Author: admin

Findlay, Bluffton merger called off

Almost a year after the University of Findlay and Bluffton University publicly shared plans to merge, the deal is off, both institutions announced last week, citing various challenges.

The University of Findlay, the larger and financially stronger of the two private, religiously affiliated institutions in northwest Ohio, was the one to call off the merger. Its Board of Trustees voted last week not to move forward with the plan, according to a statement from the university.

“Some higher education organizations may find mergers the best path forward,” University of Findlay president Katherine Fell said in the statement announcing the decision. “For us, due diligence in this case has demonstrated that partnering in key ways is a better solution.”

A Sudden Change of Plans

Sticking points on the deal were college athletics and, relatedly, financial aid.

When the merger plan was initially announced, both institutions intended to combine operations but maintain certain elements of their identities. For example, Findlay would remain affiliated with the Churches of God, General Conference, and Bluffton would stay with Mennonite Church U.S. Athletics would also stay separate; Findlay planned to compete as the Oilers at the NCAA Division II level, while Bluffton would continue in the NCAA’s Division III under the Beavers moniker.

But that proved difficult, according to Findlay’s statement, which noted that regulations require a separate process for financial aid distribution “and prohibit the sharing of resources and sports facilities, resulting in fewer synergies in those areas than originally anticipated.”

The statement said that Findlay will continue to seek strategic partnerships. Asked for more information, Fell told Inside Higher Ed by email that “while Findlay is open to continuing these types of collaborations with Bluffton, we extend that potential for collaboration to other higher education institutions that are looking for creative ways to engage and serve students, employees, and stakeholders.”

A Bluffton spokesperson said by email that the two universities “do not have any type of formal partnership in the works at this time.”

In their own statement on the deal being called off, Bluffton officials noted that the due diligence process was beneficial in helping the university move forward, even though the merger did not come to fruition despite a year of work.

“While the outcome of this vote was not within Bluffton University’s control, we remain confident, optimistic and steadfast in our commitment to the future of our institution,” Cheryl Hacker, chair of the Bluffton University Board of Trustees, said in a statement issued last week.

Though she acknowledged feeling “a moment of disappointment” in the failed merger, Hacker added that Bluffton “continues to be financially stable, strategically independent, and well-prepared for the future.”

The move to drop the merger was unexpected; a frequently asked questions page on Bluffton’s website said that the university was “shocked and disappointed by this change in direction.”

The FAQ page also noted that “Bluffton University is not privy of [sic] the reasoning behind the decision.”

As Bluffton moves forward in the aftermath of the aborted plan, it will do so without President Jane Wood: she resigned Wednesday, the same day Findlay’s board voted down the merger.

Financial Imbalance

On paper, Findlay is the stronger of the two institutions.

Its endowment was valued at $67.8 million in the latest publicly available audit. Findlay has also stayed in the black, operating with positive revenues generated during its last 10 fiscal years.

Bluffton’s endowment was valued at $29.3 million in the latest publicly available audit, down from $37.6 million in the previous fiscal year. It has operated at a loss in six of the last 10 fiscal years.

In terms of enrollment, Findlay is much larger, reporting a head count of 5,057 students in fall 2023, compared to 678 for Bluffton, federal data shows.

What’s Next?

Despite the abrupt change of plans, Bluffton officials have sought to dispel speculation that closure is imminent, noting on the FAQ page that it has “a solid foundation, and is well-prepared for future growth and success.”

Not long ago, both institutions seemed fully on board with the merger.

In a FutureU podcast interview recorded in January and published last week, the presidents of both universities appeared committed to moving forward, but they noted various frustrations with the effort—particularly the glacial process, which both leaders said they wanted to speed up.

“We believe in this merger,” Fell said at the time. She noted in the podcast that the two universities were “already setting up shared services, which are going to benefit us tremendously.”

In her email to Inside Higher Ed, Fell wrote that the two universities “have collaborated to share guest speakers, cover sabbatical leave, offer additional course options for students, fill low-enrolled course sections, host events for our local communities and provide students with joint cross-cultural experiences.” At the same time, she noted, the two institutions have “explored cost sharing of administrative services but have not yet implemented those.”

On the podcast, Fell expressed impatience with the change of control required for a merger, noting “frustrations embedded in the process,” which could take from 18 months to three years to complete, limiting what the two institutions could achieve before approval. She added the process “will certainly cost us a few hundred thousand [dollars]” but “we have had good fortune in having internal grants and funding sources” to aid with merger costs.

“There is reason for frustration—not blame,” Fell said on the podcast.

The proposed merger between Findlay and Bluffton isn’t the only partnership to fall apart in recent years—even in the state of Ohio.

Last year Notre Dame College, a private Catholic institution, announced it was closing after the strategic partnership it sought with the much larger, public Cleveland State University never materialized.

Elsewhere, in 2023, Trocaire College scuttled its planned acquisition of nearby Medaille University, in Buffalo, N.Y., leading Medaille to announce its closure the very next week.

Some colleges have managed to survive independently after reversing course, including the Portland, Ore.-based National University of Natural Medicine and Seattle’s Bastyr University, which called off merger plans in late 2023.

Source link

March 4, 2025
Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

While much of the now-infamous Valentine’s Day Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was vague and void of specific information, the following sentence was crystal clear:

“The Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date, including antidiscrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funding.”

Despite the letter’s clear language to the contrary, higher education leaders and the media (including the higher ed press) did the math and declared Feb. 28 “deadline day” for diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education. “Deadline day,” read one story. “The clock is running out,” claimed another. An Associated Press story ran with the lead “Schools and colleges across the U.S. face a Friday deadline to end diversity programs or risk having their federal money pulled.” What ensued was a self-made crisis characterized by spirited debates and ill-advised anticipatory compliance with the yet-to-be-announced changes to enforcement of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Seasoned veterans knew better. The most likely “next step” indicated by the department was presumed to be further communication from OCR about the “measures to assess compliance” that were promised in the letter.

And that is exactly what happened. On March 1, the department issued a press release and FAQ document elaborating on the Dear Colleague letter. The FAQ elaborates on the new administration’s intention to use a novel and expansive interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard, an admissions case in which Chief Justice John Roberts opined that diversity-related goals within higher education can be “commendable” and “plainly worthy.” It answers questions about how the department will receive complaints. In short, the department did exactly what it stated it would do within the 14-day timeline. The so-called deadline was a chimera, an artifact of the confusion and fear created by the letter’s politically charged context and lack of specificity.

While it leaves many key questions unanswered, the FAQ does favorably settle several unclear points raised by the Dear Colleague letter.

Question 8 asks, “Are Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs unlawful under SFFA?” The answer is no. Only if those programs discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin do they violate the law. The answer further clarifies what we have known all along: “Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’” The department declares in unambiguous language that it cannot deem certain words “illegal,” nor are phrases such as “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion” or “belonging” a violation of nondiscrimination obligations.

