have a right to free speech. We say that they have a pastoral responsibility to all their students.  On the final point about Conservative academics, there is a fledgling network. It was originally set up when David Cameron was Prime Minister; went into abeyance under Theresa May, but is still very much around. Downing Street should take an interest in it.  Boris Johnson will need higher and further education Ministers who are across these issues – and who are capable, as Gyimah was in his Tory days, of touring the Universities (in this instance to make the case for conservatism); working with Tory academics; ensuring the free speech guidance is adhered to; responding to Augur.  We hope that Number Ten resists the temptation to take higher education policy out of the Education Department again, though we’re not confident on this point. Chris Skidmore has been in and out of the Universities Minister brief, which Jesse Norman or O’Brien himself could also do.


freedombunker--2019-07-02--Think for Yourself and Question the Benefits of Higher Education

Graduation season has once again concluded, and 1.9 million Americans have left college behind and graduated with a bachelor's degree. The social and cultural pressures to attend college are high, and the financial expense to do so is just as acute. Major presidential candidates gin up their base by empathetically promising to absolve the self-inflicted financial troubles of student loans, blissfully punishing those who made sound financial college decisions. While presidential candidates are showcasing the victims of so-called nefarious student loans, celebrities are bribing university officials with millions of dollars simply to grant their children admission to state schools.  Why has America become so obsessed with an 8x11-inch piece of paper? With the advent of the internet, all the information in the history of the world is practically at our fingertips. We tend to forget much of what we learned in college a short while after graduation, anyway, and the companies we work for are often more than willing to take the tax write-off to train employees with the skills they actually need. In light of these realities, it’s time to recognize that a four-year college education should no longer be considered a prerequisite, or even a favored pathway, to the “good life.”  The human drive toward attaining the “good life,” winning accolades, and earning respect from peers is nothing new. From the University of Karueein (859 AD) to the University of Phoenix Online, humans are attempting to better themselves through experience and education. Originally, higher education was intended to produce academics—the world’s philosophers and researchers. Its purpose was primarily the pursuit of knowledge and attainment of objective truth to assist in the interpretation of this reality.  When one degree fails to provide an attractive job, the debt-laden recent grad will sometimes decide to gamble on another and hope to hit the jackpot.  But in 2019, in the United States of America, the guiding intent of higher education appears to have changed entirely. College degrees are about opening the door to the ideal job post-graduation (usually with a bit of binge-drinking and other extracurriculars thrown in for good measure). The college experience has become a path toward financial stability and not the method for attaining and discovering knowledge for knowledge’s sake.  With this incentive shift toward monetary outcomes as the point of one’s college experience, individuals and the culture at large are placing increasing emphasis on graduating at any cost. At times, when the four-year degree fails to provide an attractive job, the debt-laden recent grad will decide to gamble on the next degree with the hope of hitting the employment jackpot. And the costs can be high—enormous student loans, the opportunity cost of the time spent in college, or even the risk of incriminating oneself in a bribery scheme.  In fact, 44 million borrowers have collectively over 1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and the average student now graduates with $37,172 in student loans. The federal government is routinely providing loans that would not be available in the private sector because of the associated risk. Except for individuals in STEM programs, the likelihood that a recent graduate will find a job closely related to their major is incredibly slim, and the return on investment (four years of time and $100,000 in costs) is arguably non-existent.  The time and money spent to attain a college degree allow graduates to make a claim to a higher authority of one’s capabilities. In today’s generally atomized, fragmented, and city-centric society, most employers don’t live in a community where a young person’s skills and maturity are known and trusted. In this world, the diploma’s claim to authority seems to be necessary and convenient. However, people are starting to doubt the diploma’s authority due to degree inflation (i.e., nearly everyone has one).  Further, if a student can gain admission to a university based on bribery when he or she otherwise wouldn’t have met the entrance criteria but the student can still pass all the course work, then the academic credentials of the institution cannot be trusted. The college degree becomes an elitist and classist rubber stamp of approval that further separates those with means from those without.  Corporations can easily provide an alternative to this culturally imposed debt trap, and many are starting to do so. They can accept competent applicants fresh out of high school and train them to perform the needed jobs. This model benefits the non-college educated individual (or the pre-college educated individual) because he or she can both earn an income and gain four years of employment experience rather than attending college full-time.  The model also enables greater flexibility and profitability for corporations (with subsequent benefits to the people those businesses serve) because they can pay non-college educated individuals less since these new hires aren’t desperate to recoup financial losses from a college degree. If the social pressures toward a four-year college degree taper off, a majority of rational actors could be expected to jump at these opportunities and leave true academics to the academy.  There remains a genuine need for academics and for institutions of higher learning, research, and discussion. However, individuals who attend these institutions should be those who are seeking the truth, developing their knowledge base, and strengthening their critical thinking—not simply treating college as their only path toward the American dream or general maturation.  The current societal obsession with college degrees frequently creates barriers to entry and heavy negative trade-offs.  Human maturation and personal development should and will occur regardless of the situation or context in which people find themselves. But the academy is a place for research, development, and thought that does not innately or immediately bring with it financial reward. If there is a financial reward associated with it, market forces will fund such endeavors.  The current societal obsession with college degrees frequently creates more barriers to entry and heavy negative trade-offs for individuals who are simply looking to work hard and support their families. Whether America’s rising generation engages in “dirty jobs” or white collar jobs, college degrees should become a nice-to-have and not a must-have.


