DIALOG interesant in lumina reflectoarelor Studioului BZI LIVE cu unul dintre sefii Universitatii Cuza din Iasi care se ocupa de un domeniu esential pentru societatea contemporana
Joi, 4 aprilie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00, in lumina reflectoarelor Studioului BZI LIVE este programata o noua editie proaspata, interactiva si pe domenii universitare si sociale extrem de importante in societatea contemporana! Invitat este prof. univ. dr.Corneliu Iatu - prorector pentru strategie, dezvoltare institutionala si managementul calitatii in cadrul celei mai vechi universitati moderne a tarii - Alexandru Ioan Cuza (UAIC) din Iasi! Domnia sa, unul dintre cei mai importanti specialisti pe Geografie din Romania, fost decan al Facultatii de Geografie si Geologie de la Cuza, presedinte al Societatii de Geografie din Romania (SGR), universitarul este unul dintre cei mai apreciati profesionisti pe zonele: Amenajarea spatiului rural; Amenajarea teritoriului si urbanism; Amenajari si politici urbane; Forme de manifestare teritoriala a fenomenului turistic; Geografia si managementul destinatiei turistice; Geografia turismului; Geografia umana a Romaniei; Organizare si planificare teritoriala; Planificare strategica in dezvoltarea regionala si amenajarea teritoriului; Planificare teritoriala; Potentialul turistic antropic al Romaniei. Avand in vedere toate acestea, alaturi de implicarea sa pe zona colaborarilor pe line francofona, a activitatilor pe care le coordoneaza ca prorector al UAIC, fin cunoscator al realitatilor din sistemul de invatamant superior, profesorul Iatu va oferi diverse abordari pe aceste planuri.
Toti cei care au intrebari pentru prof. univ. dr. Corneliu Iatu le pot adresa la rubrica de comentarii sau in direct, pe Facebook.
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
Descopera-ti superputerea prin Universitatea de Vara pentru Elevi ,,EconomIS”!
Liga Studentilor Economisti Iasi, in parteneriat cu Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor, Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iasi, Primaria Municipiului Iasi si Consiliul National al Elevilor organizeaza in perioada 12 – 25 iulie 2019, proiectul Universitatea de Vara pentru Elevi „EconomIS”. Acest proiect urmareste reducerea procentului de abandon universitar, prin informarea tinerilor din clasele a X-a si a XI-a cu privire la oportunitatile educationale oferite de catre Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor Iasi.
Pe o perioada de 14 zile, elevii de clasa a X-a si a XI-a vor simula viata de student participand la cursuri si seminarii, activitati de socializare, dezbateri pe probleme de interes, workshop-uri de ghidare in cariera si training-uri. Pentru ca participantii sa isi formeze o imagine cat mai clara despre ceea ce inseamna viata de student la UAIC, acestia vor fi cazati in caminele din campusul ”Titu Maiorescu” si vor lua masa la cantina Universitatii Al. I. Cuza, iar la finalul programului academic vor fi evaluati printr-o sesiune de examinare.
Scopul acestui proiect este acela de a reduce abandonul universitar prin informarea cat mai corecta a elevilor de clasele a X-a si a XI-a despre programele de studii universitare din Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor si a ofertelor educationale de care dispune, precum si cadrul infrastructural pe care il pune la dispozitie studentilor in procesul de invatare, in raport cu spatiul academic iesean.
Elevii se vor putea inscrie prin completarea unui formular, disponibil pe site-ul proiectului, www.economis.lse.ro, incepand cu data de 1 Aprilie.
Universitatile de Vara pentru Elevi, initiativa a Aliantei Nationale a Organizatiilor Studentesti din Romania (ANOSR), organizate sub sloganul „Noi invatam in Romania”, reprezinta cel mai amplu program national de promovare a unei alegeri informate si corecte a studiilor universitare de catre elevii din Romania.
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
Elevii si studentii primesc si in acest an bani pentru achizitionarea unui computer
Ministrul Educatiei, Ecaterina Andronescu, a anuntat ca Guvernul a aprobat, miercuri, acordarea subventiei de 200 de euro pentru elevii si studentii care vor sa isi achizitioneze un computer.
Programul functioneaza fara intrerupere din 2004, iar pana acum au beneficiat de acesta peste 300.000 de tineri, a spus Andronescu.
"A trecut prin Guvern - a devenit hotarare de Guvern - un proiect prin care acordam tinerilor - elevilor si studentilor pana in 26 de ani - 200 de euro pentru achizitionarea unui computer.
Acest proiect are sansa, spun eu, si sansa o au cei care beneficiaza de el, dar si proiectul in sine - se deruleaza din 2004 fara intrerupere si cred ca este un lucru pozitiv, a fost tot timpul un lucru pozitiv, pentru ca peste 300.000 de elevi si studenti au fost beneficiari", a anuntat ministrul Ecaterina Andronescu, dupa sedinta de Guvern de miercuri.
Ea a adaugat ca, in acest an, de prevederile hotararii ar putea beneficia aproximativ 10.000 de tineri.
"Anul acesta, dupa informatiile pe care le avem in minister, circa 10.000 de elevi si studenti pot sa fie beneficiarii acestei hotarari de Guvern, cred ca este un lucru pozitiv pentru cei care asteptau obtinerea acestei subventii pentru cumpararea unui computer", a mai spus Andronescu.
Publicație : Evenimentul
Raport naţional: Studenţii nu-şi pot evalua profesorii, iar planurile de învăţământ nu sunt adaptate la piaţa muncii
Alianţa Naţională a Organizaţiilor Studenţeşti din România (ANOSR) lansează al şaselea Raport naţional privind respectarea prevederilor Codului drepturilor şi obligaţiilor studentului (Statutul Studentului) în instituţiile de învăţământ superior de stat din ţară, oferind astfel o imagine detaliată a situaţiei existente, în anul universitar 2017-2018.
Adoptat la propunerea ANOSR, după negocieri ce au durat peste 5 ani, Codul drepturilor şi obligaţiilor studentului este actul normativ care reglementează toate drepturile,
obligaţiile şi responsabilităţile studenţilor înmatriculaţi în un iversităţile din România, reprezintă prima iniţiativă legislativă exclusiv studenţească, iar aria sa de aplicabilitate este valabilă atât în universităţile de stat, cât şi în cele private, se arată în comunicatul de presă transmis de către ANOSR pentru „Adevărul”.
Raportul analizează, în primul capitol, conţinutul celor 42 de Coduri universitare ale drepturilor şi obligaţiilor studentului, adoptate de către instituţiile de învăţământ superior de stat din România până la 30 septembrie 2018 şi care, la momentul colectării datelor (16 ianuarie - 10 februarie 2019), erau publice pe site-urile proprii ale acestora. „S-au urmărit transpunerea, adaptarea, precum şi omisiunea drepturilor şi obligaţiilor prevăzute în documentul naţional, în vederea identificării discrepanţelor între legislaţia naţională şi practicile interne ale universităţilor”, se stipulează în comunicatul de presă.
Al doilea capitol prezintă perspectiva studenţilor asupra stadiului implementării prevederilor Statutului Studentului. Conţinutul capitolului este fundamentat pe răspunsurile reprezentanţilor organizaţiilor studenţeşti membre ANOSR, la un chestionar lansat în luna noiembrie 2018, având ca referinţă perioada anului universitar 2017-2018. Datele colectate au fost analizate şi interpretate prin metode analitice, logice şi comparative, transmite ANOSR.
