One of the challenges for students entering the workforce is identifying how their experiences in and outside the classroom have prepared them for careers. A 2023 survey by Cengage found that one-third of recent graduates felt underqualified for entry-level roles, and only 41 percent believed their program taught them the skills needed for their first job.
Focused career development opportunities that address unique learner populations, such as working or neurodiverse students, can help bridge the gap between lived experiences and their application to the world of jobs.
Inside Higher Ed compiled various initiatives that increase career readiness for specific student populations.
Neurodiverse Learners
Beacon College in Leesburg, Fla., primarily serves students with learning disabilities, including ADHD and dyslexia. Last year the college established a career fair designed for these learners, which introduces them to employers looking to develop a neurodiverse talent workforce.
Survey Says
Just under half of college students believe their college or university should focus more on helping students find internships and job possibilities, according to a May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab.
This spring’s event, Internship Careers and Neurodiversity (ICAN), featured two dozen national and local employers. Success coaches were on site to support students and employers as they engaged with one another, and students could visit the Zen Den if they needed a quiet and private space to process.
ICAN “is designed to remove barriers and reduce anxiety often associated with large-scale ‘convention center’ type events, so Beacon College can empower neurodivergent college students and help increase their participation in networking events elsewhere,” according to an April press release.
Student Athletes
Student athletes have packed schedules while they’re in season, making it difficult to balance athletics, coursework and extracurricular activities, which can sometimes push career development opportunities to the background.
To help student athletes build their confidence in professional settings, Kennesaw State University created a “networking scrimmage” with employers so learners could practice introducing themselves, relay their academic and athletic accomplishments, and discuss career interests in a low-stakes environment, according to a university press release.
Students also heard from three former student athletes who shared their stories of transitioning from sports into the workforce, as well as advice on how to navigate postcollege life.
Adult Learners
In 2023, the University of Phoenix created a digital tool that allows working adult learners to identify skills and goals that will guide them on their career journey.
Students can access Career Navigator through the student portal. The tool allows them to build out demonstrated and self-attested skills and explore job features, including daily tasks and salary range, as well as identify skill gaps they may have when pursuing their desired career.
Student Veterans
After leaving military service, many veterans enroll in college to build career skills and gain further education, but connecting their military experience to civilian life can be a challenge.
The University of Colorado, Denver, provides a one-year cohort program for student veterans, Boots to Suits, to aid their journey, providing personalized academic and career-development resources. Program participants receive job search strategies and career coaching, as well as advice on networking and building their LinkedIn profile and résumé.
Major Programs
While general career fairs and networking opportunities can give students visibility into employers or roles they may not otherwise have considered, tailored events can connect students of a particular discipline to employers looking for their expertise.
Staff at Villanova University identified a problem at their career fairs: The number of employers looking for early-career civil engineers far overshadowed the number of students interested in such jobs. In response, staff created a new event specifically for civil engineering students, allowing employers to connect with potential interns earlier in their college career while also ensuring that students who were interested in other fields were able to engage with organizations that better fit their career goals.
The University of Maryland hosts a Visual Arts Reverse Career and Internship Fair, a flipped model of the career fair in which employers visit a student’s table or booth to engage with their portfolio of work. This allows students to display graphic design, video production and immersive media skills in an engaging way that better reflects their learning and accomplishments.
Do you have a career-focused intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
As Pennsylvania State University’s Board of Trustees prepares to decide the fate of seven of its 19 Commonwealth Campuses where enrollment has collapsed over a decade, faculty, lawmakers and some board members are questioning the university’s commitment to the state and say administrators haven’t been transparent about their decision-making process.
University administrators say the enrollment numbers alone don’t support keeping open the seven campuses slated to close. Several of those campuses have seen enrollment fall by more than 40 percent since fall 2014.
Penn State’s Board of Trustees met last week in a private executive session but did not vote on the plan. They’re expected to do so Thursday.
President Neeli Bendapudi has made the case for the closures, arguing such actions are necessary, as the university can no longer sustain all of its branch campuses financially amid severe enrollment declines. She proposed closing the Dubois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre and York campuses. Those campuses enroll almost 3,200 students altogether, the largest of which is Penn State York with 703 students last fall. The smallest is Shenango, which enrolled 309 students in fall 2024.
Now, as the proposal nears the finish line, its fate is up the air and Bendapudi is facing concerns about the process of reaching the seven names.
A ‘Difficult But Necessary’ Plan
University leadership began drawing up those plans in February after a difficult year for higher education across the Keystone State. Four universities in the state shut down (or ended degree programs, as in the case of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts) in 2024. The closures were mostly brought on by enrollment challenges, though some were dogged by concerns about fiscal mismanagement.
University administrators spent the last several months reviewing 12 campuses for possible closure before the list of seven leaked to media outlets last week.