Question 9 asks, “Does this mean that students, teachers, and school employees may not discuss topics related to race or DEI under Title VI?” Again, the answer is no. Only if those classroom discussions create “hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes” do they violate the law. The answer makes clear, “Nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.”

The 14-day window between the Dear Colleague letter and the FAQ did not pass without some productive and inspirational advocacy. Notably, Paulette Granberry Russell and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education won a significant legal victory in federal district court, achieving a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement activities and the withdrawal of funding based on anti-DEI executive orders.

The American Council on Education submitted a persuasive letter to OCR—signed by 71 national higher education organizations—requesting that the Dear Colleague letter be rescinded and that the department engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of the legal obligations of colleges and universities—a rare example of higher education speaking with one voice on this topic.

The rest of the frenetic activity in this two-week time span was less productive. Despite many thoughtful suggestions to the contrary, some colleges and universities hastily undertook “audits” and website “scrubbing” of programming they thought might possibly be covered in the OCR’s forthcoming communications. A careful review of the FAQ document is likely to reveal that much of this was an unnecessary overreaction.

From my perspective, the most harmful occurrence was an unproductive debate over institutional responses to the letter. Most of these took the shape of a false dichotomy between courage and cowardice. In my estimation, the institutions that stayed the course and waited for guidance from OCR were not courageous, but rather prudent. Conversely, the institutions that moved to action were not universally motivated by fear or cowardice, but rather by institution-specific realities of board governance, state and local politics, and individual risk assessments. At the end of the day, it was context and not courage or cowardice that motivated institutions.

With a published methodology for compliance assessment now communicated, the department has answered a few of the lingering questions outlined on Valentine’s Day. Most notably, the FAQ provides a clear statement on how the Dear Colleague letter will be enforced.

The answer to Question 14 clarifies that the department will use existing case-processing procedure—which includes due process for institutions and the possibility of a voluntary resolution agreement—and links to a newly revised Case Processing Manual. It is now the job of institutions that are committed to building “inclusive and diverse campus communities”—as the ACE letter penned by Ted Mitchell so eloquently states—to prepare a spirited defense of their programming by demonstrating that their efforts do not violate federal civil rights law.

Steve Robinson is president of Lansing Community College.

Source link

March 4, 2025
Three in five students see themselves customers of their college
Public confidence in higher education is declining. Even students, most of whom say they’re getting a quality education, question the value of a degree with respect to affordability. Such doubts increase higher education’s vulnerability to the threats it’s currently facing. All this evokes the long-running debate over whether higher education can be viewed as a public good. And when revisiting that debate, it’s instructive to know what students expect from their college or university—specifically, whether they consider themselves not just students but also customers.

In Inside Higher Ed’s first-ever Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators, released last fall, 71 percent of administrators said that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves customers (most of these administrators also agreed that parents of students consider themselves customers).

But what do undergraduates themselves say? According to a new analysis of IHE’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab, nearly the same share of students—65 percent—consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity, defined in the survey as expecting to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees.

Some 41 percent of the survey’s 5,025 two- and four-year student respondents say they see themselves as customers both in their classes and across campus. Another 13 percent consider themselves customers only in their classes, while 11 percent view themselves as customers only outside of class, when interacting with staff and administrators across campus.

Methodology

Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

Respondents include over 3,500 four-year students and 1,400 two-year students. Sixteen percent are exclusively online learners, and 40 percent are first-generation students.

Top-line findings from the full survey are here and the full data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. The main annual survey asked questions on academic success, health and wellness, the college experience, and preparing for life after college.

How satisfied are students as customers of their institution? When those who do not identify as customers (n=1,744) are asked to wear that hat for a moment, nearly half (45 percent) say they’re somewhat satisfied with their institution. Another quarter (23 percent) are very satisfied. The rest are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (19 percent), somewhat unsatisfied (9 percent), or very unsatisfied (3 percent).

What about students who do identify as customers (n=3,280)? The satisfaction numbers are very similar, but this group is slightly less likely to have high satisfaction; 45 percent, the plurality, are somewhat satisfied with their institution and an additional 18 percent are very satisfied. Twenty percent are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, some 13 percent are somewhat unsatisfied and very few (4 percent) are very unsatisfied.

The results are relatively consistent across sector and a swath of student characteristics. However, two-year college students are less likely than four-year college students to say they consider themselves customers both in classes and when interacting with staff and administrators outside of class, at 35 percent versus 43 percent, respectively.

The higher-education-as-public-good debate typically centers on whether higher education meets the common criteria for a public good: nonexcludability, meaning it’s accessible to everyone, and nonrivalry, meaning one person’s use of the good the doesn’t limit others’ ability to use it.

In this sense, counting students as customers of higher education hurts the public good argument: How can one be a customer of a public good? And concerns about a creeping customer service dynamic in higher education have long worried scholars, including the authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal for Educational Integrity arguing that a facile customer service model of higher education undermines the instructor-learner relationship by reducing it to transactional, vendor-vendee connection—one in which the institution meets the student’s expressed needs in exchange for payment. (Think grade inflation and more.) The name of that paper kind of says it all: “The Customer Isn’t Always Right: Limitations of ‘Customer Service’ Approaches to Education, or Why Higher Ed Is Not Burger King.”

But is thinking of students as customers—and students thinking of themselves as customers—a universally bad thing?

Alternative Models

Various scholars have proposed alternatives to the customer service model of higher education.

Student as client: Scholar Keith B. Murray, for instance, proposed in a December Inside Higher Ed opinion piece that it’s better to think of students as clients. Whereas vendors need to appeal to customers via a product at an attractive price point, he wrote, in “client-type transactions, exchange of time, effort and money by the consumer is predicated on one party’s professional expertise and advice.” Typical client-based vendor examples include “physicians, dentists, financial advisers, tax preparers, accountants, veterinarians, therapists and professors,” he added.

Faculty and staff as stewards: Scholar Jeffrey Vetrano, in responding to Murray’s piece, also in Inside Higher Ed, advocated for a stewardship framework.

“Faculty and staff at institutions of higher education are stewards of both our students and their educations. As such, we take personal responsibility for granting them every opportunity to succeed, by maintaining strong ethics as identified in Murray’s article. As stewards, every action we take is for the care and development of our students, and we strive for much more than a client/vendor relationship.”

Luke Hobson, an instructional design leader and online lecturer with his own education podcast and blog, actually encouraged institutions to think of students as customers last year, citing these five reasons:
- Focus on quality
- Responsiveness to needs
- Enhanced accountability
- Market competitiveness
- Feedback loop for continuous improvements
Summing up all these points, Hobson wrote in a blog post that the “most significant factor” here was to “emphasize caring. A business cares about their customers. Without them, they can’t survive.” Moreover, he said, “The greatest educators I can think of share this trait in that they cared. They were passionate. They were there for the students and to see them succeed. They could all have different styles of teaching, but at the end of the day, they served their students. It’s this mentality that will keep students engaged in the learning environment.” Indeed, existing research links instructor caring to student trust and sense of belonging, both of which are associated with student success. Quality nonclassroom student support services also promote student success.