Concluziile raportului
La şapte ani de la emiterea acestui act normativ încă există instituţii de învăţământ superior de stat care nu au adoptat un astfel de document propriu. Aproape un sfert (22,22%) dintre universităţile de stat din România nu le oferă, la acest moment, acces public online studenţilor la un Cod universitar al drepturilor şi obligaţiilor studentului, sau nu l-au adoptat. În numeroase cazuri, instituţiile de învăţământ superior au înţeles prin adoptarea unui Cod propriu trunchierea celui existent la nivel naţional, din documentele a peste 10% dintre universităţi fiind omise mai mult de jumătate dintre prevederile cuprinse în varianta de referinţă naţională.
Doar două drepturi şi patru obligaţii stipulate la nivel naţional sunt preluate integral şi la nivel local de către toate universităţile la care s-a putut efectua analiza comparativă a conţinutului documentelor. Chiar şi în aceste condiţii, deşi studenţii sunt consideraţi, cel puţin la nivel declarativ şi scriptic, parteneri ai instituţiilor de învăţământ, nu se poate vorbi de o îmbunătăţire semnificativă. „Comparativ cu raportările precedente, în care niciun drept nu se regăsea în codurile universitare proprii ale tuturor instituţiilor, ci doar o singură obligaţie, se poate observa că, în continuare, interesul universităţilor este îndreptat „la dublu” spre a promova îndatoririle studenţilor, nu şi drepturile acestora”, atrag atenţia reprezentanţii studenţilor.
Problema planurilor de învăţământ
Studenţii semnalează persistenţa unei serii de probleme şi nereguli care s-au accentuat de la raportarea precedentă: Participarea scăzută a studenţilor în procesul de revizuire al planurilor de învăţământ, neadaptarea şi neactualizarea acestora cu cerinţele curente ale pieţei muncii, fără o consultare cu studenţii şi absolvenţii, determină solicitarea, în continuare, a introducerii explicite în Legea educaţiei naţionale a prevederilor care reglementează componenţa structurilor de conducere din instituţiile de învăţământ superior a prezenţei studenţilor într-un procent de minimum 25% şi în Consiliile departamentelor. În acest mod, sugestiile şi recomandările studenţilor vor putea avea oportunitatea de a fi implementate cu scopul îmbunătăţirii şi inovării curriculumului, dar şi al creşterii atractivităţii
programelor de studii.
Studenţii nu participă la evaluarea profesorilor
În continuare, evaluarea cadrelor didactice de către studenţi nu este abordată pe cât de riguros ar fi recomandat. Studenţii nu sunt încurajaţi să participe la aceste evaluări sau nu pot evalua deloc, rapoartele cuprinzând rezultatele centralizate pentru fiecare profesor în parte nu sunt publicate în peste 60% dintre universităţile analizate, iar efectele reale ale acestor demersuri asupra procesului educaţional din universităţile româneşti sunt departe de a apărea prea curând, în lipsa creării şi dezvoltării unei culturi a evaluării.
Propaganda politică în universităţi
Propaganda politică este încă prezentă în universităţi, deşi este interzisă, spun reprezentanţii ANOSR. „Persoane care ocupă funcţii de conducere în universităţi deţin simultan şi diverse alte funcţii politice. Considerăm necesară revizuirea cadrului legislativ în direcţia incompatibilităţii dintre funcţiile de conducere din mediul academic şi funcţiile politice. Subfinanţarea sistemului de învăţământ superior determină universităţile să le solicite studenţilor, în continuare, taxe nejustificate sau ilegale pentru diverse documente garantate a fi eliberate gratuit de actele normative aflate în vigoare”, se precizează în comunicat.
Problema burselor
O altă situaţie nefavorabilă pentru studenţi în anul universitar 2017-2018 este necumularea burselor sociale cu alte tipuri de burse, se plâng studenţii. „Deşi începând cu luna martie 2017 a fost crescut fondul de burse cu o suplimentare de peste 142% faţă de anul anterior, iar cuantumul minim al burselor sociale la nivel naţional a devenit 578 lei/lună (acest fapt determinând universităţile să crească, la rândul lor, cuantumurile tuturor categoriilor de burse), concomitent cu aceste măsuri au intervenit şi problemele privind cumularea”, susţine ANOSR.
Consilierea şi orientare în carieră
„Vizibilitatea şi accesibilitatea Centrelor de Consiliere şi Orientare în Carieră rămân şi în acest an universitar unele dintre punctele slabe ale acestora. Deşi serviciile oferite sunt considerate accesibile, studenţii nu cunosc existenţa lor. În lipsa unei promovări corespunzătoare a acestor servicii, precum şi a resursei umane calificate pentru activitatea de consiliere, aceste centre nu îşi pot atinge corespunzător scopul pentru care au fost create”, se mai arată în comunicat.
Cazarea în căminele studenţeşti
Studenţilor cărora nu li se poate asigura cazare în căminele universităţilor nu li se acordă subvenţiile de care pot beneficia ca sprijin compensatoriu, acuză studenţii. „Acordarea de credite pentru activităţile de voluntariat este privită cu reticenţă de mai mult de jumătate dintre universităţi, acestea neavând implementată o procedură sau o metodologie în acest sens. Mai mult decât atât, chiar şi acolo unde există, aceasta este limitativă, activităţile desfăşurate în cadrul organizaţiilor studenţeşti nefiind luate în calcul, ci doar cele din cadrul programelor iniţiate de universităţi. Deşi au implementat proceduri specifice, universităţile supun studenţii unui lung şir de acţiuni birocratice în procesul de contestare a notelor, urmate în unele cazuri şi de repercursiuni asupra celor ce îşi exercită acest drept”, transmite ANOSR.
Sesizarea abuzurilor
Mecanismele şi procedurile de sesizare a abuzurilor sunt în continuare neaduse la cunoştinţa studenţilor, transmite preşedintele ANOSR. „Aceştia nu sunt educaţi în spiritul semnalării abuzurilor şi nici nu sunt încurajaţi în acest sens. Universităţile nu sunt pregătite să asigure infrastructură, metode alternative sau resurse educaţionale adaptate nevoilor studenţilor cu dizabilităţi şi se află mai mult în poziţia de a le îngreuna procesul de incluziune socială decât în cea de a îl facilita”, se precizează în comunicat.
„Deşi este al şaptelea an de când a fost reglementat la nivel naţional Codul Drepturilor şi Obligaţiilor Studentului, acesta este dovada că universităţile din România nu au înţeles principiile de funcţionare ale autonomiei universitare. Este dezamăgitor că aproximativ un sfert dintre universităţile de stat nu au publicat sau adoptat, încă, un Cod al Drepturilor şi Obligaţiilor Studentului propriu sau faptul că doar 11 universităţi au preluat integral prevederile reglementate la nivel naţional. (...) Se remarcă o participare scăzută a studenţilor în procesele de revizuire a planurilor de învăţământ, incluziunea studenţilor cu diverse dizabilităţi este deficitară, universităţile nefiind pregătite să le asigure acestora nici infrastructură, nici resursele necesare pentru un act educaţional de calitate sau încă li se percep taxe nejustificate, ba chiar ilegale studenţilor pentru diverse documente garantate a fi eliberate gratuit” a precizat preşedintele ANOSR, Petrişor-Laurenţiu ŢUCĂ
Publicație : Adevărul
Un nou caz de plagiat în Ministerul de Interne. Un şef de la Anticorupţie ar fi copiat în teza de doctorat
Un nou caz de plagiat a apărut în Ministerul Afacerilor Interne (MAI). Un şef din Direcţia Generală Anticorupţie - chiar cel care coordonează investigarea tuturor angajaţilor MAI atunci când există suspiciuni de corupţie - este acuzat că ar fi copiat pagini întregi în lucrarea de doctor, susţinută în anul 2010 în cadrul Academiei de Poliţie.