Officials in a 143-page document cast the plan as “difficult but necessary decisions to ensure its long-term sustainability, allowing for continued investment in student success and dynamic learning environments for years to come” amid plunging enrollment and broad demographic challenges.
Officials argued that the seven campuses identified for closure “face overlapping challenges, including enrollment and financial decline, low housing occupancy, and significant maintenance backlog.” They added that “projected low enrollments pose challenges for creating the kind of robust on-campus student experience that is consistent with the Penn State brand” and would require significant investments, including $200 million for facilities alone.
“I believe the recommendation balances our need to adapt to the changing needs of Pennsylvania with compassion for those these decisions affect, both within Penn State and across the commonwealth,” Bendapudi said in a statement when the plan was released.
She added that there is a two-year timeline for closing campuses, so they wouldn’t shut down until the end of the spring 2027 semester.
Now the plan heads to the 36-member Board of Trustees. However, some trustees have openly expressed their opposition to the proposal.
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Paterno criticized the proposal as rushed.
“We’ve been presented with two options. One is the status quo, which everybody knows is not viable and is kind of a straw man. The other option is to close all seven campuses,” he said.
Given that the costs of operating those campuses comprise “less than half of 1 percent of our budget,” Paterno said the board should take more time to explore solutions. He argues that the university has not tried to leverage fundraising to support struggling Commonwealth Campuses and that the administration should slow the process down and reach out to potential donors.
“We’d rather be a year late than a day early,” Paterno said.
He also noted the decision to close campuses is not Penn State’s alone. The university is state-affiliated but not state-owned, which gives it a greater degree of autonomy than fully public institutions. But since the university receives some public funds, it must submit plans to close campuses to the Pennsylvania secretary of education, who must then approve the proposal.
‘A Betrayal’
Faculty have concerns about job losses, what will become of rural student populations and an alleged lack of transparency in the closure process.
One faculty member at Penn State Wilkes-Barre, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retribution, noted, “While most faculty saw this coming, it was heartbreaking to see it in writing.”
They questioned Penn State’s support for its Commonwealth Campuses, arguing that “the decision to decrease funding” to those locations that serve in-state students sends a strong message about where Penn State places its priorities” while it invests heavily in its main campus. They also pointed to renovations at Beaver Stadium projected to cost $700 million.
(That project is believed to be the most expensive renovation in the history of college athletics.)
“The lack of shared governance, transparency, and respect for contributions of faculty to Penn State University makes it easy to see why unionization efforts among faculty are needed,” they wrote, highlighting ongoing efforts by the Penn State Faculty Alliance and SEIU 668 to unionize.
Some state politicians have also panned the plan.
State Senator Michele Brooks, a Republican who represents a district that includes the Shenango campus, told Inside Higher Ed in an emailed statement that she recently met with trustees, who conveyed to her and others “that they feel this has been a deeply flawed process.”
She urged Penn State’s administration and governing board to re-evaluate the decision and to work “with communities on innovative ways to reinvest in these campuses and help them grow.”
Republican state representative Charity Grimm Krupa, who serves a district that includes the Fayette campus slated for closure, accused Penn State of betraying its mission in a fiery statement.
“Shutting down the Fayette campus isn’t about financial responsibility; it’s about walking away from the very students Penn State was created to serve,” Grimm Krupa said last week. “It’s a betrayal of the university’s land-grant mission and a slap in the face of rural communities. Abandoning this campus sends a clear message: if you’re not from a wealthy or urban area, Penn State doesn’t see you as worth the investment. That’s disgraceful, and I urge every trustee to vote no against these closures.”
In recent years and months, the UK has seen considerable debate over immigration policy, with proposed changes that could make studying here less attractive for prospective students.
The report’s findings present a striking varied picture. On one hand, it reaffirms the UK’s position as a leading global study destination, with one in seven respondents stating the UK’s high-quality education and globally recognised universities were their main motivations for studying here. For three in four students, the UK was their first-choice destination. Students are also attracted by the shorter course lengths, multicultural environments and post-study work opportunities offered through the Graduate Route.
Alongside this positive narrative, the report reveals a deeply challenging reality for many students once they arrive. Half of the international students we surveyed reported struggling with poor mental health during their time here, a statistic that will resonate with academic and professional services staff who see students day in, day out.
Living costs are also having a direct impact on student wellbeing, with monthly expenses (excluding tuition fees) averaging £1,402 and rising to £1,635 for students in London. For many, studying in the UK means short- and medium-term financial hardship and consignment to long-term debt. Over 30 per cent of postgraduate taught students rely on bank loans or credit cards. One in five worries about money all the time. Those most affected by financial stress are also more likely to report poor mental health.
Despite these pressures, current visa rules prevent international students from pursuing freelance work or self-employment, even in areas where their skills are in high demand. These restrictions are not only impractical but risk undermining both the student experience and the UK’s wider economic priorities.