Hobson also wrote that it’s “crucial to maintain a balance. Education is not a typical consumer good, and the primary goal of a university should be to educate and foster intellectual development, not just to satisfy customer demands. Students are coming to learn because they don’t have all the answers. They want to get better and they are seeking the expertise from the institution. The focus should be on helping them to reach their goals.”

‘Polarizing’ Idea

A year later, Hobson recalls that post being his most polarizing ever, based on the feedback he got (some loved it, others hated it). But while he acknowledges the concerns of his peers—that, for example, a customer-focused model could hurt student autonomy by shifting the responsibility for learning onto institutions—his own views haven’t changed.

Reviewing the Student Voice data, Hobson imagines that students who describe themselves as customers believe they’re “paying for the ultimate learning experience,” defined by a “comprehensive blend of academic rigor, personalized support and opportunities for professional and personal growth.”

In this light, students expect “the best the university has to offer, including engaging faculty interactions, meaningful assignments, timely feedback and an overall environment that fosters intellectual and practical development,” he continues. They also “anticipate that this education will serve as a pathway to their future goals and aspirations. The effort they invest in their learning, they hope, will directly correlate to the outcomes they receive,” in the form of knowledge, skills or career opportunities.

This model has parallel benefits for institutions, Hobson adds, in that it encourages a focus on quality, including in online education; responsiveness to student feedback and a general feedback loop for continuous improvements to the learning environment; accountability for delivering “value for tuition and aligning institutional actions with expectations for academic rigor and integrity”; and market competitiveness by virtue of providing exceptional experiences.

Jhenai W. Chandler, vice president for research and policy at NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, who also reviewed the Student Voice data, says she understands the impulse to think about students as customers or even clients. And she’s recently been on the student side of this conversation, helping two people close to her choose a college based on their very different needs and wants: Chandler’s own mother returned to community college to advance specific career goals, while her high school daughter is exploring colleges based on their ability to deliver a well-rounded education both in and outside the classroom.

Still, Chandler worries that framing the student as customer can sometimes reinforce “harmful misconceptions about the nature of higher education, particularly in a time when our field is under political scrutiny.”

Instead of using terms such as “client” or “customer,” “we need to focus on a more meaningful conversation about the value we provide and the outcomes we generate for students and society,” she says. Higher education’s value is “rooted in evidence that shows how students’ lives and communities improve after degree completion, whether it’s an associate, bachelor’s or graduate degree. We have a responsibility to communicate this impact effectively—through data, outcomes and success stories—to students, parents, industry leaders and policymakers.”

Chandler adds this: “Language and terminology can often be our worst enemies in this conversation, as the terms we use are not always understood outside of the academic world. We need to be intentional about the way we communicate, especially as we navigate misconceptions about what students expect from us.”

What do you think students who view themselves as customers—in classes or of their institution as a whole—expect from professors and/or administrators or staff across campus? Are the expectations typically reasonable ones? Tell us about it.
Source link
March 4, 2025
Shaping the future before it shapes us
I’ve worked closely with colleagues in Silicon Valley throughout my career. Through these interaction, there are always new ideas, and the level of confidence in predictions typically starts strong and only gets stronger. This time felt different. Last week during a visit to Silicon Valley, I repeatedly heard the following as a preface to a prediction, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard it before when engaging with my most techno-optimistic colleagues: “I could be wrong, but …”

A few innocent words, but a rhetorical hedge that suggests even the most confident among us understand that the AI era is pretty, pretty complicated.

I was there to attend the Annual AI+Education Summit 2025, hosted by Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. The theme—Human-Centered AI for a Thriving Learning Ecosystem—framed discussions that were both urgent and inspiring. AI is not just on the horizon; it is actively reshaping the educational landscape. Our responsibility is to ensure this transformation augments human potential rather than diminishes it.

The summit brought together leading researchers, educators and policymakers to explore AI’s role in personalizing learning, empowering educators and bridging educational divides. The pace of change is staggering—today, half of students use AI tools at least weekly, both inside and outside the classroom. Institutions must act now to shape AI’s role in education intentionally rather than reactively.

The Power of Collective Action in Higher Education

One of the key messages from the summit was that no single institution, company, innovator or researcher can tackle this challenge alone. A coordinated effort across higher education is essential to ensure AI serves students, faculty and society in equitable and effective ways.

At the University of Michigan, we have seen firsthand how faculty innovators are experimenting with generative AI to enhance teaching and learning. Our most recent call for proposals at the Center for Academic Innovation resulted in a diverse set of AI-enhanced teaching and learning projects designed to explore AI’s potential across disciplines, from medical education to humanities. These projects demonstrate not only how AI can enrich classroom experiences but also how it can deepen engagement, personalize learning and extend human creativity. We are helping faculty translate emerging technologies into meaningful applications, creating impactful learning experiences on campus and beyond.

Organizations like U-M’s Center for Academic Innovation and Stanford’s HAI and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning play a critical role in leading this work—through experimentation, research and convening communities of practice. Without spaces to explore AI’s potential responsibly, without research to test its effectiveness and without convenings to align efforts, the future of AI in education would be left to chance rather than deliberate innovation.

Michigan’s work is part of a broader movement. Across higher education, institutions are launching AI-driven initiatives to explore the role of AI in teaching, learning and research. One example is the California State University system, which recently announced a partnership with OpenAI to explore AI’s potential across its 23 campuses. This initiative, like many others, underscores the need for systemwide efforts to develop responsible and scalable AI solutions.

These efforts—faculty-led experiments at Michigan, large-scale system initiatives like CSU’s, and global convenings like Stanford’s AI+Education Summit—demonstrate the range of approaches to AI in education. Stanford’s summit, in particular, highlighted outstanding faculty-led experiments exploring AI’s role in augmenting learning, fostering creativity and addressing challenges in equitable access to technology. These initiatives reinforce the importance of institutional collaboration in shaping the future of AI in education. But the big question remains: How do we shape AI’s role in education to serve our preferred future rather than react to an imposed one?