Teza de doctorat a comisarului-şef Bogdan Ciobanu este compusă din şase capitole şi are ca temă „Prevenirea şi combaterea fraudei fiscale”, arată digi24.ro.
Unele pasaje par a fi identice cu lucrări scrise cu un an înainte ca ofiţerul să îşi susţină titlul de doctor. Iar altele par a fi copy-paste după texte publicate pe platforme academice sau de pe site-uri specializate în ştiri juridice.
Bogdan Ciobanu, şeful Direcţiei de Investigaţii din DGA, nu a vrut să comenteze acuzaţiile.
Acesta nu este însă singurul angajat al MAI acuzat că ar fi plagiat în lucrarea de doctorat. Lucrările şefului Direcţiei Generale Anticoruptie, Cătălin Ioniţă, şi cea a rectorului Academiei de Poliţie sunt verificate de CNATDCU, după ce asupra lor au existat suspicuni că ar fi plagiat în proporţie de peste 70% teza de doctorat.
Publicație : Adevărul
Universities are overestimating on student recruitment, watchdog warns as bankruptcy fears loom
Universities are overestimating student recruitment and the amount of money that can be made, the watchdog has said, amid mounting concern about bankruptcies.
Higher education institutions need to stop making such “ambitious assumptions” about growth in student numbers over the next four years, according to the Office for Students (OfS).
The regulator has written to all universities to alert them to the fact that their forecasts on student numbers are out of step with reality.
Overall, universities are expecting a 10 per cent growth in student numbers over the next four years, which is equivalent to an increase of 171,000 full-time students.
This includes a predicted increase of around 78,000 full-time undergraduates from the UK and European Union, whose tuition fees are fixed at a maximum of £9,250 each year.
However, a demographic dip in the British population of 18-year-olds means that there will be five per cent – or 41,000 fewer – students over the period.
Sir Michael Barber, chair of the OfS, said: “Our analysis suggests that the sector has made over-optimistic student recruitment forecasts – both nationally and internationally.
“With the number of 18-year-olds in the population falling significantly between now and 2022, not every university will be able to recruit the number of students they had hoped to.
“Universities should be wary of relying on over-ambitious recruitment targets, and look at student numbers realistically rather than over-optimistically.”
The watchdog’s warning comes at a time of rising concern about the universities going bankrupt. A number of universities are believed to be on the verge of bankruptcy, with several relying on short-term bridging loans in order to prevent going into administration.
Universities which are already under financial pressure could be plunged into extreme difficulty if they fail to recruit sufficient numbers of students in the coming years, since tuition fees are a major source of income.
The OfS has previously said that failing universities will not be bailed out by the taxpayer and must reform if they are to survive. Earlier this month it emerged that the government is appointing someone to brief ministers on "how insolvency arrangements work".
The expert will provide education ministers with an "understanding of the financial health" of each university, while "developing and maintaining" an understanding of the risks facing the entire sector, according to the job advertisement.
Amid fears that students at bankrupt universities could be left empty-handed, the OfS has assembled a register of higher education institutions which, by law, requires them to put in place robust student protection plans.
In order to secure access to student loans, the universities must establish sustainable finance models, approved by the regulator, as well as contingency plans to transfer students to complete their studies. If this is not possible, the regulator will ensure that students are compensated.
A Department for Education spokesperson said: "To ensure students are protected – through the OfS – we have required universities to set up protection plans that will set out what students can expect to happen in the event of course, campus or department closure, or if an institution exits the market.
“We have given the office for students a range of powers to tackle any university that is not being run in a financially-responsible way.”
Publicație : The Telegraph
Universities are failing to protect themselves from cyber-attacks, report warns
Students are at risk of being conned by loan scammers, a report has warned as it says that universities are failing to protect themselves from cyber-attacks.
Phishing attacks targeting university students are becoming “more sophisticated”, according to the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) and Jisc, a network provider for higher education and research institutions.
Their report urges universities to step up their protection against possible scams aimed at conning students out of money, stealing intellectual property or bringing networks to a standstill.
“Organisations that do not adequately protect themselves risk the loss or exposure of personal student and staff data and also commercial, institutional and research data that are valuable to cyber criminals operating domestically and internationally,” the report said.
“We are not confident that all UK higher education providers are equipped with the adequate cybersecurity related knowledge, skills and investment.”
Criminal gangs play a large part in cyberattacks, the report said, particularly phishing attacks where malicious emails are used to trick the recipient into clicking through to a fake website and entering a username and password.
“During 2018, we noticed phishing attacks becoming more sophisticated and better targeted towards the education sector,” the report said.
“For example, around the beginning of term, particularly at the start of the academic year, there has been an increase in student grant fraud. This is where students are sent phishing emails purporting to offer free grants or requesting bank details are updated so that loans can be paid.”
State-sponsored attacks from also pose a threat due to the “incredibly valuable and commercially-sensitive research data” held by universities.
Last year Iranian hackers with links to the Tehran government carried out a series of attacks on universities in an attempt to steal secrets.
The National Cyber Security Centre assessed with "high confidence" that the Mabna Institute was "almost certainly responsible" for the campaign targeting universities in the UK, US and other Western nations.
In September, millions of documents, including sensitive research on nuclear power plants and cybersecurity defence were stolen from top British universities by Iranian hackers.
Elite British academic institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge, were infiltrated and several Farsi language websites offer the hacked papers for sale.
Meanwhile, “Stolen Pencil”, a North Korean group, targeted individual academics with emails designed to trick them into downloading a malicious extension to the Chrome web browser, the report said.
Students have previously been sent scam emails purporting to be from Student Finance England.
The messages falsely claim that students will “lose or delay” their September payment if they fail to offer up personal information.
The emails also contain links which when clicked could potentially lead to malicious software being installed on the recipient's device.
The Student Loans Company has previously told students not to disclose any details or respond to such emails, and to avoid clicking on any links they might contain.
Publicație : The Telegraph
Universities over-estimating future student numbers, regulator says
Office for Students urges universities to be more realistic about future income
The higher education regulator has accused universities of being “over-optimistic” about the number of students they are likely to recruit over the next four years, and has urged them to be more realistic at a time of uncertainty in the sector.
The Office for Students (OfS) report on the financial sustainability of the higher education sector in England concludes that universities – as a sector – are in “reasonable” financial health. It warns however that the general picture masks significant variations between individual providers and forecasts a deterioration in universities’ financial performance over the next year.
The OfS chair, Michael Barber, urged any universities that were in trouble to report their difficulties to the regulator and seek help at an early stage. He also reiterated an earlier warning that the OfS would not bail out any university facing financial failure.
Forecasts for student recruitment are significant because of projected income from tuition fees. According to the OfS report, the sector is predicting a 10% growth in student numbers over the next four years, equivalent to an increase of 171,000 full-time students.
Of those, 56,000 are overseas students (an increase of 20.7%) and 78,000 are undergraduates from the UK and the EU, despite a projected 5% decline in the UK population of 18-year-olds over the same period.
“From 2021 onwards this population will begin a sustained period of increase, which could present opportunities for providers to increase recruitment,” the report says. “In the meantime, it is our view that the current aggregate growth forecasts and related fee income are likely to be unachievable over the forecast period.”
