Artificial Intelligence (AI), does not yet encompass armies of killer-robots roaming the planet. However it has made some inroads into our day-to-day lives from the mundane (voice recognition software in telephone call centres) to the more interesting (driverless cars are no doubt on the way). Within higher education some areas of AI are well-established such as automatic plagiarism-detection systems for student submissions like ‘Turnitin’.
However, to date we have barely scratched the surface of what AI is capable of. Now, industry and technology experts are predicting that AI will expand to take over many routine tasks in the coming years and decades.
This document sets out a summary of findings from a survey developed and administered in partnership between GuildHE and Uniac. It seeks to understand current issues associated with Tier 4 compliance and to provide useful information about practice within providers that will be of assistance in continuing to develop efficient and effective control mechanisms. Thirty-three instiutions responded to the survey, accouting for over 75% of GuildHE membership. This was followed up with in-depth interviews with 15 instiutions. A full research note will be circulated to all participants and GuildHE members.
This year's National Student Survey (NSS) contains questions on 'Student Voice' that will be asked of all participating providers in the main body of the survey, producing comparable published national data, for the first time in its history. In short this is the first time that HE providers have been explicitly and publicly measured on how well their students think they engage with and respond to their views. This briefing looks at some of the issues highlighted by the national data and makes some suggestions about how instiutions might respond.
The Department for Education has released graduate employment and salary information analysed by university and by course. This Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data was compiled by linking tax, benefits and student loans information, and relates to the 2014/15 tax year to 5 April 2015. 2012-13, 2010-11 and 2008-09 graduates were used, meaning the data shows outcomes one, three and five years after graduation respectively.
The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has been introduced by the Department for Education (DfE), supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).
Currently in its second year, the TEF is designed to recognise and reward excellent teaching. All participating providers have now been awarded overall Bronze, Silver and Gold ‘medals’ and as the dust settles, we offer in this briefing note three key actions that both Institutions and Audit Committees could consider taking to help ensure success in future exercises.
Executive and non-executive representatives from 34 higher education providers and five sector organisations met in Manchester and London to discuss value for money reporting, particularly how HEFCE might develop more structured mandatory value for money reporting by individual institutions.
The need for such reporting is driven by the government’s appetite for evidence that public money invested in the sector delivers good value. The Manchester and London meetings, which were also attended by Steve Butcher of HEFCE and Ian Powling of Universities UK, were chaired respectively by Andrew McConnell OBE, Director of Finance at the University of Huddersfield and Chair of Uniac’s Board and by Andrew Murphy, Chief Finance Officer of the University of London.
While the government wants evidence of value for money, it has not articulated what form such evidence might take. The recent coalition government searched unsuccessfully for a single performance measure. HEFCE, however, wish to resist a burdensome drift towards a myriad of measures. HEFCE see current institutional value for money reports as unduly qualitative and focused on procurement, strategies and plans rather than reporting outcomes and benefits realised. Governing bodies have a stewardship role to ensure that their institutions are delivering, and demonstrating, value for money. A succinct suite of measures is needed for two distinct audiences: government and students. Some measures already exist, particularly for effectiveness. A task and finish group is proposed to formalise efficiency measures. Where possible these will use existing sector groups and data sources; will minimise the burden on smaller institutions; and recognise distinct institutional missions.
HEFCE will demonstrate anonymised exemplars of good value for money reports later this year. They will also issue guidance on value for money reporting – potentially for the 2017-18 report cycle. In the meantime, the need to be sensitive to individual institutional competitive positions will need to be recognised.
Small and Specialist providers face unique challenges in meeting immigration compliance requirements. This joint Guild HE and Uniac briefing is aimed at heads of institutions and governors of small and specialist institutions. It aims to give an overview of the key issues to consider in managing the risks of immigration compliance and suggests some possible ways in which colleagues in those institutions might mitigate the risks. If you have any questions, or would like additional support please contact email@example.com to find out more.
On 12th May 2017 computers in 150 countries were affected by the ‘WannaCry’ major malware attack. The attack is thought to have affected over 200,000 computers globally in both the public and private sectors. In the UK, this included around 61 NHS organisations which led to systems going down, patient appointments being cancelled and sensitive data being potentially put at risk. Other victims included Germany's rail network Deutsche Bahn, Spanish telecommunications operator Telefonica, US logistics company FedEx and Chinese energy giant PetroChina.
The column inches written about Brexit, whether ‘hard’ or ‘soft’, and its potential implications for the higher education sector, may well already reach across the channel (and quite possibly back again). Indeed, a significant amount of uncertainty can be expected to continue at the very least until the end of the two-year negotiation period once Article 50 has been triggered and more likely well beyond.
So, in the face of such uncertainty and risks to movement of staff and students, and to research and exchange collaborations, how should audit committees respond and what questions should they ask of their institutions?
The Payment Card Industry - Data Security Standards (PCI–DSS) were introduced in 2006 by the Security Standards Council of the Payments Card Industry to combat fraudulent use of payment (credit and debit) card details. All merchants accepting card payments need to demonstrate ongoing compliance. The standards are worldwide and cover security of the transmission, storage and processing of customer’s payment card details. These include:
operational controls such as: restriction of authorised users, physical security of point-of-sale payment devices, secure retention and disposal of receipts, user education to prevent recording of card details;
IT security controls such as: firewall settings, network configurations and access controls.