instapundit--2019-05-30--HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE Historian Celebrates Grant Of Tenure With Tweetstorm Decrying Hist

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE:  Historian Celebrates Grant Of Tenure With Tweetstorm Decrying ‘Hist…

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Historian Celebrates Grant Of Tenure With Tweetstorm Decrying ‘History Of Racism And Anti-Semitism At University Of Minnesota.’  She thinks she’s being bold, but she’s actually demonstrating that the filter worked as designed.


instapundit--2019-08-03--HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE Of the 200 top-paid public employees in Arizona 199 work in higher

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE:  Of the 200 top-paid public employees in Arizona, 199 work in higher…

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Of the 200 top-paid public employees in Arizona, 199 work in higher ed.  InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com


instapundit--2019-12-16--HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE:  Cat Lewis:  Why Universities Suck At Online Classes.  “The typical

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE:  Cat Lewis:  Why Universities Suck At Online Classes.  “The typical …

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Cat Lewis: Why Universities Suck At Online Classes. “The typical Youtube success story involves months, if not years, of ‘failing’ content. Every time the creator tries something new, they are rewarded or punished for it immediately. Successful Youtube educators learn painstakingly, video by video, what works and what does not. This does not happen at universities.”


lewrockwell--2019-05-15--Higher Education in America

Higher Education in America

Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Economics at Ohio University Richard Vedder’s new book, “Restoring the Promise,” published by the Independent Institute based in Oakland, California, is about the crisis in higher education. He summarizes the three major problems faced by America’s colleges and universities. First, our universities “are vastly too expensive, often costing twice as much per student compared with institutions in other industrialized democracies.” Second, though there are some important exceptions, students “on average are learning relatively little, spend little time in academic preparation and in some disciplines are indoctrinated by highly subjective ideology.” Third, “there is a mismatch between student occupational expectations after graduation and labor market realities.” College graduates often find themselves employed as baristas, retail clerks and taxi drivers. The extraordinary high college cost not only saddles students with debt, it causes them to defer activities such as getting married and starting a family, buying a home and saving for retirement. Research done by the New York Federal Reserve Banks and the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that each dollar of federal aid to college leads to a tuition increase of 60 cents. For the high cost of college, what do students learn? A seminal study, “Academically Adrift,” by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, after surveying 2,300 students at various colleges, argues that very little improvement in critical reasoning skills occurs in college. Adult literacy is falling among college graduates. Large proportions of college graduates do not know simple facts, such as the half-century in which the Civil War occurred. There are some exceptions to this academic incompetency, most notably in technical areas such as engineering, nursing, architecture and accounting, where colleges teach vocationally useful material. Vedder says that student ineptitude is not surprising since they spend little time in classrooms and studying. It’s even less surprising when one considers student high school preparation. According to 2010 and 2013 NAEP test scores, only 37% of 12th-graders were proficient in reading, 25% in math, 12% in history, 20% in geography and 24% in civics. What happens when many of these students graduate saddled with debt? The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in an October 2018 report, finds that many students are underemployed, filling jobs that can be done with a high school education. More than one-third of currently working college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, such as flight attendants, janitors and salesmen. In addition to this kind of resource misallocation, 40% or more college students fail to graduate in six years. It is not unreasonable to ask whether college attendance was a wise use of these students’ time and the resources of their parents and taxpayers. Vedder has several important ideas for higher education reform. First, we should put an end to the university monopoly on certifying educational and vocational competency. Non-college organizations could package academic courses and award degrees based upon external examinations. Regarding financial aid, colleges should be forced to share in covering loan defaults, namely they need to have some skin in the game. More importantly, Vedder says that we should end or revise the federal student aid program. Vedder ends “Restoring the Promise” with a number of proposals with which I agree: —College administrative staff often exceeds the teaching staff. Vedder says, “I doubt there is a major campus in America where you couldn’t eliminate very conservatively 10 percent of the administrative payroll (in dollar terms) without materially impacting academic performance.” —Reevaluate academic tenure. Tenure is an employment benefit that has costs, and faculty members should be forced to make tradeoffs between it and other forms of university compensation. —Colleges of education, with their overall poor academic quality, are an embarrassment on most campuses and should be eliminated. —End speech codes on college campuses by using the University of Chicago Principles on free speech. —The most important measure of academic reforms is to make university governing boards independent and meaningful. In my opinion, most academic governing boards are little more than yes men for the president and provost.  The Best of Walter E. Williams


tass--2019-09-11--Russia increases representation in Times Higher Education global rankings