5 Key Takeaways From the AI+Education Summit
1. AI is transforming education, but its role must be purposeful.
AI is already reshaping how students learn and how educators teach. We must ensure AI serves as a tool for augmentation rather than automation. How do we steer away from optimizing automation and toward optimizing AI’s ability to augment human creativity, problem-solving and collaboration?
1. Faculty innovation is leading the way—with institutional support.
Some of the most compelling AI applications in education are emerging from faculty-led experimentation. Universities must create conditions for responsible innovation by investing in faculty training, providing resources for experimentation and developing ethical frameworks that support AI integration while prioritizing student learning. We need to understand what’s working for whom and be ready to quickly invest further in the most impactful efforts.
1. AI ethics and governance must be at the forefront.
AI’s potential to amplify biases and exacerbate inequities is well documented. Institutions must focus on governance, transparency and bias mitigation to ensure AI benefits all learners. Without clear institutional leadership, regulation will fill the void. Can we build governance frameworks that protect learners and help them to flourish while also fostering innovation and global competitiveness and security?
1. AI literacy is urgent—but we lack consensus on what it means.
There is universal agreement that students, educators and institutions need to accelerate AI literacy. However, what constitutes AI literacy remains unclear. Should AI literacy be about technical proficiency? Ethical responsibility? Practical applications? Probably all of the above—but the right balance is elusive. I could be wrong, but if we don’t actively shape this now, we may find that AI literacy is defined for us in ways that don’t align with our values. Definitions vary, but there is broad consensus that we need highly accessible and scalable opportunities for anyone to acquire AI literacy—and soon.
1. We need a shared vision for AI in education.
The AI+Education Summit made it clear that AI’s impact should be shaped by the collective choices of educators, institutions and policymakers. Without a shared vision, the future will be dictated by market forces alone. Speakers at the conference described the future they want to see: one that designs for the widest range of learners to support human flourishing, strengthens the essential relationship between teachers and students, and works for everyone—practically, equitably and responsibly.

Institutions have taken very different approaches to AI—some choosing to ban it, restricting its use until clearer guidelines emerge, while others have opted to embrace it, fostering a culture of experimentation and innovation. Others have decided to take a wait-and-see approach, uncertain about how AI will ultimately shape higher education. Perhaps all of these strategies have their merits. Or maybe in a few years we’ll look back and realize the most effective approach was something we haven’t even considered yet. I could be wrong—but that’s precisely why we need a wide range of perspectives shaping this conversation now.

Questions for Our Growing AI-in-Education Community

As institutions embrace AI, we should ask ourselves:
- How can we ensure AI enhances equity and access rather than reinforcing existing disparities?
- How do we ensure AI supports human creativity and critical thinking rather than replacing them?
- How do we balance experimentation with the need for institutional policies that safeguard students and educators?
- What models of collaboration—between institutions, industry and policymakers—can accelerate responsible AI adoption in higher education?
- How can institutions maintain trust with learners and faculty as AI adoption accelerates?
- What does a thriving, AI-enhanced learning ecosystem look like in five years? How do we get there?
The AI+Education Summit reinforced that we are not passive observers of AI’s impact on education—we are active participants in shaping its trajectory. The work happening at Stanford, Michigan, CSU and across the broader higher ed community signals a growing recognition that AI is not just another technology to integrate but a transformational force that demands intentionality, collaboration and vision.

Yet, it would be a collective failure if we simply make it easy for students to offload critical thinking. AI must not become a shortcut that undermines the cognitive skills we seek to develop in our learners and citizens.

Now is the time for institutions and individuals to come together, share knowledge and create our preferred future for AI in education. We don’t have all the answers, and some of today’s best ideas may prove incomplete or even misguided. It feels like there is little time for passive observation. AI’s role in education will be defined—either by us or for us. Let’s build the future we prefer—because if we don’t, well … I could be wrong, but I doubt we’ll like the alternative.

James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.
Source link
March 4, 2025
Ramadan should matter to higher education
Ramadan celebrates the revelation of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, to the Prophet Muhammad.

One of the five pillars of Islam is fasting (abstaining from all food and drink) during daylight hours in this holy month.

In the UK, approximately 321,000 (11 per cent) students identify as muslim, which is the largest religious group after christian students (27 per cent).

However, in a recent survey of nearly 300 UK educators, almost a quarter of them couldn’t say when Ramadan took place in 2024. A quarter also didn’t know whether they had any muslim students in their classes.

Only 30 per cent knew the exact dates of Ramadan, and 47 per cent could only guess approximately. Worryingly, 40 per cent of respondents had no idea whether their muslim students were fasting, and despite 56 per cent acknowledging a need for change in teaching practices, only half of them had actually made any adjustments.

This is concerning – because the practice of Ramadan will undoubtedly impact muslim students’ ability to engage with their studies among those who are able to observe it.

The ninth month of the Islamic calendar

Throughout Ramadan, priorities may shift towards personal worship and devotion, as well as family and community.

They are more likely to require time to pray during the day, and to be absent to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan.

Changes to muslim students’ routines to enable them to take part in pre-dawn meals and night prayers may also impact their learning. The effects of Ramadan will also fluctuate during a given day as well as through the fasting period.

You can gain an insight into Ramadan from a students’ perspective in this video, produced by Oxford Brookes University.

A prevalent myth is that staff should avoid eating and drinking in front of fasting students. This is not necessary – muslim students respect the need for others to eat and drink and generally do not expect others to alter their behaviour.

However, it is considerate to avoid organising social events centred around food and drink during Ramadan.

Another misconception is the belief that students will automatically request support or adjustments if needed. In reality, students may not be aware of their rights to reasonable adjustments on religious grounds, or they might not feel comfortable making those sorts of requests.

Staff should openly communicate institutional policies regarding religious observance and encourage students to discuss their needs without fear of judgement or disadvantage.

Fasting doesn’t affect all students in the same way. Not all muslim students fast – some may be exempt due to health reasons, travel, or other personal circumstances. The effects of fasting can also vary, with some students managing well while others may struggle, particularly during the holiest last ten days of Ramadan.

Evidence regarding the impact on learning of fasting during Ramadan is mixed. It can have different impacts on cognitive functioning depending on whether students are studying in predominantly muslim countries or not.

In terms of the impact of disrupted sleep routines and a lack of sleep on learning, the evidence is fairly robust, with multiple studies showing a negative impact. This sleep disruption when observing Ramadan could potentially have a greater impact on students’ learning than fasting itself.

Unfortunately, the limited guidance available on most institutional webpages in the UK seems to be aimed at muslim students themselves, putting the onus on them to seek support or adjustments. This positioning takes away some of the responsibility of institutions to amend practices and policies to support these students.

Supporting muslim students

With these issues in mind, I led a project to find out what educators proactively do to support muslim students.

Based on our findings, and with contributions from a panel of muslims and other experts, we created a guide containing information and practical support for educators to implement in their classrooms. The guide is available to download from the National Teaching Repository.

In the guide we have:
- included an email template (page 9) that you can adapt to send to all students to acknowledge Ramadan
- included a link to free printable posters about Ramadan to display on campus
- busted common myths, for example around eating and drinking
- provided 6 ways to make relatively small changes to learning and teaching practices that could make a big difference. These include 1) Acknowledge Ramadan, 2) Avoid Assumptions and Ask, 3) Adjust Assessment Timings, 4) Offer Asynchronous Learning, 5) Raise Awareness and Celebrate, and 6) Be Inclusive and make Sustainable Change.
- given some guidance relating to supporting students who are on a work placement
Supporting muslim students on work placements during Ramadan presents unique challenges and opportunities. The guide encourages conversations with placement coordinators and managers early to explore what accommodations might be available, such as flexible scheduling to allow for prayers or adjusted meal breaks to accommodate Suhoor (pre-dawn meal) and Iftar (meal to break the fast).

