Latest news with #HigherEducationAct
Daily Maverick
03-06-2025
- General
- Daily Maverick
From protest to policy — how to prepare student leaders for governance roles
Leadership development begins in childhood and is either matured or sabotaged in early adulthood. What surfaces later in public life is merely the ripple effect of how young leaders were shaped, or not shaped, in those formative years. The impact is seen in everything from government, to corporates and civil society formations. Nowhere is this more evident than in the corridors of tertiary institutions, where student leaders often find themselves catapulted from protest to policy proponents without a roadmap. South Africa's Higher Education Act affirms the importance of the student voice, through the establishment of student representative councils. These structures are meant to form part of university governance, giving legitimacy to student participation and co-ownership of institutional decisions. However, a troubling paradox lies hidden in plain sight. The students who are elected to lead are often those who have risen through the fiery furnace of very essential campus activism. They are politicised, energised and popular – but are they prepared to govern? That is the dilemma. Passion without preparation. Power without posture. Protest without bureaucratic policy insight. Student organisations across campuses – whether aligned to Sasco, Pasma, Daso, the EFFSC or others – reflect our nation's fractured political landscape. Their members fight hard for electoral visibility. But when the protests are over, when the slogans fade and the victory photos are taken, what follows is an often painful transition – moving overnight from activist to structural representative. And too often, it fails. Students find themselves suddenly required to operate in the very spaces they previously vilified. Instead of megaphones and placards, they now face committee rooms, university statutes and boardroom coffee. As one student leader admitted during a capacity-building session: 'You sit there drinking coffee with management, and you've got a lump in your throat because you know your people outside don't trust this table.' This isn't just political tension. It's a deep psychological rupture – one not confined to student leadership but familiar in many transitions of power. It shows up when trade unionists ascend to corporate boards. When activists become ministers. When freedom fighters become cabinet politicians. This is possibly the case also when a country moves from revolutionary struggle to diplomatic status at the United Nations. The transition from outsider to insider is complex, and if mishandled, corrosive – both to the soul of the individual and to institutional systems. The leadership bottleneck becomes clear: student leaders, once driven by mobilisation and moral fire, now face institutional processes they neither understand nor control. Their term of office is punitively short. Their learning curve is steep. The same voices that carried weight on the picket line are now weighed against policy cycles, academic calendars and budget meetings. Decisions on exclusions, accommodation or financial aid don't move at protest speed. They move at the pace of bureaucracy. This mismatch between urgency and process often creates a crisis of identity. Many student leaders, untrained in governance and under pressure to remain 'relevant', begin to perform rather than lead. They attend to operational issues – responding to every complaint, attending every event – not because it is strategic, but because it is visible. They believe leadership is about being seen. And being seen means votes. In the absence of strategic tools, some regress into dangerous patterns. They use the student body as leverage, sometimes impulsively and very often manipulatively. They stage unrest to regain relevance. They conflate outrage with influence. But what began as representation quietly morphs into exploitation. The consequences can be devastating. Protests escalate. Trust erodes. Institutional governance becomes fragile. Millions are lost in property damage. Students face disciplinary hearings or arrests. Some drop out. Some are maimed. Many student leaders themselves leave office bitter, disillusioned or psycho-spiritually broken. Their passion was pure, but the system gave them no scaffolding. But there is another way. It begins not with slogans or elections, but with structure. With strategy. With formation. The Early Adulthood Development Foundation (EADF) proposes a new pathway. We propose a reimagined pipeline for student leadership formation. One that prepares the next generation not just to protest, but to govern. Not just to lead a chant, but to lead a council. The first pivot is this: From performance to formation. Leadership is not a stage. It is a calling which requires self-mastery and not just public appeal. Training must begin before elections and continue long after the term begins. We must invest in deep personal formation, not reactive workshops. Second: From popularity to credibility. We need leaders who are trusted, not just followed. Who are respected for their integrity, not just their volume. This requires political literacy, strategic maturity and ethical clarity. The student body on campus must stop rewarding visibility without sustainable vision. And third: From protest to policy. Activism should not die when office begins. It should evolve. Protest must give birth to policy. Student leaders should be equipped to translate the pain they've seen into the policies they propose. That means knowing how systems work, how power flows and how decisions are made. This is where the proposed EADF scaffolds come in. They are simple, but transformative: Structured pre-election training to lay the foundation; Baseline entry assessments to identify maturity gaps; A leadership eligibility pipeline that ensures experience before elevation; and Consistent mentorship and coaching throughout the term. These are not luxuries. They are real necessities, if we are serious about cultivating ethical and effective leadership for the next generation. From churches and corporates, to governments and NGOs, crisis always mirrors character. The tertiary education sector is not just a space for academic growth. It offers a sacred potential rehearsal environment for public life. If we form leaders who can stand with conscience and insight in the boardroom, kneel with compassion in their dorm rooms and lead with temperate foresight in protest, then we are not just shaping student politics, we are safeguarding the future of leadership itself. DM Tebogo Mothibinyane is a student development practitioner. Professor Cecil Bodibe is a clinical psychologist and past DVC student at Unisa. Dr Zolile Mlisana is a paediatrician and past principal of Medunsa.