LONDON, September 11. /TASS/. A total of 39 Russian universities made it into the 2020 edition of the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, four more than last year, the survey’s authors said on Wednesday.  The Lomonosov Moscow State University remains Russia’s highest-placed entry in the rankings, which list 1,300 higher education institutions from 92 countries. This year, Russia’s top entry climbed 10 places, to the 189th place.  According to the authors of the survey, the university’s improvement is "primarily due to an increase in its research environment score, while its industry income and teaching environment scores remain strong."  "However, in common with many Russian institutions, the university is held back by a poor citation impact score compared to its global rivals - and actually receives a lower score on this measure compared with last year," THE said.  The Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology has risen into the 201-250 band, up from 251-300, while the Higher School of Economics climbed into the 251-300 band from the 301-350 cohort. St Petersburg’s ITMO University ranks as the best outside of the capital, improving its score over last year to enter the 401-500 band (up from 501-600) alongside the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI.  Overall, Russia has five new entries, the highest-ranked of them being National Mineral Resources University in the 801-1,000 band.  THE chief knowledge officer Phil Baty noted the success of higher education from Russia against the backdrop of intense global rivalry.  "Russia has faced extremely stiff higher education competition in recent years, so it is encouraging that several of the country’s best universities have been able to improve their standing in the ranking this year," the expert said. "But Russian institutions still underperform in key metrics against international rivals, most notably in the area of citation impact, which sadly undermines the positive progress that many of them have made elsewhere."  "Russian universities must not only work hard to improve their international relations and partnerships, but must also ensure that they can hold on to their most capable people and boost their research quality," he added.  Russia overtook Australia in terms of number of universities, but is still the 11th most-represented country, having itself been overtaken by Iran.  In the latest edition of the survey, the University of Oxford tops the global rankings for the fourth year running, while the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) rises from fifth to second. The University of Cambridge is third. Overall, the top 10 features universities exclusively from the United States and the United Kingdom.  The research is based on 13 performance indicators, divided into five major groups: teaching (the learning environment); research (volume, income and reputation); citations (research influence); industry income (knowledge transfer); and international outlook (staff, students, research)  Russian universities attribute the country’s growing representation to their successful educational policies and active cooperation with science and research centers and business partners.  The press service of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, which remains Russia’s longtime leader in the rankings, said its standings improved due to implementation of a development program.  "MSU’s indicator of teaching saw the biggest progress, increasing to 78.2 points and making it world’s No. 23 in that regard," an MSU spokesperson said.  "We employ leaders in science, global and Russian IT-industry, and brilliant teachers. However, I would like to note that climbing to high positions in rankings is not our goal in itself. At the same time, rankings can provide an opportunity to take an unbiased look at our activities and help us to promptly respond to various challenges, retaining the leadership positions in education and science," Moscow State University Rector Victor Sadovnichy said.


theatlantic--2019-07-05--Higher Education Has Become a Partisan Issue

Over the past 25 years, since Newt Gingrich helped Republicans reclaim the gavel in the House of Representatives, Americans have become more politically polarized. Not only do members of one party view the other party as wrong, but they more frequently view them as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.” Americans don’t trust the other side, and more and more they mistrust institutions too, including the media and higher education.  Polls have shown that confidence in higher education, overall, has decreased in the past few years. A Pew Research Center survey found that 61 percent of Americans are worried about the path America’s colleges and universities are on. Democrats think that the cost of tuition is too high and, to a much lesser extent, that students are not getting the skills they need for the workplace. But Republicans overwhelmingly hold negative views of the sector; 73 percent  thought higher education was going in the wrong direction, as opposed to 52 percent of Democrats. A 2018 Gallup poll found that only 39 percent of Republicans expressed a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the sector, down 17 percentage points from 2015.  For many Republicans, mistrust of Democrats and mistrust of institutions collide when it comes to higher education, because they see colleges and universities as having a liberal bent. They point to surveys showing that college leadership leans liberal, and that liberal professors outnumber conservative ones on campuses.  The latest corroboration for some conservatives was Harvard’s decision to rescind admission to Kyle Kashuv, a Parkland survivor and conservative activist, because of racist messages he sent via Google Docs while in high school. For some, this drove home the message that liberals, and universities, practice selective forgiveness, allowing for the former sins of liberal institutions and people (see: Harvard University’s own past) but not doing the same for conservatives.  Read: Kyle Kashuv becomes a symbol to conservatives who say the left can’t forgive  It’s been an open question for some time whether this partisan mistrust would translate into tangible, monetary penalties for higher education. One answer came last fall, when voters in Montana took to the polls to decide whether they would continue to tax themselves to support higher education. The tax, known as the six-mill levy, has been voted on once every decade since 1948, and this vote was seen as a bellwether for public sentiment on higher education. Though the measure had been passing narrowly in preceding years, voters in 2018 again decided to continue taxing themselves to support their state universities. The support was likely the result of an interesting phenomenon that occurs when the conversation is not about “higher education” as a monolith but about people’s local colleges. Even though people may feel dubious about higher education more broadly, they can see the good that their local schools do and often feel favorably toward them as a result.