Barber said: “Universities should be wary of relying on over-ambitious recruitment targets, and look at student numbers realistically rather than over-optimistically. This is particularly important at a challenging time for the sector overall.”
Uncertainties ahead include Brexit, potential policy changes following the Augar review of higher education funding, and rising pension costs within the sector. “Universities need to have a good grip on costs and base their actions on realistic forecasts,” he said.
The sector reported an income of £33bn in 2017-18, a 7.4% increase on the previous year. Surpluses fell from £1.12bn in 2016-17, to £1.02bn in 2017-18, and borrowing was up from £9.9bn in 2016-17 to £12bn the following year and projected to rise to £13.3bn by the end of 2021-22.
The number of providers reporting a deficit went up from 40 in 2016-17 to 47 the following year, and is expected to go up to 54 in 2018-19 but fall after that. By the end of 2017-18 the sector had net liquidity of £12bn (equivalent to 138 days’ expenditure), £1.3bn up on the previous year, but is forecast to fall to £8.1bn by the end of 2020-21 (equivalent to 90 days of expenditure).
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “To ensure students are protected – through the OfS – we have required universities to set up protection plans that will set out what students can expect in the event of course, campus or department closure, or if an institution exits the market.”
Publicație : The Guardian
Do for-profit institutions have students’ best interests at heart?
Despite its tarnished reputation and history of collapsed ventures, the for-profit sector retains a strong foothold on the US academy. Paul Basken tracks its successes and failures
In the troubled for-profit sector of US higher education, Mitchell Fuerst is a clear leader: he has already helped eight failed for-profit companies to close down by hosting classes for their remaining students.
It’s a stark tally, but not one that deters him. As president of the Southern California-based Success Education Colleges chain of institutions specialising in allied health, he remains convinced that for-profit higher education, done properly, meets a clear public demand – and will do so long into the future.
“Our sector has been small, family-run schools for generations,” says Fuerst, whose mother opened the first of SEC’s nine campuses in 1966 near Los Angeles. And with the ongoing collapse of large-scale, investor-driven behemoths, he predicts, locally focused for-profit schools will again prove their value. Although he once feared this “800-pound gorilla” model, it “never really made that much sense because, at the end of the day, stockholders and students have divergent interests”.
Fuerst’s sentiment is echoed by many observers, both inside and outside the for-profit sector. Even the head of the for-profit industry’s main lobby group, known as Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), regularly mixes praise for the nimbleness and responsiveness of the for-profit format with a clear recognition of its damaging history of excess.
“We live with that bad PR every frickin’ day,” Steve C. Gunderson, the CECU president, told the annual conference of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation in January.
That stain appears far from cleansed. Just last month, closure warnings came to the Argosy University and Art Institutes chains, once part of the 150,000-student Education Management Corporation, the second-biggest owner of for-profit colleges.
Education Management folded after accepting a $100 million legal settlement in 2015 to resolve widespread complaints of misleading students. The Trump administration then allowed Argosy and the Art Institutes to be bought by the Dream Center Foundation, a religious non-profit with no higher education experience.
The Dream Center itself then collapsed, leaving tens of thousands more students suddenly in limbo. Some were seen wandering their campuses crying about years of lost time and money and fretting for their futures.
That all followed the recent closures of the huge ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges chains, also accused of recruiting students with government-subsidised loans but little chance of academic success.
Donald Trump himself has been implicated, too. Shortly after being elected president, he paid $25 million to settle a long-running fraud lawsuit over his now-defunct for-profit “Trump University”, which ran real-estate training programmes. A group of 3,700 former students claimed that they were the victims of highpressure sales techniques and false claims that they would be taught by expert real estate tutors “hand-picked” by Trump.
Even for those on the inside, the pattern is hard to ignore. “In the strongest terms,” Thomas Corbett, former campus president in the ITT Tech system, wrote in Inside
Higher Ed in February, “I want to make plain to federal policymakers that some education companies do not have students’ best interest at heart and do not seek to honorably educate them.”
The carnage across the sector in the past few years has been huge. Overall, for-profit higher education in the US has lost nearly half of the 3.7 million students it had in 2010.
The schools are far from the only, or even the main, victims. Americans collectively owe some $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, with for-profit college students most likely to be holding a share and most likely to be defaulting.
It gets even worse when outside investors are involved. A study last year for the National Bureau of Economic Research covering nearly 1,000 colleges with private equity ownership found that such investor buyouts lead to higher enrolment and profits. However, the study, “When Investor Incentives and Consumer Interests Diverge: Private Equity in Higher Education”, also found that they lead to higher tuition and per-student debt, alongside lower graduation rates and graduate earnings.
Another study last year, “Private Equity’s Failing Grade in the For-Profit College Industry”, by the consumer watchdog coalition Americans for Financial Reform, found that for-profit colleges with private equity owners get about 80 per cent of their revenues from federal aid. Public colleges, by comparison, receive about 21 per cent of their funding from state governments and 16 per cent federal sources, according to figures from the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Yet the sector lives on. The nation’s biggest and best-known for-profit operator, the University of Phoenix, is getting by with about a quarter of its 2010 peak of 600,000 students. Last year, it relinquished its most famous asset, the naming rights to the Arizona American football stadium, barely halfway through a 20-year $154 million sponsorship deal.
The CECU’s Gunderson, a former Republican congressman from Wisconsin, largely blames Democrats and their “excessive regulation” for the rough shape of the for-profit sector. And it is true that some in the party have taken a hard line. Representative Donna Shalala of Florida, a former university president and Cabinet secretary, has proposed making for-profit colleges ineligible for the federal Pell Grants that serve the economically disadvantaged. “I don’t see any place for taxpayer money to subsidise a business,” she told a conference last month.
The Obama administration played a major role in cracking down on for-profit schools. In 2015, it enacted a “gainful employment” rule for vocational education programmes that set minimum ratios for student debt to workplace income. That definition covered most for-profit colleges, and the penalty for poor performance – loss of student eligibility for federally subsidised loans – was largely unavoidable.
The administration justified its action with reference to a litany of industry failures, including data showing that the for-profit sector accounts for only about 10 per cent of all US college students but for more than a third of all federal student loan defaults.
But the Trump administration has taken a very different tack, installing several former for-profit leaders in key Education Department posts. These include the education secretary herself, Betsy DeVos, who came to the job with personal investments in for-profit colleges and a major student-loan collection agency. While in office, she has worked to block legal investigations into for-profit colleges and to weaken the Obama-era regulations. In one of her most controversial moves, DeVos restored the federal accrediting authority of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, despite the non-profit body’s track record of granting approval to the ITT Tech and Corinthian chains.
Gunderson and his allies have promised to respond to the Trump administration’s trust in his sector – even as the for-profit closures continue – with greater attention to self-regulation. The problem, however, is that meaningful student outcomes data are difficult to compile. And government-approved accrediting agencies – whose institutional assessments serve as the primary gatekeeper for federal student aid eligibility across all college sectors – are largely confined to measuring indirect indicators of institutional health such as campus budgets.
“Nobody’s got a great answer for that,” says Michael B. Goldstein, a higher-education attorney with Cooley LLP.
Given that reality, much of the private-sector investment activity surrounding US higher education is, in a sense, going underground. It is manifesting itself in strong growth in private companies that provide education-related services to traditional colleges: “almost all” private equity in higher education now involves companies supporting traditional colleges, Goldstein says. Examples cover the full range of activities taking place on campuses, from enrolment and personnel management to alumni tracking, as well as public relations, marketing and dining services.