It also highlights the importance of understanding the potential impact of such accommodations not only on students but also on clients, patients, or service users in placement settings, ensuring that any adjustments made are both supportive and practical.

Organising a three-way meeting between the placement provider, the student, and the academic lead can help surface specific issues and create tailored solutions. And constructing a formal policy for supporting fasting students on placements could serve as a blueprint for sustainable, long-term change.

More broadly, institutions could formalise their approach by adding “religious observance” as a standing agenda item in relevant committees and planning meetings. This would ensure that religious inclusion is not treated as an afterthought but as an integral part of institutional decision-making.

Working with university chaplaincies is another recommendation – chaplains often have direct connections with religious student groups and can provide valuable insights into their needs. Ideally the sector would move beyond fixes and towards normalising religious inclusivity, reduce barriers to learning, and demonstrate a genuine commitment to equity and fairness.

We hope that the guide will make it relatively easy for educators to take some immediate positive action, and that even a small change will make a positive difference by increasing a sense of belonging and mattering to our muslim students.
Source link
March 4, 2025
Cross Disciplinarity – HEPI

To tackle the major challenges facing society, cross-disciplinary research may be necessary. However, conducting this type of research requires researchers to overcome functional silos. Various factors, such as differing incentives, cultures, terminologies, and jargon, can lead to opportunistic or counterproductive behavior. So, how can cross-disciplinary research be conducted effectively to advance knowledge and understanding? To answer this question, we will first explore the processes of theorizing. Next, we will discuss ways to break down cross-disciplinary barriers. Finally, we will offer practical guidelines for successfully conducting cross-disciplinary research.

First, we argue that the theorising process developed by Brodie and Peters (2020) provides guidelines for undertaking cross-disciplinary research by integrating general theoretic perspectives and contextual research to develop midrange theory. Midrange theory bridges the theoretical domain of knowledge and the applied domain of knowledge (Figure 1). The paradigmatic perspective provides the outer ring for the recursive theorizing process between general theory, midrange theory, and applied research.

Figure 1: Domains of knowledge and levels of theory

By employing the aforementioned theorising process, senior management can demonstrate to researchers that there are various ways to develop and apply midrange theory. The primary general theoretical perspective can connect directly with midrange theory, but alternative general theoretical perspectives can also offer routes that lead to other midrange theories. These alternative pathways can eventually converge on a focal midrange theory that can be utilised in research (as shown in Figure 2).

Figure 2. Interfaces for theorizing

Second, we propose ways to break down barriers to cross-disciplinary research. Senior management should recognize that research teams do not necessarily have to consist of cross-disciplinary researchers. Instead, teams should be composed of experts from their own disciplines who possess enough familiarity with the research problem and a basic understanding of each other’s fields to enable effective communication. A team of mono-disciplinary experts with a strong mix of skills and effective communication abilities is more advantageous than a team of cross-disciplinary researchers who lack sufficient experience or expertise.

Senior management should also recognise that research is typically mono-disciplinary. For instance, a cross-disciplinary grant application might struggle because the reviewers are often mono-disciplinary experts who may not grasp the cross-disciplinary elements or recognize the value of collaborative research. Therefore, senior management should encourage their researchers to take on riskier, but potentially rewarding, collaborations with peers from vastly different disciplines.

Senior management’s efforts to support and reward cross-disciplinary research can sometimes be misguided, as cross-disciplinary work should not be pursued as an end in itself. Imposing a vaguely defined cross-disciplinary agenda on researchers can lead to wasted efforts or, at best, projects that are difficult to fund or publish. A more effective approach would be for senior management to encourage researchers to start with the research problem, determine which problem class it falls into, and assess whether the problem is significant or complex enough to justify cross-disciplinary work, especially when questions arise that require expertise from multiple fields. Most importantly, and often overlooked, senior management should avoid the temptation to reward cross-disciplinary research solely for its own sake. It is far more advantageous to create an environment where researchers excel in their own disciplines while being rewarded for occasionally taking on larger cross-disciplinary challenges.

Third, the following practical guidelines can help break down barriers and create an environment that encourages cross-disciplinary research. For instance, researchers should be encouraged to present their work outside their own discipline, as this can enhance visibility, generate fresh insights, and open up opportunities for future collaboration. Senior management could promote participation in initiatives that address major societal challenges and incentivise researchers to engage with practitioners and the broader community. They should also prompt researchers to consider how their theoretical knowledge could be applied to real-world problems faced by policymakers, practitioners, and consumers.

Senior management could encourage research groups to formulate clear and well-defined research questions that accurately identify the specific problem class and knowledge gap. This approach will help determine whether expertise from multiple scientific disciplines is necessary. Refining a knowledge gap into a focused research problem can attract potential collaborators and offer context and direction for the collaborative research.

When two or more scientific disciplines are involved, it may be unclear who should provide guidance. Senior management could form a leadership team that can bring in additional members to offer expertise as needed.

Source link

March 4, 2025
The Impact of AI on Student Placement Applications
On today’s HEPI blog, Adam Lindgreen, C. Anthony Di Benedetto, Roderick J. Brodie, and Michel van der Borgh explore how researchers can successfully navigate the challenges of cross-disciplinary research to address major societal issues. If you’ve ever wondered how experts from different fields can effectively collaborate despite differing terminologies, cultures, and incentives, this blog offers practical strategies and insights. You can read the blog here.

Below, Dave McCall and Zoë Allman discuss what AI means for those students seeking to undertake placements while they study.

***Sign up now for Wednesday’s lunchtime webinar on the school curriculum and how it can prepare students for higher education: register at this link.***
- Dave McCall is a Placement Tutor, De Montfort University (DMU), and Zoë Allman (@zoe_a) is Associate Dean (Academic) at DMU.
As higher education explores the impact of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), colleagues from De Montfort University examine the use of AI in student placement applications.

Generative AI is transforming student placements. Year-long industry placements offer professional growth and employability, bridging academic learning and practical experience. Supported by universities, students are encouraged to maximise learning opportunities in the workplace and reflect on their experiences.

We increasingly find students using AI in placement applications, mirroring its role in their academic journey and in preparation for graduate employment. We consider how AI is used (and embedded) to improve the chances of securing a placement through searches, applications, and interview preparation, while also recognising the challenges this presents.

Placement Searching

AI algorithms shape how students search for placements. Platforms like LinkedIn and Glassdoor recommend opportunities tailored to users’ profiles and preferences, streamlining the process. However, this personalisation may also limit exploration, narrowing exposure to diverse job types and industries. The National Association of Colleges and Employers highlights how reliance on AI-generated job recommendations might lead students to miss opportunities, whilst the USA-based National Association of Colleges and Employers highlights how students might miss diverse opportunities by relying exclusively on AI-generated job recommendations.