theduran--2019-09-10--The higher education scam

The higher education scam

In the 1930s about 2% of young people in the United Kingdom went to university. That figure is now approaching 50%. In which era was it more of a distinction? It is patent that a degree has become declasse in both senses. I hear you say that only 2% of people went on to university in the 1930s because most people were financially obligated to leave school in their mid teens. University was simply not on the radar of most people. There is much truth in this. Further, you might argue that these days people receive more years of education and that is desirable. These people gain from tertiary education. Again there is some merit to this argument.  The Butler Education Act of 1944 provided for a huge expansion of third level education. This was predicated on the Beveridge Report of 1943. The report was prepared by the eponymous Sir William Beveridge. Not co-incidentally Sir William was Master of University College Oxford. He was also a Liberal MP. In those days Oxford and Cambridge provided half of all the university places in the United Kingdom. The Oxbridge dons who envisaged a major increase in the number of university places imagined that they would be founding more universities of a similar quality to Oxford and Cambridge. They were gravely. mistaken.  Until 1828 England had only two universities. Then University College London was founded. It was followed by Durham in quick succession. By the end of the century the major cities in England all had their own university – Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and so forth. Scotland had four universities dating back to the Middle Ages. Wales did not have a university until the late 19th century. Ireland had Trinity College Dublin since 1592.  In the early 1960s only 4% of young people went on to university. The government then contemplated a major expansion of higher education. Auberon Waugh harrumphed ‘more means worse’. It did not have to be so but that was the way it transpired. Universities could have been expanded without sacrificing quality. At first there was little reduction in standards. As we are to see in time standards were thrown out altogether.  The degree classification system was introduced at Oxford at the dawn of the 1800s. It rapidly spread throughout the realm and then the empire. Perhaps a tenth of graduates were awarded a first class degree. In some universities that figure is approaching 50%.  Undergraduates and postgraduates are wont to complain if they do not receive a 2:1 or first. It must have been the don’s fault. The student can only have been poorly taught. It cannot possibly be that he or she lacked the aptitude or application. In fairness, there is the occasional academic who is not good at teaching. But at university a student is expected to be an adult. He or she must taken responsibility for learning. In the good old days such complaints would not have been entertained. To become an academic in the UK a PhD is almost a prerequisite. There are additional qualifications in teaching for academics. These are very demanding so it is hard to imagine that a below part academic would slip through the net. Why do academics need a PhD? As recently as they 1990s there were quite a few who were plain mister or miss. The necessity of obtaining a doctorate is yet another symptom of qualification inflation. Not long ago if someone had a first from Oxford or Cambridge he or she might be offered a fellowship straightaway. The college knew that this person was bright enough. The young fellow would start to tutor immediately and write academic papers too.  In fairness there are some good reasons why grades appear to have been inflated. Yes grade inflation is real. But there is another factor. If someone graduated even 30 years ago he or she was in a small minority. A decently paying white collar job was all but assured. These days everyone worth his salt has a degree. Therefore, things are more competitive. Undergraduates are wont to study harder. A degree in itself is no passport to a job even a poorly paid one.  Academics have told me how they have to massage grades rather roughly. Management has a whip on their backs to do so.  There is no failure. It is called deferred success.  The rot set in decades ago. The rate of decline has sped up. It has been estimated that in 30 years time every single graduate will be awarded a first.  Thatcher said that undergraduates must be perceived as customers. They must get value for money. Universities are afraid of them. The students are the masters. It is a non-violent version of the Cultural Revolution in China.  A student can bang his fist on the table and demand this and that. The university does not want to upset a valued client.  The fundamental mistake has been to consider universities to be part of the economy. In previous centuries their role was regarded as educational. That is now seen as quaint. For Thatcher it was all profit and loss. She did not think education had any inherent value. Universities ought to be about learning not earning. If you want to get rich then go and make money. If you want to be educated go to university. It is possible to do both. But do not mistake the primary purpose of university.  To be fair to Thatcher she had a point when she said that certain universities were self-serving and unproductive. At Oxford and Cambridge some bibulous dons cared only for claret and conversation. They cared little for undergraduates whom they regarded as an annoyance at best. They produced few shoddy monographs. However, there were very few who were this bad. Maggie Thatcher also saw universities as being a nationalized industry. In fact universities were never state owned. She was suspicious of academics as left wingers. She was correct that a great many were and are left wing. More than a few are outright communists.  When John Major became prime minister the United Kingdom has roughly 40 universities. The UK also had about 40 polytechnics. A polytechnic could award a bachelor’s degree as its highest qualification. Polytechnics mostly gave diplomas and certificates. The students there generally studied technical subjects such as art, hairdressing, makeup, dance, metal work, woodwork, plumbing and technical drawing. In 1992 John Major decided on a complete overhaul. He was the least educated prime minister the UK ever had. James Callaghan had no higher education but he still cherished education and was widely read. Major proved himself to be a staggering ignoramus. He upgraded all the polytechnics to university status. At a stroke he hugely diminished the standing of British universities.  Printing more money does not enrich us all. Printing more degrees does not enrich us educationally. You might say I am not comparing like with like. If more people attain a high standard of education then though ought to be given a degree in recognition of that. Here I agree. I do not advocate returning to the 1930s when only 2% of people went to university. There has got to be a happy medium between that and the ludicrous situation we are in now when anyone can be awarded a degree. In the early 1980s we had it about right.  It is preposterous that universities can choose what degree class to award. There is clearly a conflict of interest here. It looks best for the university on the league table to award as many firsts as possible. Why wouldn’t you? Everyone else is doing it.  If you are a student and you see people complain and get higher grades you might be tempted to likewise. You would be a fool not to. FIDDLE the system.  Universities need students. How do they attract them? Providing superb education from distinguished academics ought to be the way. There are less noble strategies. Award high classes of degree to as many as possible. Do not fail any student no matter how idle or incapable. Give them freebies. Some hand out free laptops. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. These students are in debt for university. It will have to be paid back. In fact these people are burdening themselves with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. The government estimates a third of it will never be repaid. It is driving up the deficit. It is also taking money away from the NHS and armed forces.  I am not demeaning people in their teens and early 20s. There are just as many gifted young people as ever. Many of them are diligent. Their achievements should not be belittled. The trouble is that it is hard to tell who is a high achiever from class of degree. There are some who truly deserve a first. There are others who do not. Awarding first class degrees to second class students does a disservice to those who genuinely merit firsts.  Money is squandered on glossy advertising. Brochures have said how many one night stands students have. I am not judgmental about promiscuity. I am simply saying it should not be part of a university’s pitch.  When Thatcher became PM 10% of people went to university. Full funding was feasible. As the number of people in higher education reached 50% of youngsters the same level of funding was unaffordable.  Treating universities as businesses is fundamentally wrong. The approach to degrees has been stack em high sell em cheap. They are cheap in the sense that they are easy. Conversely their price has increased markedly.  