South China Morning Post
15-05-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
South Korean university moves to retroactively revoke ex-first lady's degree over plagiarism
Sookmyung Women's University has begun the process of revising its academic regulations to allow for the retroactive cancellation of degrees obtained before 2015, in a move that could lead to the revocation of former South Korean first lady Kim Keon-hee 's master's degree following a confirmed case of plagiarism. The university said on Wednesday that it convened its Graduate School of Education committee the previous day and agreed to add a new provision to Article 25-2 of its graduate school by-laws on the revocation of degrees. The proposed revision would allow the regulation, enacted in June 2015, to be applied retroactively to degrees issued before that date. Sookmyung has enforced rules allowing the cancellation of degrees found to have been obtained through fraudulent means since 2015, pending review by the graduate school committee. However, Kim received her master's degree in art education from the university in 1999, and the current rules could not be applied to her case. The university said the revision aligns with the national Higher Education Act, which permits the retroactive application of degree revocation. The university's Research Integrity Committee launched an investigation into Kim's thesis in November 2022 following a complaint from Yoo Young-joo, head of the university's democratic alumni group. In January, the committee concluded that the thesis had involved plagiarism 01:18 South Korean first lady Kim Keon-hee plagiarised master's thesis, university concludes South Korean first lady Kim Keon-hee plagiarised master's thesis, university concludes Neither Kim nor the alumni group filed objections, and the plagiarism finding was finalised on February 25. While the committee has yet to determine what sanctions to recommend – which could range from retraction or revision of the thesis to restrictions on future advising or reviewing of academic work – it delayed the process due to the lack of a retroactive revocation clause in school policy.
Korea Herald
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Students, professors urge Sookmyung Women's University to take action on Kim Keon Hee's plagiarism
Kim's 1999 thesis accused of plagiarism in 2021, confirmed in February this year Students and professors at Sookmyung Women's University on Thursday called on the school to take action by revoking the master's degree of Kim Keon Hee, wife of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, after her thesis was found to have been plagiarized. 'It's been more than three months since Kim's thesis was confirmed to be plagiarized, but the university still hasn't revoked her degree or taken any action, and we haven't been told why it's taking so long,' said Hwang Da-kyung from Seolhwa, a student group at the university, during a press conference held in central Seoul with the Democratic Alumnae Association. 'There is nothing to learn from a university that no longer upholds the values of fairness and integrity." Kim earned her master's degree in art education from Sookmyung Women's University in 1999. Allegations of plagiarism in her thesis emerged in late 2021 amid growing public scrutiny of her academic background, shortly after Yoon became a leading presidential candidate. In early 2022, an accusation filed by the alumnae group prompted the university's research ethics committee to begin reviewing Kim's thesis, but a full investigation didn't begin until December, raising criticism about delays. Finally this January, the university determined that she had plagiarized her work. Shin Dong-soon, a professor of Chinese language and literature at the university who attended the press conference, said, 'It took far too long for the university to officially confirm plagiarism in Kim's thesis, even though the similarity rate exceeded 50 percent.' 'I urge President Moon to proceed with fairness and without partiality, no matter who the subject of the investigation is.' According to Article 65 of the university's academic regulations, a degree obtained through dishonest means may be revoked following deliberation. Meanwhile, another thesis Kim wrote in 2008 while studying at Kookmin University's Graduate School of Techno Design, where she earned a doctorate in design, has also come under scrutiny for alleged plagiarism. The university, however, concluded that the level of plagiarism in Kim's doctoral thesis and related papers did not constitute research misconduct that 'seriously exceeds what is generally considered acceptable in academia.' Possibilities have emerged that if Kim's master's degree from Sookmyung is officially revoked, her doctoral degree from Kookmin University could also be subject to cancellation. Under the Korea's Higher Education Act, a master's degree is a prerequisite for admission to a doctorate program.