More recently, colleges have been letting private companies into their academic cores – eager for the gains in student audiences promised by new communications technologies but wary of trying to do it by themselves. Examples include 2U, which helps colleges convert their existing courses into online formats, and Trilogy Education, which creates courses that colleges adopt as their own offerings.
In addition, a growing list of for-profit colleges are converting themselves – at least nominally – into non-profit institutions. The tactic typically involves creating separate for-profit divisions to handle the key institutional functions for a fee, while letting the overall college present itself as charitable. Leading examples include the conversions of Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Florida’s Keiser University and the colleges sold by Education Management to the Dream Center. The online Ashford University is also involved in an ongoing conversion attempt.
An especially noteworthy example is Kaplan University. Until recently, this was yet another struggling for-profit provider, mostly offering courses online while facing repeated accusations of leaving students with large debts and poor job prospects. But, in April 2017, it was announced that the company was to be acquired by Purdue University and converted into a non-profit venture.
The Indiana research university’s president, Mitch Daniels, is a former Republican state governor. Under his leadership, the state created WGU Indiana, an affiliate of the private non-profit online Western Governors University in Salt Lake City. At Purdue, he saw Kaplan as another opportunity to expand his state’s higher education offerings. Despite some dissent on campus and beyond, he bought the chain for $1 and rebranded it as Purdue University Global.
Kaplan’s 15 locations and 32,000 students – mostly military veterans and other adults – have given Purdue both the promise of revenue and a continuation of the controversy. Since the completion of the merger last year, critics have discovered language inherited from Kaplan – and unusual in traditional higher education – that assigns ownership of faculty-developed course materials to Purdue University Global; it also bans faculty from criticising Purdue after they leave the institution and forbids students from suing over any grievances.
One leading critic, Robert Shireman, a deputy undersecretary of education in the Obama administration, wrote that the Purdue-Kaplan merger looks “more like a for-profit private college beholden to investors than like the non-profit public institution it purports to be”.
The university subsequently announced that it will no longer enforce the Kaplan language. However, an uncomfortable truth for traditional higher education is that the lines are already being blurred. Squeezed by government budget cuts, the leaders of non-profit colleges are increasingly forced to watch their balance sheets and consider cost-cutting moves that reduce the quality of the student experience. Working closer with profit-making businesses appears to be part of that evolution.
As Goldstein puts it, there may be little point in arguing whether Purdue created its own online operation or simply bought Kaplan and decided that Kaplan’s offerings meet Purdue’s quality standards.
“Did their faculty build this from scratch?” he asks. “The answer is: ‘Who cares?’ ”
Many traditional colleges are, in fact, happy to ally with or mimic the practices of for-profit actors if it helps them address fundamental, existential issues such as recruiting enough students, meeting their needs and holding down prices.
Last month, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst became the latest traditional university to announce plans to dive deeply into the world of online education – long the domain of the for-profit sector – in an attempt to weather the coming demographic decline caused by the great recession of 2008. The institution joins pioneers such as Arizona State University, Pennsylvania State University, Southern New Hampshire University, as well as Purdue. Many key questions about types of classes and instructors available from the “college for adult learners” remain unclear, though the UMass system president, Martin T. Meehan, says he felt he had to act sooner rather than later to address “an existential threat to entire sectors of higher education”.
Those concerns reach all the way to the top of the higher education food chain. In 2012, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched the online course platform edX, which is still trying to find a clear audience. More quietly, Harvard is among several top universities that have begun working with Trilogy to create vocational-level course offerings, such as computer coding skills classes. Harvard already has one of the world’s top computer science departments. By using Trilogy to add a basic computer skills course “we serve the broad needs of learners across their careers”, said Huntington Lambert, dean of Harvard’s Division of Continuing Education, during December’s announcement of the plan.
The value of a concrete skill in a fast-changing job marketplace suggests that the for-profit sector will maintain a presence in the higher education universe despite all its failings. In fact, some for-profit advocates suggest that it is traditional higher education, with its emphasis on personal growth and lifelong skills, that will eventually need to prove its worthiness for taxpayer support.
According to Success Education Colleges’ Fuerst, government financing of the liberal arts is “ridiculous – institutions are not there to train people to be people. They’re there to give people higher education to get them a better job.” Shrinking enrolments in those subjects, Fuerst continues, attests to the fact that many students agree with him.
His view broadly reflects the attitude of the Trump administration, which has threatened to take the gainful employment concept that the Obama administration imposed on for-profit colleges and apply it to all higher education institutions.
Such an idea seems unlikely to be implemented at the moment. And the for-profit sector still faces a long road to reputational rehabilitation. Fuerst clearly remembers the initial sense of awe that Corinthian created with its billion-dollar presence in his community. He also remembers the contrast of walking into Corinthian’s boardroom during its waning days, and being asked for help.
He witnessed the Brightwood College chain follow a similar trajectory after opening a 60,000-square-foot facility in San Diego so screaming with overambition that it needed about a thousand students just to cover its $125,000-a-month rent payment. Its inevitable demise, Fuerst says, was another clear sign of the “disconnect between the needs of the community and what Wall Street demanded”.
Some experts who have long studied for-profit actors warn that they are merely changing shape, embedding themselves into traditional institutions in ways that will make future abuses of students tougher to see and prevent.
One such expert is Barmak Nassirian, director of federal relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Yet even he sees possible upsides. “The for-profit model tends to work best in very concrete and very intensive programme offerings,” he says. Trilogy’s computer coding camp at Harvard is a “perfect example”.
And the nation’s top lobbyist for traditional higher education, Terry W. Hartle of the American Council on Education, is confident that his member institutions can reap the advantages of for-profit alliances without causing harm to their missions. Once for-profits become part of a larger institution, says Hartle, the council’s senior vice-president for government and public affairs, “they will have to incorporate themselves into the culture of that school”.
One possible compromise between the for- and non-profit worlds is exemplified by the 47-year-old Pima Medical Institute, a for-profit trainer of healthcare professionals operating in eight western states. Its key ingredient is an employee stock ownership model. That, according to Fred Freedman, Pima’s president, gives the entire staff a more direct interest in maximising student outcomes, better aligning their interests with those of students and employers. With shared ownership, Freedman says, many employees stay a decade or more – far longer than at a typical for-profit college – and thereby learn the importance of consistently turning out successful students. “They feel a sense of something bigger than just a pay cheque,” he says. “Pride, not greed, is the driving emotion.”
Whatever the method, Freedman hopes his sector can somehow overcome its reputational handicap.
“Greed is greed, there are bad players in the for-profit sector, there’s no question about it,” he says. “Where we get a bad rap is that some people just got a little bit overzealous in recruitment, without spending enough time on student outcomes.”
Publicație : The Times
Learned societies’ insulation from modern university culture has its dark side
A lack of accountability can permit a toxic culture to linger unchecked, says one former employee, who was the victim of antisemitism
Learned societies are often considered a force for good in the British academy. Non-profit, “venerable” and run by those focused on promoting the health of their disciplines, they are seen by traditionalists as the last bastions of academic freedom in an era of increasing commercialisation and managerialism.
But their amateurishness and lack of accountability also lead to abuses of power. I was recently forced to resign from a learned society after being subjected to antediluvian processes seemingly designed purposefully to protect the prejudiced and the powerful.
My position became untenable after I raised a complaint against my employer covering hate speech and directorial dereliction of duties. I could, perhaps, have claimed constructive dismissal, but was so exhausted by the end of the process that I couldn’t face the prospect of more legal wrangling.
