OBHE Conference 2015

The new landscape of higher education

Building a global institution:

Ashridge and Hult
Dr Martin Lockett
Global Dean, Academic Affairs

London, 3rd December 2015

Ashridge
Origins in 13th century monastery, then a royal home
Business school founded in 1959 by six companies
Degree programmes since 1988 part-time postgraduate
Ranked in top 25 globally for executive education
Obtained UK taught degree awarding powers in 2008
Triple accredited business school: AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA
Hult International Business School
Origins in Arthur D Little School of Management
Founded in 2002, also incorporated Huron University
Rapid growth in student numbers from 26 to 3,000
Boston, SF, NY, London, Dubai, Shanghai campuses
Global rotation between campuses within programmes
Hult Prize is the planets largest student competition
Ashridge + Hult strategic alliance
Our aim is to become one of
the worlds leading business schools.

By being the most relevant.

Shared values including focus on students and learning
Complementary portfolios
o Undergraduate
o Postgraduate masters and MBA/ EMBA
o Executive education, organisation development and coaching
o Virtual learning
o Research
Global ambition and reality
o Hult based on global recruitment and campuses in 4 countries
o Ashridge based on global delivery reach to 40+ countries a year
Challenges
Legal and
governance

Cross-border National quality

quality assurance agencies

Academic International
practices accreditations

Academic Academic
frameworks governance
Legal and governance
US (NEASC) and UK (BIS) approvals
Two degree awarding institutions, in-house US and UK degrees
Mirrored boards for US and UK charities
Integrated management structure
Single global academic framework and governance
 National regulatory differences
UK US
Regulatory [National] + Regional
National
bodies + State
Degree awarding Any subject or level Wide variation based on
powers (Taught/ Research) regulator approval
Review
6 years 10 years
cycle
Regulatory Quality Code plus Higher level standards plus
framework Subject Benchmarks specific guidelines/ policies
Academic
Academic community Chief Academic Officer
safeguard
Programme Internal
Internal
approval + external
Student involvement
Essential As appropriate
in quality
College
Not mentioned Explicitly covered
athletes
US and UK academic frameworks
Undergraduate programmes
o US general education requirement and four years rather than three
Masters programmes
o Generally similar requirements
Doctoral programmes
o UK professional doctorates structure comparable to US doctorates
Assessment practice assurance of fairness
o Student negotiation with faculty for better grades in US
Student participation in governance
o Much more embedded in UK
Attitude to validation partnerships
o Greater flexibility in UK system
US and UK academic practices
UK US
Responsibility Programme-level: Course-level:
in practice director and team faculty autonomy
Assessment Fewer and Frequent and
strategy larger smaller
Assessed class
Rare Typical
participation
Grading Percentage marks Letter grades
system Criteria (rubric) based Grading curve
Marking Second Limited
quality assurance marking mechanisms
Externality in External examiner
Unimportant
quality assurance Approval/review panels
Programme level Embedded in Dependent on
assurance of learning regulatory framework institutional practice
Global academic framework
Single academic framework for US and UK degrees
o Will work with QAA and NEASC to co-ordinate home reviews
o Also collaborate with other agencies, esp. KHDA
Academic credit (US, UK and ECTS)
o Classroom-style based on US norms
o Non-traditional based on equivalent learning hours
New grading systems
o Radical simplification, especially postgraduate
o Greater focus on feedback, less on differentiating marks
Assurance of fairness
o Ongoing focus on global comparability
o Sample grade review and external examining
Conclusion
Choices of global operational model
o Truly global vs. multi-country
o One degree or dual degree
Complexity of regulation
o Mapping then active engagement with national agencies
o Participate in cross-border quality assurance initiatives
Managing change
o Consultation then clear decision and implementation
o Be prepared to change if you could have done it better
Its not for everyone
o Has to be based on ambitious and realistic strategy
o Getting it done requires resources and motivation