Not Forgetting ChatGPT

Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, have become popular with students when developing search strategies, alongside drafting emails, generating lists of companies in niche fields, or refining search terms for specific industries. While useful, such tools demand a certain level of digital literacy to optimise outputs effectively. Research indicates AI’s effectiveness is limited by the quality of user prompts, underscoring the need for universities to provide AI literacy training to help students optimise their interactions with these tools while addressing the potential digital literacy skills gap. Targeting this developmental training in placement searching and application is critical for ensuring positive experiences on placement and future graduate outcomes.

AI Applications

Having been used in searches, AI is increasingly used as students develop their placement applications. Students employ generative AI to draft and tailor CVs and cover letters, quickly generating professional documents. Tools like Resumé Worded enable students to format and optimise applications for use in Applicant Tracking Systems. While efficient, over-reliance on AI risks producing applications lacking originality; a reliance on AI raises concerns about authenticity and self-reflection. AI use can lead to generic applications, potentially reducing a student’s ability to articulate their individualised experiences, values, and what they bring to the placement role.

Universities can address this by supporting students to understand how to balance AI-assisted optimisation with authentic self-expression. Workshops encouraging reflective practices help students integrate personality in applications, with feedback reinforcing human input.

Preparing for Interview

AI’s role in interview preparation is multifaceted, simulating interviews through generating questions and offering feedback. A student preparing for an engineering placement might use ChatGPT to generate technical and behavioural questions, refining responses through iterative feedback. AI-powered simulations offer ‘real-time’ feedback, enhancing confidence.

Beyond verbal preparation, AI tools like HireVue analyse tone, facial expressions, and word choice. While these technologies offer valuable insights to employers regarding applicants, they also introduce potential ethical concerns, including the possibility of bias in AI-driven evaluation. While providing valuable employer insights, these technologies raise ethical concerns, including AI-driven bias.

Levelling the Playing Field?

AI tools can help students practice and enhance their skills and experiences but also raise concerns regarding accessibility and equity. Access to advanced AI tools and the digital literacy required to use them effectively is not necessarily evenly distributed among students. This digital divide could exacerbate existing inequalities, particularly for students from underrepresented backgrounds. Universities play a vital role in educating students to understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools, enabling them to use these technologies effectively and ethically.

Working with Employer Partners

Collaboration with industry partners remains essential. Understanding AI’s influence on recruitment strategies allows universities to align student support with industry expectations, preparing students for contemporary hiring processes.

AI is undeniably reshaping the employability landscape. However, its integration challenges traditional career development approaches, raising equity, ethics, and authenticity concerns. Universities must adapt by equipping students with skills such as effective prompt engineering to navigate AI-driven processes. Recent reports highlight the need for universities to prepare students for AI-driven assessments, combining technical proficiency with critical thinking and ethical awareness. Aligning employability programs with these insights enables students to harness AI’s full potential while maintaining human-centred career development.

As AI transforms placement applications, universities play a pivotal role in preparing students for this reality. By promoting AI literacy and reflective practices and addressing equity and ethics, universities can empower students to approach placement applications with confidence and integrity. AI should serve as an enhancement tool rather than a barrier. Supporting students in understanding and appropriately using AI tools best prepares them for achieving professional aspirations.
Source link
March 4, 2025
Live Workshop on Promoting Your Book Online for Academics
You’re invited, academic authors

Jennifer van Alstyne and Dr. Sheena Howard designed this live interactive virtual event for professors and researchers like you. Especially if you’ve ever felt like, “I don’t need to do this for me, but I should do this for my book” when it comes to your online presence. Or, if you worry about self-promotion but know your writing / research can help more people if you’re open to sharing it.

Join Dr. Sheena C. Howard and Jennifer van Alstyne for a 90-minute virtual event to help academics and researchers amplify your work, attract media opportunities, and share your book in meaningful ways.

We hope you can join us on April 12, 2025 for Promoting Your Book Online for Academics. You’re invited! 💌

What: 1.5 hour interactive workshop
When: April 12, 2025 at 11:30am Pacific Time / 2:30pm Eastern Time
Where: Live on Zoom (there will be a replay)
With: Jennifer van Alstyne and Dr. Sheena Howard

A workshop for academics who have a book or research project you should be sharing with the world ✨

April 12, 2025 on Zoom at 11:30am Pacific Time / 2:30pm Eastern Time. Sign up.
About the workshop

Promoting Your Book Online for Academics is on April 12, 2025 at 2pm Eastern / 11:30am Pacific Time. It will be recorded for when you can’t make it live.

You should sign up if you’re open to

Sharing your book (or your research project)

Opportunities for your book to be featured in media (but aren’t sure where to start)

Helping more people with the writing / research you already do

Aim to attract funding

Want to build partnerships or collaborations for your equity focused work

Promoting Your Book Online for Academics is a live event for academic authors. But it’s not just for your monograph or edited collection. If you’ve written a report. If you have created a resource. If your research outputs are something you want to share? This interactive workshop is for you.

At the end of this workshop you’ll know what’s effective use of your time for media and online presence.
What’s included?

Our live interactive workshop is on April 12, 2025 on Zoom (1.5 hours)

Replay of the event (video and audio only if you prefer to listen)

Worksheet to help you take action and Resources guide to keep

A private scheduling link for your follow up consultation with Jennifer
What inspired this event

Hi, I’m Jennifer van Alstyne (@HigherEdPR). I’ve been working 1-on-1 with professors on their online presence since 2018. When I look back on the transformations my clients have gone through, there’s often an emotional journey, not just the capacity-building work we do for your online presence. Most of my clients are authors. The professor writers I work with want their words to reach the right people, but felt unsure about how to go about that online.

Your book deserves to reach the people you wrote it for. When I ask professors who haven’t promoted their book, “do you hope more readers find this book?” The answer is often “Yes,” even if the book is older. Even when the book didn’t sell as well as you may have hoped. Even when your book is out of print there are things you can do to have agency in sharing it online.

In 2021, Dr. Sheena Howard and I teamed up for an intimate live event that helped academics around the world. We’ve been wanting to do another one since. But we wanted something that was really going to help you. For years, authors have opened up to each of us about what stopped them from sharing their book for years. When we were brainstorming who we want to help most with this Promoting Your Book Online for Academics event, these are some of the stories that came up:

I thought I’d have more support in marketing my book from the press…but it seems to be mostly on me.

My publisher asked me to build up my social media presence for my new book…I’m not really a social media person.

My books in the past didn’t do well…I’m worried my new book won’t do well either.

I shared my book once. But I haven’t share it again since on socials.

I am unsure if it is too early (or too late) to promote my book.

If I want to promote my book, when should I be reaching out to media? Before the book launches? After the book launches? I don’t know where to start.

I don’t think anyone will care about my book.

I want to go on podcasts to talk about my book, but I haven’t done anything toward that, no.