The society is a small but wealthy charity that dispenses grants and student bursaries, as well as running lecture courses and school programmes around the UK. It is a “traditional” establishment, housed in an ancient building, holding annual dinners in private gentlemen’s clubs and lectures in cobwebbed halls.
Being a Jewish man, racialised as white, I was (in the words of one co-worker) the most “ethnic” person on the payroll. This was one of the milder forms of political incorrectness that I heard while working there. There was routine use of sexist, homophobic, racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic slurs, which sometimes shifted into language that was threatening or abusive: the definition of hate speech.
The society employed no women while I was working there and was comfortable in its misogynistic outlook. All-male panels were a frequent occurrence. A former officer has written openly and unapologetically about his sexual harassment of his female students.
I had no contract, job description or holiday pay. There was no HR department, employees’ handbook, or equality and diversity training. I worked part-time while pursuing my PhD (and latterly, postdoctoral research) and was inevitably worried about the insecurity of my position.
I was also worried by the society's old-fashioned governance model. Having previously disenfranchised its membership, its power nominally rested in the hands of its council, consisting of a few dozen professionals. In reality, power was wielded by its chairman and long-serving, unelected director. They ran the society to further their own political agendas, belying its claimed commitment to ideological neutrality.
I reached out to my line manager about these issues, but there was no uptake. I approached council members to ask their advice. One suggested I complete my PhD and move on. This pattern of reaching out and being gently rebuffed continued until frustration drove me to email the executive committee to lodge a formal complaint.
Scholar-activist Sara Ahmed has written with wonderful clarity about the institutional obstacles created to dissolve complaint. The society succeeded in realising almost all of them.
Its immediate response was the shutdown of dialogue. The chairman instructed the committee not to respond. The vice-chair suggested that I meet with him for “a coffee and a chat”, with the aim, it seemed, of undermining the seriousness of my complaint. I declined, suggesting that any meeting should be recorded. I had no union representation (having left my higher education union when I finished teaching) but was accompanied to subsequent meetings by professorial colleagues.
It wasn’t long before I was told that information had emerged about “inappropriate conduct” on my part at a meeting earlier that year, where I had supposedly brought the society into disrepute by questioning editorial decisions. The vice-chair suggested that disciplinary action might be pursued against me. I was disheartened by the boldness of this retaliation.
It continued. My complaint included testimony from a related party, alleging sexual discrimination and assault, but it was dismissed as irrelevant since the society construed my complaint as “personal” rather than “corporate”. I could only raise concerns about the society in so far as they related to me. The other charges of hate speech were similarly suppressed.
My complaint about antisemitism was upheld, but the grievance report that emerged was profoundly dismissive of my concerns. I appealed. I suggested that the society find an impartial investigator to consider my claims. After some deliberation, it reluctantly agreed that this was necessary – then appointed a member of its own executive committee to head the inquiry. Unsurprisingly, the society was found to be entirely above reproach.
The investigation into my complaint ended. The investigation into my so-called inappropriate conduct continued without resolution.
Over the 10 months of the grievance process, I lost weight and became sleep-deprived. Sometimes I would wake in the night with shards of enamel in my mouth, ground off my teeth by the stress. It would, however, have been much worse without the support of my partner, friends and family. I’m lucky that my parents offered financial support with the legal fees; I doubt I would have raised the complaint without this safety net.
Some good did come out of it. Bolstered by support from a sympathetic committee member, my complaint eventually resulted in the creation of an HR department. My successor will have a contract, a job description and holiday pay. And they will not have to suffer the politically regressive dinners in the men-only gentlemen’s clubs.
These gains, however, were hard won. Ahmed is right: there is insufficient structural support for effective institutional critique. I was naive – and arrogant – in thinking that there would be uptake. I learned that for all their verbal support, the “milder” elements in societies such as these will typically defer to – and therefore support – the prevailing orthodoxy, to avoid conflict and confrontation.
I have since moved into another line of work, determinedly outside the academy.
Publicație : The Times
English universities warned over ‘unachievable’ student number plans
Report from Office for Students says ‘unrealistic’ targets on recruitment could expose an institution to ‘significant risk’
English universities have been warned about making “overambitious” student recruitment forecasts after the sector watchdog said institutions’ assumptions about future growth in enrolments were “likely to be unachievable”.
According to the projections, published as part of an Office for Students report on the financial health of the sector, universities are predicting a 10 per cent growth in recruitment over the next four years, including 78,000 more students from the UK and the European Union.
The OfS says it has “particular concerns” about the “reliability” of the forecasts given that a demographic decline in the number of UK 18-year-olds will only just have turned a corner by 2021. It is estimated that there will still be 41,000 fewer UK school-leavers in 2021 compared with 2017.
It “suggests a significant level of overambition across the sector”, even if separate assumptions about the growth in overseas recruitment – which is forecast to rise by 56,000 students by 2021-22, bringing in an extra £1.7 billion in fee income – come to pass.
“In our view, this aggregate growth ambition is likely to be unachievable over the forecast period, particularly at a time when the number of 18-year-olds in England will continue to decline until 2020,” the report says.
“This matters because tuition fees, which are dependent on student numbers, are an increasingly important source of income for individual providers.
“A provider whose financial viability and sustainability is underpinned by reliance on fee income based on student recruitment targets which prove to be unrealistic is exposing itself to significant risk.”
The universities forecasting the biggest increases in student recruitment are the 44 least-selective institutions, which together are projecting a 12.2 per cent increase in student numbers from this year to 2021-22, including a 35.7 per cent uplift in overseas students and 9.7 per cent bump for UK/EU enrolment.
This comes despite past analyses showing that lower-tariff universities have been among those hardest hit by falls in domestic recruitment since caps on undergraduate numbers were lifted.
Overall, the OfS report – Financial Sustainability of Higher Education Providers in England – says universities are in “reasonable financial health”, although it stresses that this masks huge variations among individual institutions.
It says the financial forecasts submitted by universities to the OfS suggest a “general weakening” of performance this year, with 54 providers predicting a deficit in 2018-19 compared with 47 recording a deficit last year.
Some of the biggest downward shifts in surplus/deficit this year are forecast to be at the 29 most selective universities, with surpluses on average falling to 0.9 per cent of income for such institutions, from 3.1 per cent last year.
The report suggests that this is in part the result of “a small number of providers including in their forecasts provisions for increased pension costs relating to the Universities Superannuation Scheme”.
Sir Michael Barber, chair of the OfS, said universities “should be wary of relying on overambitious recruitment targets, and look at student numbers realistically rather than over-optimistically”.
“This is particularly important at a challenging time for the sector overall. Uncertainties ahead include the UK’s future relationship with the EU, possible policy changes resulting from the Augar review, and increased pension costs. Universities need to have a good grip on costs and base their actions on realistic forecasts,” Sir Michael said.
“It remains our position that we will not bail out universities or other higher education providers facing financial failure. However, we are ready to work creatively with any provider facing challenges – especially if they come to us with any difficulties early. Were problems to develop, we would seek to intervene to protect the interests of students.”
Publicație : The Times
Hackers breach UK university defences ‘within two hours’
Report discloses attack by North Korean and Iranian-sponsored criminals on UK higher education institutions
“Ethical” hackers were able to access high-value data within two hours at every single UK university that they tested for security, according to a report.
The study, published jointly by sector technology body Jisc and the Higher Education Policy Institute, warns that universities’ computer systems are increasingly being attacked by state-sponsored hackers and criminals, and that institutions are struggling to keep up with threats.