Barriers to belonging
Just as concerning are the social barriers many students face. One in three international students reported they had experienced racism while in the UK. While 94% reported feeling safe and welcome on campus, that sense of belonging often didn’t extend to the wider community, with only 73% stating they feel safe and welcome in the UK more generally. These experiences can leave lasting impacts and send the wrong message to future students weighing up their study options against other international destinations.
Ultimately, these findings highlight a simple reality: the UK remains a top choice, but we cannot take that status for granted. Negative public rhetoric, which sometimes labels international students as a ‘problem’, ignores evidence that they contribute billions to our economy, volunteer in our local communities and improve our universities’ teaching and contribute to our world-leading research. International students are our peers, colleagues and future leaders. Therefore, it’s important we balance any concerns about immigration with the fact that international students are part of our future.
A roadmap for reform
This report centres students’ experience of studying here and sets out a roadmap for meaningful change. At a national level, we are calling on the Government to:
Freeze visa application fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge;
Allow greater flexibility in term-time work and permit self-employment and freelance work during study; and
Conduct a cross-departmental impact assessment on how immigration policies and public messaging affect the international student experience.
These policies are essential if we want to keep the UK globally competitive.
Shared responsibility across the sector
But change cannot come from Westminster alone. Universities and higher education sector bodies must also act. We’re asking universities to consider:
Fixing international students’ tuition fees at the point of entry;
Providing equitable access to hardship funds with clear eligibility criteria;
Delivering culturally competent mental health support that truly meets students’ needs;
Call on employers and careers services to better understand the Graduate Route and provide more tailored advice and job opportunities for international students; and
Adopt UKCISA’s #WeAreInternational Student Charter as a framework to improve the international student experience.
Working together for a welcoming UK
Our report is a call to action. We invite government ministers, MPs and Peers, and university leaders to work with their students’ unions to engage with the report’s findings and work collaboratively on solutions. The APPG for International Students and UKCISA have helped amplify the student voice; now we ask on all stakeholders to join the conversation and implement evidence-based policies.
Widening access to higher education has experienced a precipitous fall from grace in the eyes of politicians over the last ten years – a fall that may have slowed slightly but as yet to stop under this government.
This fall may have coincided with the shift away from place-based to institutional-focused approaches to the problem. The access and participation plan regime may have stopped widening participation slipping out of sight completely but as our latest report shows, they have done little to increase higher education participation for those from the poorest backgrounds, particularly in rural and coastal areas.
Split geographies
The report – Coast and country: access to higher education cold spots in England – looks at the data published annually by the Department of Education on participation in higher education by free school meal (FSM) backgrounds. There are things we know about what this data shows as outlined in previous reports I have written and more recent work such as that from the Sutton Trust – in particular that London does far better than everywhere else.
In this report, though, we show exactly how much. The national higher education participation rate in 2022–23 for those from FSM backgrounds was 29 per cent. If you take out London, which has only 16 per cent of the population of England, it falls to 23 per cent. London is covering up a much more challenging situation in the rest of the country than we are prepared to admit.
These challenges increase as areas get smaller. The report looks at the relationship between the size of an area and the FSM higher education participation rate. It drops steadily as population decreases from 43 per cent in big cities to 18 per cent in rural villages. Nor is the situation improving. The gap between London and the other 84 per cent of the population has increased 3 per cent from 2012–23 to 2022–23 and just under 3 per cent between predominantly urban areas and predominantly rural areas over the same period.
Many coastal areas in England – especially seaside resorts – have well documented problems with poverty, unemployment and health inequalities and higher education participation can be added to that list. The higher education participation rate for those from FSM backgrounds coastal communities was 11 per cent lower than in inland areas in 2022–23 with in many areas less than one in five such young people going onto higher education. There is an overlap here between rural and coastal areas here with the South West especially including areas of lower higher education participation.
It is often said that the differences in higher education participation described above are associated with attainment in schools. Increasing attainment was the priority where widening access work was concerned for the Office for Students for a number of years. In the report, we map GSCE attainment at the area level against FSM higher education participation – and the correlation is indeed strong.
It is far weaker, though, in villages and coastal areas than the rest of the country. This suggest that in the places where the problems are the greatest, better GCSE results alone won’t be enough. In 2022–23, six of the ten areas with the lowest levels of higher education participation did not have a university campus within them. What provision exists also matters.
We need new (old) stories
If any progress in closing the gaps between regions described above is to be made then place must again become the central focus for widening access to higher education work – as it was when the last Labour government championed the issue so vigorously in the 2000s.
The pendulum has swung too far since then toward what institutions themselves do. Consequently, that political link between widening access, opportunity and growth has been broken. It is possible that the government itself will swing the pendulum back to place, and some of the signs coming from the Office for Students in recent months have been promising.