It is hard to believe that until the late 1990s undergraduates paid not a penny in fees. Further, they were even given maintenance grants in the early 1990s. Even if your parents were millionaires you were given money to live on by the government. It was not a loan.  The amount of money that the government spends on undergraduates is lower in real terms than ever before. Yet we are told the results are better than ever. Smell a rat? This is utterly impossible.  Full disclosure: I was awarded a 2:1 in my first bachelor’s degree in 1999. Had I done it 10 years earlier I probably would have got a 2:2. Had I done it now I might even have landed a first. In my second bachelor’s I was given a 2:2. Ten years earlier that would have been a third. Nowadays would it be a 2:1? I did a master’s and was awarded a 2:2. I should not even have been admitted to the course. The course director assured me that no one fails. There is not bottom line!  In my linguistics MA I was taught the parts of speech! Admittedly there were some challenging parts of the course too.  There are structured PhDs. Having so much helps defeats the objective of a PhD.  When business imperatives and educational imperatives collide it is the former that wins out every single time. Educational standards will always be sacrificed to market forces. It is all a sham.  Master’s degrees used to be a rarity. Now they are handed out like billy-o.  Armies of substandard graduates are around. Unsurprisingly they cannot find jobs commensurate with their qualifications. Put simply there are only so many graduate jobs. ‘But we paid for our degrees’. You cannot buy a brain.  Academic freedom is under attack. Woe betide any academic with the courage to say that people are all too often grades that their work does not merit.  The ridiculous ‘Rhodes must fall’ campaign took place at Oxford. Some snowflakes demanded the removal of the statue of a 19th century imperialist. These students could have chosen not to apply to Oxford if the statue was so offensive. In a rare example of backbone the university refused to remove the image. All too often universities bow the knee to bully boy tactics. There are safe spaces and trigger warnings. Muslims students often vociferously complain about anything that reflects poorly on Islam.  Academic pay is abysmal and so is there status. In a marked contrast the administrators are paid higher than ever. It is all about bums on seats. The more students the more money.  Much money is wasted on aesthetics. Students have better accommodation than ever. That is not a bad thing.  But it is not a sensible way to spend money. These student halls are empty half the time. This exacerbates the housing crisis.  You can perform abysmally in school and still get a degree. I knew 18 year olds who were semi-literate. Shockingly they were later awarded degrees. People who failed all their A levels are sometimes accepted by universities. Why should they run when they cannot walk? Failing all your A levels really takes some doing.  We ought to accept that most people are not academic. There is no shame in that. We cannot all be scholars just as we cannot all be athletes or musicians. Some lucky souls can be all of these things. Gifts are not distributed equally.  Many people have been sold a pup. They have been conned into thinking that taking on £40 000 of debt for an almost worthless degree will guarantee them a handsomely remunerated job. Notice that educational benefits are hardly mentioned in a university’s pitch.  The big idea is that sending masses of people to ‘uni’ will boost the economy. There is little truth in this. In fact all this unmanageable debt is a drain on the economy. The Republic of Ireland has the highest university attendance rte in the world. That did not stop the crash of 2008. Some very prosperous nations have low graduation rates: Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands have it about 20%. There are countries with much higher university attendance rates like Georgia that are not rich at all.  Some well meaning left wing politicians in the 1960s set the ball rolling. In many cases they grew up working class. Third level education had been all but inaccessible to their parents. The Labour politicians wanted to bring the blessings of higher education to more people. It was a praiseworthy goal. But they were overzealous and went too far.  There has been a Dutch auction on standards. Students achieve less because less is expected of them. Universities ought to have exacting standards. A little failure in your teens is good for you. It inoculates a person against the adversity he or she will encounter in the workplace.  There are superb universities in the UK but very few. Much depends on the subject. Medicine and Veterinary Medicine are truly scholastic subjects. Standards for these subjects remain very high.  Course are dumbed down and stripped of difficult content. With new subjects there is no agreed corpus of knowledge. So they can be dumbed down more easily. What is media studies? No one knows. Therefore it can be made easier without giving the game away. In Chemistry you cannot do without the Periodic Table of Elements. That is why traditional subjects have not been gutted in the same way new fangled ones have. Note how the UK has fewer graduates in STEM subjects precisely because they cannot be made too simple.  We have in some respects experienced the Americanisation of higher education. The US has some of the top universities in the world. But even in the Ivy League there is corruption. Legatees are accepted due to bribes. Sorry I mean donations. Academic freedom is curtailed. There is a marriage of convenience between regressive capitalism and far left cultural theory. Academics dare not transgress certain mores or their careers are over. University is more expensive than ever but less worthwhile. As they say a century ago college taught ancient Greek. Now it teaches remedial English. At least in the US the government is not paying for all this bunkum.  The government gives the university less money than ever but demands more control. The government wants to bring in racist discrimination as policy. There are codes of conduct. Free speech is under assault. Students are to be mollycoddled. They cannot get up to high jinks. They are subjected to sub Marxist and feminist indoctrination. These are loony left fads from the United States.  In schools the same malaise has played out. Grade inflation plagues schools. A new grading system has sought to hide this. Tonnes of bureaucracy have ruined schooling and driven out many excellent teachers.  O levels were hard. In 1988 they became GCSEs which we much easier. Too many people got an A grade. Then an A * was introduced. The same happened to A levels. So many people got an A * that they whole system has been scrapped. The UK is returning to a numerical system it had in the 1970s. This time 9 is the best grade and 1 is the worst. It is permanent revolution. No wonder people are confused.  These problems have been around for decades. Michael Gove as Education Secretary made a small attempt to reverse grade inflation. There were howls of outrage.  As Gove said 50% of children are below average but try telling that to a middle class London parent. I did once and the woman was genuinely perplexed.#  All must have prizes! It is like Garrison Keeler’s satire about Lake Woebegone. The average is high and everyone is above it.  I am not being snooty about my abilities. I am a disaster in several subjects. If I had been around in the time of O levels I would have failed Maths, Latin and perhaps other subjects.  Why are school grades higher when everyone stays in school till 18 now? Grade inflation is the main factor. There are others. There is teaching to test.  It is extremely hard to become a teacher. It is organizationally difficult. It is not scholastically challenging. There are some brilliant and dedicated teachers. Schools vary enormously. But in many of them teachers are verbally abused non stop. Small wonder there is a teacher recruitment crisis. It is very hard to get science graduates to teach.  For 20 years Oxford had to teach Maths students extra classes before the start of term. That is because school Maths is no longer taxing enough. Universities say they cannot identify brilliant applicants because hordes of pupils have all top grades.  An academic at a London university told me a third of his undergraduates should not be there. Sullen and idle they will denounce him to the authorities if he does not give them a 2:1 or better for each essay. It is not all gloom. There are cerebral and hard working students as there always were.  University education ought to be pared back. So much money could have saved. The UK has two of the most renowned universities on the planet. We ought to view Oxford and Cambridge as national treasure. The government should be happy to pay whatever it takes to maintain their status. But the government is chicken shit. They bow to populist prejudice. They fail to fund varsity properly.  As for grades – it is no use awarding a first to 50% of students even if they have attained the requisite standard. A degree class is partly to tell people apart. Therefore there must be a cap on the % who can be awarded each class. Cheap popularity by awarding higher and higher grades much end.  The UK needs rigour in school exams. A law to prevent grade inflation must be introduced – i.e. a cap on the % who can get each grade.