It discloses details of two large-scale state-sponsored attacks that occurred in 2018 and targeted universities’ valuable and commercially sensitive research data: one in which Iranian hackers affiliated to a criminal organisation called the Mabna Institute targeted institutions in a campaign dubbed “Silent Librarian”, and another in which “Stolen Pencil”, a North Korean group, targeted individual academics with emails designed to trick them into downloading a malicious extension to the Chrome web browser.
The report, published on 4 April, says that 173 higher education providers engaged with Jisc’s computer security incident response team during 2018, a 12 per cent increase on the previous year.
It raises particular concern about the rise of more sophisticated and better targeted “spear phishing” attacks, in which individuals are contacted with seemingly genuine requests for information using the names of senior members of staff. Even Jisc’s own chief executive and finance department have been targeted, the report says.
Spear phishing was used as part of Jisc’s penetration testing service, targeting nearly 50 universities over 18 months. “Alarmingly”, the study says, the ethical hackers had a 100 per cent record of gaining access to a university’s high-value data within two hours.
They unlocked a wide range of data, including personal information about staff and students, financial records and research data, said John Chapman, head of Jisc’s security operations centre and the author of the report. It would be “disastrous if any of this information fell into the wrong hands”, he told Times Higher Education.
The study adds that more than 1,000 distributed denial of service attacks – which shut off access to data or networks – were launched against 241 different education and research institutions in 2018.
“Analysing the timings of these attacks has led Jisc to surmise that many of them are ‘insider’ attacks launched by disgruntled students or staff,” the report says.
The report says it is clear that UK higher education providers are not properly “equipped with adequate cybersecurity related knowledge, skills and investment”. A lack of dedicated staff and budgets was one reason why cybersecurity was insufficiently robust, and university leaders must “take the lead in managing cyber risk to protect students, staff and valuable research data from the growing threat of attack”, it says.
The report also suggests that the government look at the possibility of minimum cybersecurity and network requirements for the sector.
“Cyberattacks are becoming more sophisticated and prevalent, and universities can’t afford to stand still in the face of this constantly evolving threat,” Dr Chapman said. “While the majority of higher education providers take this problem seriously, we are not confident that all UK universities are equipped with adequate cybersecurity knowledge, skills and investment.
“To avert a potentially disastrous data breach, or network outage, it is critical that all university leaders know what action to take to build robust defences.”
Publicație : The Times
Most European universities failing to monitor open access costs
Survey finds that European institutions have open access policies in place – but far fewer have specific targets systems to check their progress
Less than a third of European universities are monitoring how much they spend on open access publishing, a new survey has found.
The costs of article processing charges fees paid to publish in open access journals have come under scrutiny as universities switch away from subscribing to closed publications.
But just 31 per cent of universities surveyed by the European University Association said that they were keeping track of costs. Sixty-one per cent said that they were not, while the rest did not know.
Lidia Borrell-Damián, the association’s director of research and innovation, and co-author of a report on the survey findings, said that the figure was “most depressing”.
Universities are “spending a lot of money” on open access publishing, making it “really important to monitor”, she said.
In the UK, a report from 2017 found that the average APC had risen by 16 per cent in three years, well above inflation. As open access takes off, the amount that a sample of British universities were spending on APCs had increased more than fourfold, it discovered.
The EUA’s latest open access survey, covering up to 2017-18 and released on 4 April, paints a picture of universities whose leadership is well aware of the need for open access and that largely have policies in place – but lack specific targets and monitoring.
Nearly three-quarters had no specific targets or timeline for how much of their research should be published open access, it found. “There’s a lot of resistance [to targets], I understand that, but I think they help,” said Dr Borrell-Damián.
Only 43 per cent of institutions were actually monitoring how many research papers end up in open access journals, the survey found. “Universities are humongous organisations and not all of them have got monitoring systems,” Dr Borrell-Damián said.
“For good or bad, researchers are free to do research and publish where they want,” she continued. “Even a university with the best intentions has trouble monitoring everything.”
The survey, which collected responses from 321 institutions across 36 countries, also warned that while there had been “progress in the transition towards open access”, open access to research data, and research data management, “are still at a much less mature stage”.
Just 13 per cent of universities said that they had a policy in place around open access to research data.
But another 40 per cent said that they were considering developing one, a sizeable increase on last year.
Managing and opening up research data was simply much harder than making scientific papers open access, said Dr Borrell-Damián, but awareness of the challenge was “absolutely” spreading through institutions.
Publicație : The Times
The Political Economy of De-liberalization: A Comparative Study on Austria, Germany and Switzerland, by Anna Fill
Jörg Michael Dostal onsiders the complex struggles between economic liberalisation and deliberalisation in three European countries
For more than a generation, we have been told that neoliberal capitalism delivers deregulation, privatisation and the step-by-step disappearance of the welfare state.
However, capitalism (or “the market”) is inherently unstable: markets must be embedded in regulatory structures or will tend to self-destruct. This basic argument of Karl Polanyi’s classic work of political economy, The Great Transformation (1944), is updated in Anna Fill’s study of continental European countries. Her comparative analysis of Austria, Germany and Switzerland between 1980 and 2015 suggests that liberalisation policy does not lead to a stable political outcome. Instead, one can observe a mixture of liberalisation and de-liberalisation succeeding each other in a cyclical manner. Each round of liberalisation will produce countervailing pressures on political actors to engage in compensatory policies that allow for parallel or subsequent rounds of de-liberalisation.
The author starts off by discussing competing theories of political economy. Fill generally prefers agency-based accounts over those stressing structural factors. Since political parties and many interest groups must react to public opinion, salient policies concerning health, pensions and social insurance are always highly contested and difficult to retrench. In many cases, affected constituencies will block liberalisation or even succeed in pushing for higher degrees of de-liberalisation. This applies primarily to what the author terms “endogenous” policies: the welfare state, industrial relations and labour market regulation. On the other hand, she also acknowledges “quiet politics” (a term borrowed from Pepper D. Culpepper), by which liberalisation and deregulation have been able to proceed for a long time without much resistance (the financial sector before and after the Great Recession of 2008 comes to mind, as does corporate governance). The question is whether her argument does not overplay the relative continuity of policymaking between the early and later stages of neoliberal capitalism. Can we really assume that increasing Europeanisation in the form of a common currency, globalisation and financial deregulation has left the domestic side of policymaking untouched?
Turning to the three country case studies, Fill’s particular strength is the way in which she combines qualitative and quantitative research methods. Her account is informed by a “Liberalization database” that aims to quantify the relative significance of liberalising and deliberalising policies in a large variety of sectors since the 1980s. By using this source, she is able to provide quantification and graphic descriptions of the impact of (de-)liberalisation in each country and at different times.
She clearly demonstrates that political structures have a major influence on the results of policymaking. Thus, Austria is initially an example of strong neo-corporatism (labour and business are centralised and interact with the main political parties), while Switzerland is an example of liberal corporatism in which business is the dominant actor. The German case is less clear-cut: earlier efforts at concertation between business and labour declined in the 1990s and have so far not recovered. In a nutshell, Austria and Germany experienced more liberalisation and political conflict than Switzerland, in which a consensus-seeking political culture often stops controversial policies from being enacted.
To sum up, the study’s effort at multi-dimensional analysis deserves praise and convincingly argues that we need to keep an open mind about the political opportunities to re-regulate capitalism. It might be worth considering, however, whether the issue of growing labour migration requires a separate analytical category in the “Liberalization database”.
Publicație : The Times
Les jeunes diplômés sont de plus en plus attirés par l’entrepreneuriat social
FIGARO DEMAIN- L’avènement du numérique a conféré une image plus novatrice aux entreprises sociales, auparavant jugées trop peu dynamiques.
