Search results

This chapter draws on findings from a comparative, qualitative research project investigating the decision-making of different groups of English higher education students in central England as they graduated from a Russell group university (46 interviewees) and a Post-92 university (28 interviewees). Half of the students graduated in 2014 (lower tuition fees regime) and the other half graduated in 2015 (higher tuition fees regime). The students interviewed were sampled by socio-economic background, gender, degree subject/discipline and secondary school type. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore students’ future plans and perceptions of their future job prospects. Despite higher debt levels, the 2015 sample of Russell Group graduates from lower socio-economic backgrounds had a positive view of their labour market prospects and a high proportion had achieved either a graduate job or a place on a postgraduate course prior to graduation. This group had saved money whilst studying. The 2015 sample of Post-1992 University graduates (from both lower and average socio-economic backgrounds) were worried about their level of debt, future finances and labour market prospects. This chapter raises questions about whether a fairer university finance system, involving lower levels of debt for graduates from less advantaged backgrounds, might avoid some graduates’ transitions to adulthood being so strongly influenced by financial anxieties.

Randall W. Eberts, Ph.D., is the executive director of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Mary Hatwood Futrell, Ed.D., is president of Education International (EI), headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, and dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at George Washington University, Washington, DC.Bob Harris, M.A., Dip.T (Sec.), (Australia), advanced study at the Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, Geneva, is a former EI executive director and current senior consultant based in Nyon, Switzerland.Ronald D. Henderson, Ph.D., is the director of the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Rachel Hendrickson, Ph.D., is the higher education coordinator in the Membership and Organizing Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Kevin Hollenbeck, Ph.D., is a senior economist and director of publications at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Susan Moore Johnson, Ed.D., is Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr., Professor of Teaching and Learning at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Charles T. Kerchner, Ph.D., is Hollis P. Allen Professor of Education at the Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California.Julia E. Koppich, Ph.D., is president of Koppich & Associates, an education policy research and consulting firm, in San Francisco, California.Carrie M. Lewis, J.D., is a senior writer-editor in the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Christine Maitland, Ph.D., is a former higher education coordinator for the National Education Association who now works on higher education issues with the NEA’s Pacific Regional Office in Burlingame, California.Christine E. Murray, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Education and Human Development and dean of the School of Professions, State University of New York College at Brockport.Diane Shust, J.D., M.S.Ed., is the director of the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Joe A. Stone, Ph.D., is W. E. Miner Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon, Eugene.Wayne J. Urban, Ph.D., is Regents’ Professor of Education in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Georgia State University, Atlanta.Fred van Leeuwen is the general secretary of Education International, Brussels, Belgium.Maris A. Vinovskis, Ph.D., is Bentley Professor of History, senior research scientist at the Institute for Social Research, and faculty member of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Paul Wolman, Ph.D., is a senior policy analyst in the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.

In late 2020, a group of librarians at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) came together to pursue the design of a diversity audit for monograph collections. After initial research and reflection, the authors realized that evaluating their existing collection on its racial or ethnic representation would not only be problematic, but also unnecessary, because it was clear to the authors that their collections are dominated by white voices and perspectives. How could they be otherwise? They were built for a primarily white audience as part of a system of knowledge production dominated by whiteness. The authors questioned whether the framework of a “diversity audit” really addressed their goal of a systematic anti-racist approach to collections management. This chapter details the authors’ process of rejecting the diversity audit framework for a large-scale review of monographs in a large academic library collection in the United States. It reviews the literature regarding diversity audits, as well as background on whiteness studies, as it leads to the authors’ rationale for instead developing a workbook for collection selectors. This workbook will position collection management practices within the white institutional presence (WIP) conceptual framework developed by scholar Diane Gusa (2010).

This paper explores the National Study on Women in Higher Education and Student Affairs.

It includes a collectively written diary, archives, focus groups, and interviews with a diverse group of women leaders from across the country. The women are diverse in terms of their self-identified race, class, age, sexual orientation, position on college campuses, and additional identities.

The author’s feminist approach to the review of these materials highlights notions of pay inequity, intersectionality of identities, and the power of women’s groups in educational settings.

The author’s research identifies areas critical to intentional change in educational policy and programs that have the potential to increase access and equity for women in higher education.