thehill--2019-03-18--White House proposes limits on student loan borrowing as part of higher education reforms

The Trump administration on Monday proposed placing limits on federal student borrowing programs as part of a series of initiatives to amend the Higher Education Act.  "We need to modernize our higher education system to make it affordable, flexible and more outcome oriented so that all Americans, young and old, can learn the skills they need to secure and retain good-paying jobs," White House senior adviser Ivanka Trump Ivana (Ivanka) Marie Trump Advocate says Trump administration's new proposal would do 'absolutely nothing' to alleviate student debt White House proposes limits on student loan borrowing as part of higher education reforms New Zealand suspect wrote in manifesto he supported Trump 'as a symbol of renewed white identity' MORE said during a call with reporters.  A number of the proposals seek to change the borrowing and loan repayment process. A senior administration official said the White House wants to institute a limit on loans through the PLUS program, which graduate students and parents of undergraduates use to help pay for college or trade school.  The official did not say what the loan cap would be, but that it could vary by program rather than by institution.  The administration is also calling for Congress to simplify loan repayment programs, in part by condensing five income-driven repayment plans into one plan that would cap monthly payments at 12.5 percent of the borrower's discretionary income.  The proposals are the first major priorities from President Trump Donald John TrumpDem lawmaker says Electoral College was 'conceived' as way to perpetuate slavery Stanley Cup champion Washington Capitals to visit White House on Monday Transportation Dept requests formal audit of Boeing 737 Max certification MORE's White House touching on the Higher Education Act, which was last significantly amended in 2008. The recommendations come from the National Council for the American Worker, an advisory board created via executive order in July.  The Department of Education under President Trump has garnered criticism from some corners for its rollback of Obama-era regulations aimed at protecting borrowers from predatory loan practices.  But the White House asserted on Monday that the proposed changes to the Higher Education Act would ultimately benefit students seeking to enter the workforce.  "We think these are absolutely critical reforms and really the most comprehensive approach to higher ed reform in over a decade," Ivanka Trump told reporters. "So we’re very excited to work with members on both sides of the aisle to advance these and other important education initiatives."  Other proposals outlined in the administration's plan focus on improving access to information about various institutions, allowing low-income students and workers to use Pell grants for certain short-term workforce programs and reforming the federal work study program so that it better aligns with students' career goals.  "Members of Congress who are committed to ensuring Americans thrive in today’s strong, modern, and growing economy should support and pass these reforms," press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.  Congress must take up the White House proposals and pass legislation before they become law.  Ivanka Trump said Sen. Lamar Alexander Andrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderWhite House proposes limits on student loan borrowing as part of higher education reforms The 25 Republicans who defied Trump on emergency declaration Trump issues first veto, warning of 'reckless' resolution MORE (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has expressed support for the White House's stated priorities. Alexander has said he will not seek reelection in 2020, providing an additional sense of urgency in getting the proposed reforms through Congress.  Alexander said in a statement that the White House proposals are "helpful" for him as he works with committee ranking member Sen. Patty Murray Patricia (Patty) Lynn MurrayWhite House proposes limits on student loan borrowing as part of higher education reforms Jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay M to woman who claimed baby powder gave her cancer Overnight Health Care - Presented by Kidney Care Partners - FDA chief Scott Gottlieb resigns | House Dems to take up drug pricing bills next week | Planned Parenthood, doctors group sue over Trump abortion rule MORE (D-Wash.), and that he hopes to bring legislation to the full Senate before the summer.