Les étudiants sont tiraillés. Ils veulent à la fois lutter contre l’exclusion sociale et travailler dans le numérique. Ou rallier la cause écologique en bénéficiant de reconnaissance dans le monde du travail. Pour répondre à cette équation aux inconnues multiples, beaucoup ont trouvé une solution: l’entrepreneuriat social. D’après l’enquête dévoilée début 2019 par Convergences, groupe de réflexion dédié au développement durable et à la lutte contre la pauvreté, 43 % des 18-24 ans sont en effet attirés par cette nouvelle forme d’engagement. Un chiffre en augmentation de… 11 points en un an.
«Avant, l’engagement dans le social était cantonné aux associations, jugées trop peu dynamiques voire trop “gentilles” par nos diplômés», explique Manuelle Malot, directrice Carrières et prospective à l’Edhec Business School. Aujourd’hui, le milieu est devenu «sexy», d’après Thibault Larose, le directeur exécutif de Convergences, avec l’apparition d’une prise de conscience écologique forte, marquée notamment par Le Manifeste pour un réveil écologique publié en octobre 2018 par des étudiants de grandes écoles et les manifestations pour le climat des lycéens et étudiants cette année.
Ce thème du développement durable est en effet porteur: il est à la fois attrayant pour les jeunes et rassurant pour les investisseurs, qui prennent de moins en moins ceux qui veulent s’y lancer pour de doux rêveurs. «Depuis un ou deux ans, il n’y a pas un matin sans qu’on ait une création de start-up dans le développement durable d’un diplômé de l’Edhec!» assure Manuelle Malot. Autre élément clé qui attire les étudiants, l’avènement du numérique, qui «a conféré une image plus novatrice à ces entreprises sociales», selon Thibault Larose. De fait, 69 % des entrepreneurs sociaux associent aujourd’hui le numérique à l’entrepreneuriat social.
«L’entrepreneuriat social est quasiment devenu une mode !»Félix de Monts, diplômé de Sciences Po et fondateur de Vendredi
Côté business, ces jeunes diplômés délaissent donc les associations à but non lucratif au profit de ces «start-up for good», comme on les appelle. «On a réfléchi à créer une association, reconnaît Marguerite Dorangeon, diplômée d’AgroParisTech et cofondatrice de Clothparency, qui aide à choisir des vêtements écoresponsables. Mais on a préféré monétiser notre idée, pour créer de la valeur, de l’emploi et une entreprise viable qui ne dépende pas de subventions.» Comme 78 % des entrepreneurs sociaux qui tirent moins de la moitié de leurs revenus des recettes de leur activité, la jeune femme ne s’est pas versé de salaire lors de sa première année d’activité, et vient juste de trouver son modèle économique.
Outre ces difficultés financières, un autre frein au développement concerne 19 % des entrepreneurs sociaux: le manque de reconnaissance. «J’ai vu une vraie transformation sur la perception des entrepreneurs sociaux ces dernières années, nuance toutefois Félix de Monts, diplômé de Sciences Po et fondateur de Vendredi, plate-forme qui propose des emplois partagés entre entreprise et association. En 2014, lorsque je me suis lancé alors que j’étais étudiant, le concept de start-up sociale était méconnu alors que l’univers de la start-up était déjà bien implanté. J’avais du mal à expliquer la démarche sans paraître idéaliste. Depuis, l’entrepreneuriat social est quasiment devenu une mode!»
Quoi qu’il arrive, cette nouvelle vague fait déjà bouger les lignes dans certaines écoles. À HEC, la directrice de la chaire «social business», Bénédicte Faivre-Tavignot, explique qu’elle va créer «un nouveau certificat à valider obligatoirement pour les étudiants en année de césure, avec des thèmes basés sur l’économie et le développement durable». Des cours obligatoires sur le climat vont également faire leur apparition. Quant à l’Edhec, un certificat en innovation sociale a également été lancé en 2017 pour «favoriser le développement durable, social et environnemental».
Publicație : Le Figaro
L'hub per l'innovazione approda in Calabria, l'Università si allea con il Nord-Est
Nasce a Rende un centro per attrarre imprese tecnologiche nazionali e internazionali. Unical insieme alla Fondazione Kessler: "Vogliamo trattenere i nostri laureati e diventare un centro per Nordafrica e Balcani"
ROMA - Un centro per l'innovazione in Calabria, a Rende, area urbana di Cosenza, è notizia da sottolineare. Lo guiderà, il centro altrimenti detto ufficialmente hub, l'Università della Calabria. Unical ha deciso con ambizione, e contando su un parco residenze tra i più ampi d'Europa (2.500 posti letti), di legarsi a prestigiosi centri di ricerca del Nord-Est italiano - la Fondazione Bruno Kessler di Trento e Rovereto - per provare ad attrarre aziende europee e multinazionali all'interno del campus che dal 1972 ospita l'ateneo. Il marchio sotto il quale tutto questo vivrà è Ehic, Euromediterranean harmonic innovation hub.
Il progetto Ehic - che si affianca senza fondersi al Digital innovation hub Calabria, pensato dall'Università della Calabria insieme agli altri due atenei locali, Magna Graecia di Catanzaro e Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria - è pensato al servizio di tutto il Mezzogiorno d'Italia "e dei Paesi transfrontalieri dell'area euro-mediterranea". Si guarda al bacino del Maghreb, all'Albania "e a nazioni lontane che hanno già mostrato interesse come il Giappone". A questo fine l'università di Arcavacata vuole sfruttare la filiera di affiliati delle associazioni coinvolte nell'operazione. Oltre alla Fondazione Kessler presieduta dall'ex ministro dell'Istruzione, Francesco Profumo, sono chiamate a dare contributo le società romane Ntt Data Italia (consulenza tecnologica) e Open Innovation Hub (incubatore di start up) nonché la locale Entopan (di Catanzaro).
In questo eco-sistema proiettato sul futuro, "in una vasta area geografica segnata da gravi ritardi e significative potenzialità emergenti", si faranno formazione, didattica accademica e percorsi professionalizzanti (all'interno del Piano industria 4.0). In collaborazione con Oasi, Oltre advanced school of innovation, si insegneranno e applicheranno le scienze informatiche, quelle economiche, sociali e umanistiche. Entro fine anno Ehic vuole coinvolgere partner finanziari e fondi di investimento. Da un concorso internazionale uscirà, quindi, il progetto architettonico che darà un tetto, "di suggestione californiana", al centro. "Intendiamo far nascere nuove aziende sul territorio", dice Luigino Felice, professore di Ingegneria meccanica, energetica e gestionale di Unical, "piccole e medie imprese dell'innovazione a forte capitale privato".
Francesco Profumo, presidente di Fondazione Bruno Kessler, dice: "Il Trentino, Silicon Valley italiana, vuole estendere il suo impegno verso il Mediterraneo facendo scouting di imprese con alto potenziale innovativo". Gino Mirocle Crisci, rettore dell'Università della Calabria: "L'ateneo laurea ogni anno centinaia di giovani che in buona parte alimentano i mercati del Centro-Nord del Paese. Il progetto Ehic vuole allettare grandi aziende globali nel localizzare sedi di ricerca e sviluppo all'interno del nostro campus universitario e da qui ripartire verso nuovi mercati. L'innovazione è una delle traiettorie di sviluppo che la Calabria deve perseguire per sovvertire la profezia che la vede relegata ai margini del sistema di creazione di valore a livello nazionale".
Publicație : La Repubblica
|