Do any of those feel like you? I hope you’ll join us.

Your book deserves to be out there. You have agency in telling your book’s story. Here’s what’s on the Agenda for this workshop:

Goal-setting for your digital success as an academic for where to focusing your time and energy

Sharing your book or research project in meaningful ways on social media (in ways that don’t feel icky)

Using media to boost research impact and funding (and how being in the media can help you build relationships)

Media opportunities for your book and research even if you’re just starting to explore this path (digital, print, TV, YouTube, podcasts)

Live profile and online presence reviews

Q&A

Sign up for Promoting Your Book Online for Academics.

Dr. Sheena C. Howard (@drsheenahoward), a Professor of Communication. She helps professors get media coverage and visibility through Power Your Research (without the expense of a publicist). She’s been featured in ABC, PBS, BBC, NPR, NBC, The LA Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and more for her research on representation, identity, and social justice. Her book, Black Comics: Politics of Race and Representation won an Eisner Award. The Encyclopedia of Black Comics, which profiles over 100 Black people in the comics industry. Her book, Why Wakanda Matters, was a clue on Jeopardy.

She’s a writer without limits. I’ve recommended Sheena to some of my clients because she’s someone who helps people move past the limits we sometimes set for ourselves as writers. The worries or beliefs that sometimes hold us back. She’s worked closely with writers and creatives to build their capacity, to have agency in your media presence so you can make an impact when it matters. You want visibility that makes a difference for you. That invites readers. That can attract opportunities when they’re aligned with with what you want for yourself and the world.

This event is for you even when you want to do it yourself for your online presence. You won’t have to work with us after the workshop ends. This live event is about implementable strategies, and finding focus for what makes sense for sharing your book or research project.
FAQs for Promoting Your Book Online for Academics

Frequently asked questions you may be wondering about.

Where is the workshop?

This is a live virtual interactive event on Zoom on April 12, 2025 at 11:30am Pacific Time / 2:30pm Eastern Time.

What if I can’t make it live?

At our last event, some people knew they wouldn’t be able to attend live when they signed up. A couple people also couldn’t make it live unexpectedly. If you’re unable to join us live on April 12, 2025, you’ll have everything you need.

Jennifer will email you the event replay when it’s finished processing. You’ll get a copy of the take home worksheet to help you take action and the resources guide. That email will also have your private scheduling link for a follow up meeting with Jennifer if you’d find space to chat about your online presence supportive.

How much is the workshop?

This event is $300 USD.

You can sign up on Dr. Sheena Howard’s Calendly to pay with PayPal.

Or, email Jennifer for a custom invoice at [email protected]

Outside of the United States? We had people register from around the world last time. If you run into an issue checking out, Jennifer is happy to create an invoice for you through Wise. Email [email protected]

This event is non-refundable. If something comes up and you’re unable to join us live on April 12, 2025, you’ll have everything you need.

Jennifer will email you the event replay when it’s finished processing. You’ll get a copy of the take home worksheet to help you take action and the resources guide. That email will also have your private scheduling link for a follow up meeting with Jennifer if you’d find space to chat about your online presence supportive.

Can I use professional development funds or research funds to pay for this event?

Yes. If a custom invoice would be helpful for you, please reach out to [email protected]

I’m interested in working with Jennifer and Sheena privately. Is this event still for me?

Jennifer and Sheena team up for online presence VIP Days. And some of our clients have worked with us separately depending on your goals.

While I’m happy to see how we can work together, this is not a sales event. At our last event, people found having a bit of private space after the event was helpful. So we wanted to be sure you get that private follow up consultation too. If you’re interested in working with us, please do sign up for that Zoom call. We can save time to chat about what may be helpful for you.

This workshop isn’t in my budget…I still want a stronger online presence for my book / research.

Yay, I’m glad you found this page because I want that for you. You deserve a stronger online presence if that’s something you want for yourself. Best wishes for your online presence, you’ve got this! There are free resources here on The Social Academic blog to help you have a stronger online presence for your book and your research. You can search by category to find what’s helpful for you. You might start resources related to Authors and Books.

I don’t think this event is right for me, can I share it with a friend?

Yes! I’d love that. If this event isn’t right for you, but you think it may be helpful for your friend or colleague, please share it with them. We appreciate you!

Questions about this event? Please don’t hesitate to reach out. I’m happy to answer your question, hesitation, or concern.

Email me at [email protected].
Or, send me a message on LinkedIn.
Source link
March 4, 2025
Senate vote finalizes Linda McMahon as education secretary

Linda McMahon was narrowly confirmed along party lines as President Trump’s secretary of education in a 51-to-45 Senate vote late Monday afternoon and sworn in shortly after at the Department of Education building.

All eyes are now on the White House as educators, policy experts and advocates anxiously wait to see if Trump will sign a controversial but highly anticipated executive order to abolish the very department McMahon has been confirmed to lead.

The president and his allies have promoted the idea of dismantling the 45-year-old agency since the early days of his campaign for a second term, saying the department has grown too big and interferes in matters best left to local and state authorities.

But the idea isn’t entirely new, nor would it be easy to implement. It would require legislative support, as the department’s existence is written into statute. Shuttering it would require a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

“We can expect there to be a bit of a panic when the order comes out,” Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Inside Higher Ed.

It remains unclear to observers what mechanisms the Trump administration would use to close the department, however.

“This will all depend on what dismantling the department truly means,” Guillory said. “I believe that the executive order would be somewhat broad, like we’ve seen [in the case of the diversity, equity and inclusion orders], and it will give the department the opportunity to refine the details.”

Still, Trump has continued to promote the concept, and red states across the country have backed it. Chatter about the executive order began circling just days after he took office in January, and the plans were confirmed by multiple news sources in early February, though specifics were still unclear.

Since the plans were leaked, Trump himself has publicly confirmed his intention to dismantle the department, although he did not disclose specific details on how he would do so.

Guillory believes that much like when Republicans have tried to get rid of the department in the past, they will lack the congressional votes needed to officially do so. But Trump could keep the skeleton of the department and move its core functions elsewhere, he said.

“Our thinking, because we’ve seen this before, is that likely a lot of the functionality of the department would get placed at other agencies, but we would be curious as to what functions would be terminated entirely,” he said. “That would cause the most concern for our members … Will those things simply be moved to another agency, or will some of those things not?”

There are certain functions that are protected by the Higher Education Act of 1965, Guillory said. “The department legally would not necessarily be able to just terminate student aid programs, for example.” But he still worries the transition of oversight from one department to another may not be seamless.

Shortly before the vote began on Monday, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, made the Democrats’ stance on McMahon’s nomination clear.

“Before colleagues vote on Linda McMahon’s nomination for secretary of education, they should remember a vote for Mrs. McMahon is a vote for draconian cuts to education … That’s why I am so proud that every Democrat will vote no,” he said.

