Latest news with #OfficeforStudents
Economist
17-07-2025
- Business
- Economist
Britain's bankrupt universities are hunting for cheaper models
As the academic year in Britain limps to a close, universities look more broke than a student after a summer of Interrailing. The Office for Students, a regulator, reckons that four in ten universities are running deficits. Half have closed courses to save money, according to a poll of 60 institutions by Universities UK (UUK), an industry group. Durham has shed 200 staff; Newcastle a similar number. Unions allege that a cost-saving plan announced by Lancaster could see close to one in five of its academics lose their job.
New Statesman
16-07-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Thought experiment 14: The box that can change the past
Illustration by Marie Montocchio / Ikon Images In front of you are two boxes. In the first, Box A, there is £1,000. The box is transparent. You can see the money. The second box, Box B, is opaque and may or may not contain £1,000,000. You have a choice. You can either take Box B (and Box B only), or you can take both boxes. Whatever money is in the boxes is yours. But here's the catch: you have been told that there is a very good predictor, let's call her Meg, who is almost always right. And if Meg predicted that you'd take both boxes, she'll have left Box B empty. If she predicted you'd only take Box B, she'll have stuffed it with that million quid. So, what would you do? Take one box or two? I've long been a two-boxer. But the puzzle divides people. Back in 2016, Brexit referendum year, I debated it in the pages of the Guardian with a one-boxer, the Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Since then, he's been appointed free speech tsar for the Office for Students (the higher education regulator), and has declared that university education should be 'the intellectual equivalent of stepping into a boxing ring'. But from boxing rings back to boxes. The Guardian ran a poll and 31,854 readers voted. I moaned at the time that, as with Brexit, a slight majority (in this case, 53.5 per cent) had got it badly wrong – ie they were one-boxers and sided with Arif. I'd failed to convince readers with the following argument: by the time you're faced with the choice, Meg has already made her prediction. You cannot influence a decision made in the past by making a decision in the present. Meg has either put £1m into Box B or she has not. So you have nothing to lose by taking both boxes. Think of it this way. Imagine that Box B has transparent glass on the far side – the side you can't see. Suppose a friend on this far side, looking into Box B, was permitted to communicate with you. What would their advice be? Surely to take both boxes. If the £1m is there, and you choose both boxes, it won't disappear in a puff of smoke. It is irrational to take only Box B, because, in comparison, taking both boxes will always enrich you by an extra £1,000. On the other hand, if Meg foresees that you'll take both boxes, it appears you'll miss out on a financial bonanza. If the choice is between being rational and being rich, Arif wrote, 'I'll take the money every time.' Newcomb's paradox, just described, is named after William Newcomb, an American theoretical physicist who devised the problem in 1960. But it only gathered prominence when the Harvard professor Robert Nozick resurrected it in an article in 1969. Nozick had heard about it at a party – 'the most consequential party I have attended'. Over the years, he posed the problem to many people. 'To almost everyone it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost equally on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe We don't face Newcomb's paradoxes in real life. But it has a similar structure to a more familiar problem in theology. The 16th-century pastor John Calvin thought that God has predetermined who would and who would not ascend to heaven. There's nothing any of us can do about this. But Calvin also maintained that the best predictor of whether you're to be saved is that you live an honourable, virtuous life. So, how to conduct yourself? On the one hand, if you don't live your life in a righteous manner, it is almost certain you won't be saved. On the other hand, since either you're saved or you're not, there isn't much incentive to behave. In the year Nozick was writing about Newcomb's paradox, the Northern Ireland footballer George Best trialled behavioural restraint. 'In 1969 I gave up women and alcohol', he said. 'It was the worst 20 minutes of my life.' For two-boxer Calvinists, George Best's approach to life might make sense. In fact, through conversations with the Australian philosopher Huw Price, I've had a rethink. My key assumption was that cause has to precede effect. You can cause things to happen in the future, but not the past. However (and mind-bending though this idea is), it turns out that our best understanding of quantum mechanics requires, or is at least compatible with, backwards causation, with things in the past being altered by things in the present or future. If that's right, the paradox dissolves. 'Everyone agrees that if we can affect what the predictor did, we should one-box,' says Price. As for the charge that causation can only work forwards: 'To an old pragmatist like me, causes are just means to ends. If you want B, and doing A gets you B, then A counts as a cause of B. I want the predictor to put the £1m in the opaque box, and one-boxing gets me that. So it counts as a cause!' I could never have predicted it, but I've changed my mind about Newcomb's Box. Haven't changed my mind about Brexit, though. [See also: Thought experiment 13: The comet that destroys the Earth after our death] Related
The Herald Scotland
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Student satisfaction rising but still below pre-Covid level
Approximately 25,000 of the 350,000 total responses came from students at Scottish universities. In addition to questions about specific aspects of their university experience, students are asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their course on a sliding scale. Overall satisfaction in Scotland for 2025 was 80.7%, up from 78.1% in 2024. Satisfaction levels began to decline in 2020, when the overall rate in Scotland was 85%. Read more Francesca Osowska, Chief Executive of the Scottish Funding Council, said improvement should be commended. 'The experience of students at university during and immediately after the pandemic was inevitably affected despite the best efforts of Scottish universities to alleviate the situation. 'It's great to see the continuation of an upward trend in overall satisfaction in the sector. It shows the positive impact of focusing on student needs and the quality of learning and teaching.' The survey comprised 28 questions about general education, with additional questions tailored to students in healthcare placements and opportunities for open-ended responses. Survey responses are organised by students' mode of study (part-time, full-time, or apprenticeship), their subject area, and whether they were studying for their first degree, a combined postgraduate degree, or some other type of undergraduate degree. Results for individual universities are not made available in the public data released by the Office for Students (OfS), the organisation responsible for managing the survey. The survey ran from 8 January to 30 April, 2025. Since then, there have been multiple local disputes between union members and individual universities over potential job cuts and other savings measures. Following an evidence session in March about potential financial mismanagement at the University of Dundee, MSPs have held several high-profile meetings with university leaders to discuss issues related to salary and sector funding. Earlier this week, UCU Scotland said that six-figure principal salaries had become a "distraction" from attempts to secure more public funding for the university sector. A representative of Scottish university principals told The Herald that they are "prepared to explore" conversations about pay.