New York Post
06-05-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Trump administration restarts involuntary collections on student loan debt
The Department of Education resumed collections on defaulted federal student loans on Monday and reminded colleges and universities of their 'shared responsibility' to ensure taxpayers aren't on the hook for unpaid debts. Collections had been on pause since March 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the restart is expected to impact roughly 5.3 million borrowers currently in default on their federal student loans. 'As we begin to help defaulted borrowers back into repayment, we must also fix a broken higher education finance system that has put upward pressure on tuition rates without ensuring that colleges and universities are delivering a high-value degree to students,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. Advertisement 'For too long, insufficient transparency and accountability structures have allowed US universities to saddle students with enormous debt loads without paying enough attention to whether their own graduates are truly prepared to succeed in the labor market,' she added. 3 McMahon said she plans to publish the names of the schools with the highest student loan default rates. Getty Images On Monday, approximately 195,000 defaulted student loan borrowers received a 30-day notice from the Department of Treasury, informing them that their federal benefits will be subjected to the Treasury Offset Program, which collects debts by garnishing federal and state payments, such as federal tax refunds. Advertisement Offsets will begin in early June, according to the Education Department, and later this summer, all 5.3 million defaulted borrowers will receive a notice from Treasury that their earnings will be subject to administrative wage garnishment. On the same day collections resumed, McMahon issued a 'Dear Colleague Letter' to institutions of higher education reminding them of their obligation to support student loan borrowers under the Higher Education Act of 1965. 3 The Trump administration will start garnishing the wages of borrowers in default later this summer. Getty Images 'Although borrowers have the primary responsibility for repaying their student loans, institutions play a key role in the Department's ongoing efforts to improve loan repayment outcomes, especially as the cost of college set solely by institutions has continued to skyrocket,' McMahon wrote. Advertisement The education secretary asked universities to 'refocus and expand' efforts at advising and counseling students on borrowing money from the federal government and to provide 'clear and accurate information about repayment to borrowers through entrance and exit counseling.' McMahon noted that under the Higher Education Act, schools are required to keep default rates 'low' and warned that schools could 'lose eligibility for federal student assistance' if defaults exceed 40% in a single year or 30% for three straight years. '[W]e strongly urge all institutions to begin proactive and sustained outreach to former students who are delinquent or in default on their loans to ensure that such institutions will not face high [default rates] next year and lose access to federal student aid,' McMahon wrote. 3 The Trump administration warned colleges and universities Monday that if too many of their graduates are in default, they could be cut off from access to federal financial aid for students. Getty Images Advertisement The Trump administration also warned colleges that the Education Department will soon begin publishing loan non-payment rates broken down by university. 'The Department is committed to overseeing the federal student loan programs with fairness and integrity for students, institutions, and taxpayers,' McMahon wrote. 'To that end, the Department believes that greater transparency is needed regarding institutional success in counseling borrowers and helping them get into good standing on their loans.' She indicated that the data will be made public later this month.