theirishtimes--2019-02-25--Higher education is being turned into an extended form of secondary school

Hardly a week goes by without a senior academic or opposition politician commenting on the “crisis” in the Irish higher education system. The crisis, it seems, is one of funding, the argument being that state funding has declined so much that we are close to a tipping point where the quality of our institutions will start to plummet.  However, just as in Zeno’s paradox where Achilles can never quite catch the tortoise, we never seem to actually reach the point where we are willing to admit that quality is, in fact, declining.  Others point to the fact that we are falling in the international rankings but our “get-out-of-jail card” is the fact that it is generally accepted that, although influential, one’s position in the rankings is a poor proxy for quality, especially in broad area of teaching and learning.  So, is there really a crisis of quality - now - and is it caused by a lack of funding? I believe there is a problem, not necessarily a crisis, and it has little to do with funding.  The fundamental problem in higher education is that standards are declining due to a combination of poor student engagement, a quiet and almost unconscious dumbing down, a gradual and quite deliberate move to turn higher education into an extended form of secondary school, and an over-emphasis on initiatives that have little or nothing to do with education.  Anyone who doubts that there is a problem with student engagement should talk to students some time. They will freely admit that although they might spend a reasonable amount of time doing assignments during the semester, they do little or no actual study until just before the exams. In effect they study topics once and cognitive science tells us that knowledge acquired once is rapidly forgotten.  Students are aided in this approach by the fact that in the semesterised system, they are tested on small “chunks” of material in short (two-hour) exams and because of the increased emphasis on continuous assessment many students only need to achieve very low marks to pass or even do reasonably well in the subject.  There is one ray of hope, however, and it is this: work placements seem to transform students.  Recently when I asked my final year students what the highlight of their studies had been so far, every single one them replied that it was their nine-month stint in industry. Maybe that’s telling us something.  Is the system being dumbed down? Talk to academics, from any discipline, and most will express a sort of weariness at the relentless drift towards mediocrity. This process is not being driven by the perennial bad guys, namely “management”.  It’s more a case of the cumulative effect of a large number of influences: the poor basic skills of incoming students and the fact that we are failing to impart these skills; a sense that it is better for students to learn something at a low level than very little at a high level; an increased tendency for students and external examiners alike to see challenging assessments as unfair; a recognition that rote learning is alive and well in higher education and that to ask the unexpected is to risk mass failure and the inquisition that will follow.  Yet, despite all of this, employers seem to be happy with the quality of graduates these days so maybe the word “crisis” is being overused.  All of this is occurring against a background in which a teaching and learning “mafia” has emerged in higher education. This group of academics see fellow academics purely as teachers and students as pupils.  They make careers out of making university education far more complicated than it needs to be and they are determined to find solutions to ill-defined or non-existent problems, usually by employing so-called “student-centred” methods for which there is little or no evidence.  The result is that academics and the administrators supporting them are overburdened with bureaucracy. The best example of this is the fixation with “learning outcomes”, something that forces academics to write, and administrators to manage, long module descriptors which students never read and which add absolutely nothing of value to the students’ learning.  But maybe that’s not the point. Maybe it’s all about signalling to the world how organised and committed we are.  Finally, it is worth asking what universities are for. If you ask the person on the street what a university is for, they’ll probably say “education”. But the mission of universities has expanded greatly in recent years and not just because governments have demanded it, but because the universities, who now operate in a higher education market, saw this expansion as an opportunity.  It was interesting to note that when, last year, Trinity announced a plan to develop a €1 billion innovation campus, nobody stopped to ask if that really is what a university should be doing?  It seems that we have sleepwalked into a time where it is taken for granted that the job of universities is not just to educate but to drive short to medium term economic growth.  And we’ve done so at the very time when universities say the quality of the education that they can deliver is about to tumble. Perhaps we need to learn to prioritise.  Dr Greg Foley is an associate professor at Dublin City University’s school of biotechnology. He is writing in a personal capacity


theindependent--2019-03-18--We know how higher education fails black students so whataposs stopping us from fixing it

We know how higher education fails black students, so what's stopping us from fixing it?