Other democratic lawmakers warned during floor comments on Thursday that McMahon’s confirmation, and the major department-level changes she’s backed, could risk the future of the department.

Senator Gary Peters of Michigan said the country needs a secretary of education “who values and respects public education.”

“Instead of working to protect funding,” he said, “she’s blatantly supported efforts to dismantle our education system.”

For more background on what senators have said about McMahon, check out Inside Higher Ed’s live blog from her confirmation hearing, or read the five key takeaways.

Senator Alex Padilla of California noted the cuts that have already been made to more than 100 departmental research contracts and countless nonpartisan career staff members.

“They’re making it clear that this is just the beginning,” he said. “We could talk about Linda McMahon’s qualifications, or frankly lack thereof, but I’m not shocked, because President Trump isn’t looking for someone with the background or commitment to public education in America. He’s looking for someone to destroy it.”

Although no Republicans commented Thursday, they voted unanimously to confirm McMahon in Monday’s vote (Republican senators Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming were not present for the vote. Two Democrats were also absent). The majority leader, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, spoke in support of McMahon before the final confirmation.

“Mrs. McMahon is an accomplished businesswoman and public servant,” he said. “I’m glad that Mrs. McMahon plans to work in a way that empowers those closest to the student, because they are in the best position to do what’s right for that student … I look forward to working with Mrs. McMahon to limit bureaucracy, empower state governments and let good teachers do what they’re best at.”

Top Agenda Items

Guillory expects McMahon to pick up accreditation policies as one of the first issues up for discussion.

He also is expecting the new secretary to prioritize rethinking and potentially amending the financial value transparency and gainful-employment rule, a policy initiated by the Biden administration to better hold higher ed institutions accountable for students’ outcomes. A lawsuit was filed against the regulation in 2023, but federal judgment has been put on pause to allow the new administration’s Education Department to determine its position on the policy.

It still remains unclear whether Trump will try to protect the gainful-employment rule or repeal it and drop the case, but Guillory has been encouraged by the line of communication between the department and higher ed leaders on the topic.

“They’ve been really good about listening to and hearing from our members directly on some of the issues that they’ve experienced while they were reporting [financial transparency data] and they are really trying to get feedback on how can we make this better,” he said.

Other topics of focus for McMahon will likely include expanded details on Trump’s enforcement of Title IX; his diversity, equity and inclusion orders; and the freeze of applications to income-driven repayment plans for student loans, Guillory said.

Source link

March 4, 2025
The four contemporary mindsets of leadership
Following the launch of Advance HE’s Framework for Leading in Higher Education, Romy Lawson, Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor at Flinders University in Australia, shares thoughts on contemporary leadership

When I reflect on my career, and particularly my leadership development, I must admit it was rather adhoc and self-motivated instead of being part of a planned and structured program.

As I believe is probably the case for many others, I learnt as a follower. I learnt on the job through doing. I learnt through assimilating and accommodating. I learnt by being challenged. I learnt from mentors, and occasionally I learnt through being trained.

These are all very valuable ways to learn but I question if I had had a framework to use as a reference point, could I have planned my development in a more productive fashion? Self-assessing my competencies in different areas, seeking out opportunities to optimise strengths and work on areas of development, as a tool to help showcase my ability and as a way to support career choices.

Framework for leadership

I think having a framework is even more important in this day and age where many top-down leadership models of leader-follower are being left behind for a leader-leader model. A model where decision-making authority is delegated down to where the information originated (control), where focus is given on increasing competence and knowledge so teams can make good decisions (competence), and ensuring staff are clear on the organisation’s goals to align their decisions (clarity).

This shift in leadership was, in part, derived from the black swan event of the Covid-19 pandemic that made us appreciate that there are times when there just is not a blueprint. During times like this, leaders must adapt, transition, transform, shift and adjust.

The experience of leading in a university during a pandemic made me question whether the role of a leader has changed permanently. I adopted four contemporary leadership mindsets that I believe are essential for the modern-day leader.
1. Power of doubt
During Covid, the one certainty was uncertainty. This meant the ability to predict what was going to happen and, subsequently, knowing how and what to plan became very challenging. During this time leaders still had to make decisions, often with limited information, and under immense time pressures. In hindsight, some of these decisions were not always the right decisions, or only had value for a short time span.

The power of doubt is when leaders are willing to constantly question themselves, to doubt their decisions, and have the humility to see when decisions are wrong or only appropriate for a moment in time. Modern leaders need to be open to reversing or changing their decisions. Adopting this approach allows leaders to be more agile as well as more relatable.

2. Incomplete leader (complete team)

The second important leadership shift is the move from leader as master to that of the incomplete leader (complete team). Leaders need to acknowledge that in some areas they will always have more to learn, or they have areas of weakness. Leaders need to have the self-awareness to understand that they are always incomplete.

The way to achieve completeness is through building a complete team; a group that augments the leader’s skills and compensates for their limitations. One of the most important roles of the leader is to purposefully select and assemble a team of people representing a wide range of skills and abilities suitable for the current climate. Leaders then need to be a part of this team, rather than an external leader, for it to function most effectively.

3. Engagement

Leaders need to recognise the value of their people in a direct and intentional way. It is time for leaders to open the doors to connect, engage, listen and understand where people are coming from; their intentions.

Leaders need to adopt meaningful dialogue rather than broadcasting; to strive to understand before being understood; and when they think they understand, to listen twice as hard. This is true engagement.

4. Empowering

Empowering people is the last leadership approach that is fundamental.

Staff often experience frustrations in their work environments that make their job hard or annoying. These may be simply the equivalent of “pebbles in their shoes”, where it is possible for an individual to fix the problem and remove the pebble themselves. However, frequently staff do not take this initiative, because they need to feel they have the power to stop and improve something themselves or the tools to support them in solving the issue. Often in these situations what is most important to the staff member is for the pebble to be acknowledged by others before they are ready to sort it out themselves.

Challenging people to find their pebbles empowers them and providing tools helps the pebbles to be recognised and the solution celebrated.

Repositioning leadership

The Framework for Leading in Higher Education helps us to reposition leadership to this more contemporary perspective. It builds from the concept of knowing, being, doing, which is an Aboriginal model of leadership. This model sees leaders gaining an understanding that they translate into application and in time these actions become behaviour, then values and mindsets.

The Framework for Leading in Higher Education provides guidance for leaders at any level to enhance their ‘being’ as a leader.

Learn more about Advance HE’s Framework for Leading in Higher Education and download the resource for free now.

Advance HE also offers leadership development designed for staff working in higher education. Explore the opportunities.

Romy Lawson is the Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor at Flinders University. She has been actively involved in higher education in both the UK and Australia. She is a member of Advance HE’s Steering Group for the Framework for Leading in Higher Education and sits on Advance HE’s Leadership & Management Advisory Board. She is also Chair of Universities Australia DVCA Executive and Co-Chair of UA Women.

Do you have an idea for a story?
Email [email protected]
Source link
March 3, 2025