New York Times
05-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
College Is More Affordable Than Many Parents Think
This spring brought the annual wave of prospective students to colleges nationwide, with young people and their parents eager to learn about majors and campus life. Unfortunately, the most important issue of all — the cost of college — was too often omitted from those conversations. Confusion about what a college education will cost any given family is creating a disheartening landscape, especially for working- and middle-class families who may not have been made aware of how much financial aid they could be eligible for. This challenge is compounded by renewed efforts from the Trump administration to tax endowments and cut research funding, restricting revenue sources that help make college more affordable. Headlines often spotlight $100,000 sticker prices at elite private colleges. But even flagship public universities are increasingly — and understandably — seen as financially out of reach. 'Everyone I went to high school with either went to Tech or UFS,' one rural Arkansas student told a researcher, referring to Arkansas Tech University and the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. 'Nobody really went to Fayetteville because they thought, 'I can't afford that. I'm not uppity.'' For many families, the actual price of a college education remains unclear, buried beneath complex formulas and inconsistent messaging. As doubts about affordability grow, so too does the sense that the lofty promise of President Lyndon B. Johnson's 1965 Higher Education Act — to make college broadly accessible through meaningful financial aid — has fallen short. A 2025 survey by the Lumina Foundation, which is focused on accessibility in higher education, in partnership with Gallup, found that a mere 18 percent of Americans without a college degree believe four-year college tuition is 'fair.' Nearly a third of Americans think college 'isn't worth the cost,' and another 47 percent believe it is worth the cost only if a student does not need any loans, according to the Pew Research Center. This growing skepticism is reshaping where — and whether — students apply and enroll, and it underscores the urgent need for action. Thankfully, some progress is already underway. In recent decades, many universities have expanded need-based aid, determined by household income and family assets, to all admitted students. Still, these efforts are often overshadowed by the universities' high sticker prices. Most colleges offer cost calculators to help students and families estimate their aid package. But they are often confusing and ask for detailed financial information that many parents — let alone 17-year-olds — don't have on hand. And because colleges use different calculators, trying to compare schools quickly turns time-consuming. As part of our ongoing effort to clarify and improve public understanding of higher education, we created a graphic — a template any college can use — that more accurately reflects the true cost of attending the University of Pennsylvania. It illustrates that the widely cited $100,000 sticker price is not what most students will ultimately pay. At some of the nation's most selective and high-cost institutions — including the University of Pennsylvania — students from families earning $75,000 or less annually often pay nothing at all. Financial aid packages comprised entirely of grants cover not only tuition but also room, board, books, fees, essential supplies such as a computer and travel expenses. While eligibility thresholds and cost calculations vary by school, elite colleges including Harvard, M.I.T., Princeton, Dartmouth and the University of Chicago offer similar levels of support to low- and middle-income families. For middle-income families — those earning between $75,000 and $200,000 per year, typically with additional consideration for those with multiple children in college at the same time — not only is college tuition frequently fully paid for, but students often receive additional aid. As a result, these families can access some of the most selective colleges at a significant discount — at least 66 percent off full sticker price at Penn, a representative example. Large university endowments often draw criticism, but they play a crucial role in expanding access to higher education. Endowment returns are used to cover faculty salaries and other expenses. But a 2024 study by NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, that analyzes college endowment performance and spending, showed that nearly half of the money earned from endowment returns went to financial aid. At schools with total annual costs nearing $92,000, it takes roughly $2 million in endowed funds for the return to fully support just one student. It is true that between 2006 and 2024 average in-state tuition and fees have risen from $9,040 to $11,610, but when you factor in grant aid (excluding loans) fees have dropped from $3,940 to $2,480, according to a College Board study. Even though students still face costs for housing, food and books, they are paying less for their education today than they did two decades ago. The trend holds true at community colleges as well. In 35 states, tuition at two-year institutions is now free for many low-income students, and overall tuition costs at community colleges have declined. But just as progress is being made — not only in expanding financial aid but improving transparency around who qualifies for it — the Trump administration now threatens to reverse that momentum. Deep cuts to federal research funding could force universities to scale back budgets, eliminate undergraduate programs and reduce financial aid. In addition, efforts to restrict international enrollment risk slashing tuition revenue — losses that institutions may offset by raising costs for domestic students. And now, Republican lawmakers are pushing to expand the endowment tax and increase its rate — a move that may sound like accountability, but in reality would penalize students in need of support. At Penn, the existing $10 million endowment tax already diverts an amount that could fully cover tuition and expenses for roughly 110 low-income students. Current proposals would raise that tax tenfold, potentially shutting out more than 1,100 students. Is that really the direction we want to go in — making it harder for talented students to access the opportunities they've earned? A high-quality education isn't only for the wealthiest Americans. It can be for everyone — if we commit to providing robust financial aid, clearly communicating real costs and protecting institutional resources like endowments that are meant to open doors, not be taxed shut.