Almost every elder I know has uttered a version of the sentence: “Jobs like those are not for people like us,” as if we’d all been conditioned to think we were only meant to go down one rigid path while others excelled and prevailed in all sorts of avenues.  It wasn’t until I was 15 that it finally clicked that, unfortunately, we have been taught to think like that, because that’s exactly how racial inequality works in society.  It’s fair to say a lot of us are simply products of our environment. Britain is supposedly an increasingly diverse country, but we never seem to have had a curriculum that reflects that. Quite frankly, there isn’t enough focus on the role of higher education curricula in furthering racial equality in Britain, and that needs to change now.  In October last year for example, the Royal Historical Society published a report on race, ethnicity and equality within the teaching industry. According to Advance HE’s Equality Challenge Unit, Bame students and staff are underrepresented in UK history departments, which has had a great effect on the quality of teaching, learning and research on history in the UK.  The report recommends “pragmatic” steps to enhance the representation and experience of Bame students and suggests schools and university curriculums offering diverse histories are taking correct measures in engaging with a wider and diverse pool of students.  If we take a look at a report published in 2011 which showed that of over 14,000 university professors in the UK, only 50 were black and overwhelmingly, outside the humanities disciplines, it’s clear we’ve long needed systematic attention to racial and ethnic inequality.  But the issues go much deeper than physical representation. We need to make vast improvements through literature, after-school clubs and lessons too. The goal of inclusivity can’t solely be reached by waiting for annual observances like black history month or world culture day to roll around in order to discuss the accolades of different communities.  One such institution defying those practices is Goldsmiths, University of London. In 2015, the university took the bold step of introducing the first ever master’s degree course in the world that solely focuses on black British literature. This year, it became the first university in the UK to launch a black British history master’s.  The black British writing MA is co-convened and co-taught by Dr Deirdre Osborne, reader in English literature and drama, and professor Joan Anim-Addo, professor of English and Caribbean literature, the only black woman professor of comparative literature in the UK.  Ms Osborne and Ms Anim-Addo discovered black British writing is taught more outside the UK (for example, in Germany, Italy, the US and Belgium) than it is here, and were pushed to join forces to create a postgraduate degree with the aim of catering to those people who have missed out on a vital part of British culture not universally taught or represented.  Despite being first introduced in 2015, many students are still unaware that the course exists – partly due to a lack of independent research and virtually no media coverage, but also due to the constant assumption that no institution would focus on the contributions of Bame people in Britain.  Even now that the country’s first black history postgrad is due to launch in September, it has hardly been covered. I’d even go as far as suggesting it’s being ignored, and I think that in itself is a problem.  I spoke to Dr Osborne on why inclusivity in all forms is so important and she said: “To have no or limited access to a fuller picture of literary history, to be diminished, disregarded or erased is cultural starvation.  “Why exist only on rations that will not nurture everyone? In terms of cultural citizenship and social worth and self-esteem, the absence or misrepresentation – even distortion – this engenders creates negative effects across generations, until they become ‘familiar’ and normalised. This is cemented in the school system.  “There are many teachers who understand this, and do want to change it, but the national curriculum needs prising open and then, in higher education, their expectations must be met.”  If we’re ever going to truly reach a stage of racial equality within institutions, the impetus has to come from everyone. We have to unite to improve the situation – the issue of racial equality cannot be solved by Bame communities alone. We need privileged and non-black communities who truly believe in equality to also play their part in celebrating, researching and discussing our well-earned achievements throughout history.  The recognition that the best of contemporary British life has benefited from the toil and culture of postwar migrants, and has evolved in ways undreamt of, is overdue. Excluding the work and history of these people would be an affront to that legacy.  Goldsmiths has done what no other institution has been brave enough to do, but it cannot end here – schools, business and the media need to learn and watch the impact this course will have on both the black community and other communities.  At a time like this where the young are vulnerable, it’s important to ensure representation within a classroom, curriculum and society is available. By educating them on what their ancestors or community have achieved, they can be inspired to continue on in the traditions that are often withheld from them.  We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.  At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2019-08-24--Snobbery Against Colleges As Higher Education Institutions Must End

As students discovered their GCSE and A-level grades this month, there was one results day that you might have missed. While the BTEC results day received more coverage than normal this year – featuring on the BBC and other news outlets – the event is still far less celebrated than other exams, despite it being just as important for our young people.  In my early career, I worked in a construction FE College and later worked at the Sheffield College. I have seen first-hand the importance of these institutions. I am also deeply passionate about the opportunities that further education offers for our young people.  Colleges like Sheffield College continue to be crucial in driving social mobility and providing the skills necessary to boost local and regional economies. They offer a place to provide qualifications and skills to meet the demands of the city’s growing economy through high quality education and technical training.  The young people who may be studying in the locality that they live in are the nurses, the bricklayers, the hairdressers, the secretaries, the engineers, the care workers, the police officers of the future.  Many go onto university and bring the hands-on experience they have gained to further studies. Others will establish their own businesses. All of these will bring an important boost to our economy and tax base.  Further education is supremely adaptable to the changes in our society and already offers comprehensive technical courses. Building skills which will be invaluable for the next industrial revolution if we are to be successful and competitive in area such as Artificial intelligence.  Indeed, a post-Brexit Britain will require a strategy to teach, skill and re-skill our population to fill in roles in hospitality, in manufacturing, engineering, care and other vital sectors.  Vocational training is vital for our young people and should be at the heart of our communities.  Unfortunately, this government has failed to support the work of the FE sector.  Further Education – disproportionately made up of working-class students, has, predictably and depressingly, fared worst and the outcomes are telling.  In the last ten years, total enrolments for adults dropped from 5.1m to 1.9m. A drop of 62%.  Cuts to the adult education budget mean that there are less people skilled in professions vital for economic success now and in the future.  Since 2010 we have seen the resources for Further Education plummet. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that since 2010 funding per student aged 16-18 in further education has fallen by 8% in real terms and is now at the same level as during the late 2000’s.  The funding squeeze is also certainly impacting morale for staff at colleges, too.  College lecturers are now paid on average less than 80% the rate of school staff.  Association of College’s latest workforce survey suggests that average lecturer pay in colleges is £30,100 which is significantly less than average school teacher pay and average university academic pay.  This snobbery against colleges must end and a new dawn for colleges must break, recognizing their true importance to our communities and local economies.  The new Prime Minister has been on a recent spending splurge – I hope he will put his money where his mouth is and support the vital services our colleges and other further education institutions offer across the country.  Gill Furniss is the MP for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and Shadow Business Minister