The Herald Scotland
01-07-2025
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
Universities did not protect gender-critical academics from harassment
The report – on barriers to research on sex and gender identity – has called for staff and students who take part in freedom-restricting harassment to face 'consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the offence'. Universities should critically review their policies and practices to remove 'partisan policies and messaging on questions of sex and gender', it added. The report follows a review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender, which was commissioned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under the former Conservative government in February 2024. It came after high-profile cases of academics who faced harassment relating to their gender-critical views garnered media attention in recent years. In March, the Office for Students (OfS) issued a fine of £585,000 to the University of Sussex for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The watchdog's investigation into the university was launched after protests called for the dismissal of academic Professor Kathleen Stock in 2021 over her views on gender identity. The OfS concluded the university's trans and non-binary equality policy statement had 'a chilling effect' of possible self-censorship of students and staff on campus. In January last year, an academic won an unfair dismissal claim against the Open University (OU) after she was discriminated against and harassed because of her gender-critical beliefs. An employment tribunal found Professor Jo Phoenix – who was compared with 'a racist uncle at the Christmas table' – was forced to quit her job because of a 'hostile environment' created by colleagues and 'insufficient protection' from the university. Prof Sullivan's latest report cites evidence from a number of academics – including Prof Stock and Prof Phoenix – who have challenged the theory that sex is always less important than gender identity. Protests called for the dismissal of Professor Kathleen Stock in 2021 over her views on gender identity (Oxford Union Society/PA) It said: 'Several respondents to this review have suffered extreme personal consequences, both to their careers and to their physical and mental health, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and extensive sick leave as a result of bullying, harassment and discrimination. 'The failure to adequately support and defend these individuals is a stain on the higher education sector.' The review concluded: 'Campaigns of harassment have had devastating consequences for individuals and created a wider chilling effect for academia and the research community. 'University policies have often adhered to the tenets of gender-identity theory, thus embedding discriminatory practices. 'In cases where individual academics or students have tried to resolve issues using internal mechanisms, these processes have often proven inadequate. 'Going to an employment tribunal is an exceptionally onerous and potentially career-ending step. 'Statements from higher education management representatives and bodies have typically downplayed and denied problems with academic freedom, dismissing or minimising concerns as 'media noise' or 'culture wars'.' Report author Prof Sullivan, from the UCL Social Research Institute, said: 'The evidence I have collected raises stark concerns about barriers to academic freedom in UK universities. 'Researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex. 'Excessive and cumbersome bureaucratic processes have exacerbated the problem by providing levers for activists to exert influence. 'Academic institutions need to examine their policies and processes carefully to avoid these unintended outcomes.' Among a series of recommendations, the report said senior leaders in higher education should acknowledge the reality of bullying and harassment by internal activists and 'take on board the lessons of the Phoenix judgment'. Prof Phoenix, who resigned from the OU in December 2021 after she was harassed for her gender-critical views, said: 'I just suggested that there was a different evidence base from which we could make assessments about the potential harms of placing males who identify as trans in female prisons and I set up a research network. That was all I ever did. 'But it was enough for the activist academics to stop my criminological research career in its track and to do so permanently.' A Government spokeswoman said: 'We are taking strong action to protect academic freedom and free speech, which are fundamental to our world-leading universities. 'This includes introducing new duties on universities to ensure they are robust in promoting and protecting free speech on campus. 'It also comes alongside the firm steps the Office for Students is already taking, through fines and new guidance, to ensure universities remain beacons of academic freedom.' A Universities UK (UUK) spokeswoman said: 'We agree that universities must protect and defend academic freedom and freedom of speech. 'They are bound to do so by law and, in England, there is a new regulatory approach under the Freedom of Speech Act which is about to come into force. 'These are complex issues. In practice universities are bound by law to protect the free speech of individuals who have very different views on contentious topics. 'They are required both to allow and facilitate protest, and to prevent that protest creating an intimidatory or chilling environment on campus or from preventing staff and students from pursuing their work and studies. 'We will carefully consider this report as part of our work in supporting universities as they navigate these difficult issues.'
The Guardian
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Teach university students to live in a polarised world
Two cheers for the Office for Students for supporting universities' role in defending legal dissent (English universities barred from enforcing blanket bans on student protests, 18 June). I would go further. All places of study should offer dialogue spaces so that shared deliberation becomes a core component of the educational experience. Students should be equipped with three skill sets for living in a polarised and disinformed culture. First: critical thinking – to evaluate ideas dispassionately, to deconstruct rhetoric and to expose how biases can deform thought. Second: dialogic engagement – to experience the value of listening to, and learning from, others who see the world differently. And third: constructive disagreement – to inquire into the life experiences and cultural factors that lead people to hold contrary positions. Participating in such deliberative environments would equip people to challenge ideologically motivated reasoning and elevate free speech into something more socially useful than the mere amplification of unquestioned received opinions. Simon Keyes Former professor of reconciliation and peacebuilding, University of Winchester Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
