Search

To be competitive, universities across the world are embedding an international perspective into every layer of an institution's operational structure. For higher education (HE) providers that offer sandwich degrees (4-year undergraduate courses with a compulsory placement after the second year), this allows students to choose a range of options. Students can enter the labour market for one year, or they can go overseas to study at a foreign institution. For some students, it might even be possible to do both. However, regarding final year degree performance, which option leads to higher student performance? In this paper, we aim to shed light on this empirical question. Our results are drawn from Aston University (UK) which is a world-leading University in Advanced Technology. Overall, using a large student dataset, we find that for students who have a compulsory placement built into their degree programme, the work placement has a more powerful impact on student performance compared to an international study placement abroad. Our findings have important implications for universities across the world that offer sandwich degrees to their students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A performance-based funding system like the United Kingdom's 'Research Excellence Framework' (REF) symbolizes the re-rationalization of higher education according to neoliberal ideology and New Public Management technologies. The REF is also significant for disclosing the kinds of behaviour that characterize universities' response to government demands for research auditability. In this paper, we consider the casualties of what Henry Giroux (2014) calls 'neoliberalism's war on higher education' or more precisely the deleterious consequences of non-participation in the REF. We also discuss the ways with which higher education's competition fetish, embodied within the REF, affects the instrumentalization of academic research and the diminution of academic freedom, autonomy and criticality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many quarters, attempts are underway to identify learning outcomes in higher education which are context-neutral or ‘generic’; such measures could provide new ways to assess and compare outputs from higher education. This paper considers potential challenges in using such broad learning outcomes across contrasting disciplinary and national settings. An empirical contribution is provided by an analysis of data from the international REFLEX survey for Norwegian and English bachelor’s degree graduates. This sheds some light on the relationships between graduates’ broad learning outcomes (general competencies), their national contexts and their disciplinary area. It finds variations in competencies across subjects and countries, suggesting that general competencies of the type often suggested as generic learning outcomes may be unstable and problematic to compare across contrasting settings. It highlights the need for comparative research into variations in learning outcomes and graduate competencies considering disciplinary and national factors. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]