However, higher education providers themselves can take the initiative themselves here and look for new ways to form stronger partnerships – ones that take whatever replaces Uni Connect as the start, not the endpoint, of what regional collaboration means.
While the sector’s financial challenges make competition for students more intensive than it has ever been – and thus collaboration in this area more difficult – the value of higher education itself is being questioned by young people more than it ever has been since participation increased rapidly in the 1990s. Fighting between each other for young people’s and their schools’ attention won’t convince those, especially from the poorest backgrounds, that higher education is worth it. But collaboration will.
Collaboration won’t produce additional provision in rural and coastal areas, or the money to fund it. But unless we shift the story and the practice of widening access back to place, this additional provision will never come.
In the summer of 2020, two issues dominated the headlines: the COVID pandemic and the widespread unrest surrounding George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, and the “racial reckoning.” It was in this environment, with the country also at or near the apex of “cancel culture,” that the University of Central Florida tried to fire associate professor of psychology Charles Negy for his tweets about race and society. Negy fought back and sued.
Five years later, his lawsuit continues — and last week, it brought good news not just for Professor Negy but for everyone who cares about free speech on campus.
Last week, Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that Negy’s lawsuit could proceed against four of the five administrators he sued. Importantly, the court denied claims of qualified immunity, a doctrine that says public officials aren’t liable for unconstitutional activity unless they knew or should have known their actions were unconstitutional. By denying qualified immunity to UCF’s administrators, Judge Mendoza formally recognized what was obvious from the very beginning: UCF knew or should have known that what it was doing violated the First Amendment, but they went ahead and did it anyway.
(As a note, Negy is represented by Samantha Harris, a former FIRE colleague, which is how I learned about his case a few years ago.)
Negy was fired for his speech, then re-instated by an arbitrator
In the summer of 2020, Negy posted a series of tweets (since deleted) commenting on race and society. (For example, on June 3, 2020, he tweeted: “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege.”)
After some students complained to the school about Negy’s tweets, UCF responded by soliciting further complaints about him. That led to the opening of an investigation into Negy’s classroom speech as well. Seven months later, what began as an investigation of tweets led to 300 interviews; whichled to a (get ready for this) 244-page report. As I wrote at the time, the report made absolute hash of academic freedom with what struck me as nonsensical lines drawn between speech it believed to be protected and unprotected:
According to the UCF investigation, it is protected speech to say that girl scouts preserve their virginity (p. 25), but not that women are attracted to men with money (p. 26). It is protected speech to say that Jesus was schizophrenic (p. 36), but unprotected to say that Jesus did not come into the world to die for everyone’s sins (p. 36). It’s protected to say that Islam is cruel and not a religion of peace (p. 107) but not that it is a toxic mythology (p. 35).
Based on the report, in January 2021, UCF administrators decided to fire Negy without providing a normally required six-month notice period — allegedly because he was a “safety risk.” (Caution: Dangerous Tweets!) Unsurprisingly, in May of 2022, an arbitrator ordered him re-instated, citing a lack of due process. And as I pointed out then:
UCF’s case against Negy was never likely to survive first-contact with a neutral decision-maker. When an investigation of tweets includes incidents from 2005 — the year before Twitter was founded — either the investigator is lying about their purpose or confused about the linear nature of time.
In 2023, Negy sued the institution and five individuals who had been involved in the UCF decision. Some of Negy’s claims were dismissed last year; the recent ruling was on motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
Why claims only went forward against four out of five defendants
Last week’s ruling involved two causes of action. The first is a First Amendment retaliation claim against five individual defendants. First Amendment retaliation is basically just what it sounds like: a government employee retaliating against an individual for his or her protected speech. In Negy’s case, his claim is that certain UCF employees didn’t like his tweets, and decided to fire him for those tweets — with everything in-between, including the investigation and report, motivated by the desire to punish him for using his First Amendment rights on the Internet.
The second cause of action is against one particular UCF employee — the employee who was in charge of writing the report — alleging a direct First Amendment violation. Again, that’s just what it sounds like: a government official censoring Negy’s protected expression. Negy argued UCF’s report claimed that several instances of Negy’s in-classroom speech amounted to discriminatory harassment, when his speech was actually protected by the First Amendment as an exercise of academic freedom. In other words, Negy claimed that the UCF employee violated his First Amendment rights by telling decision-makers that Negy’s speech wasn’t protected.
To understand the judge’s ruling, it’ll be helpful to be able to refer to the defendants by something more than pronouns. Let’s meet them!
The first three were joint decision-makers about what to do with the investigation results. They are:
Alexander Cartwright, the president of UCF.
FUN FACT: While this case was pending, Cartwright received a 20% pay raise, giving him a base salary of $900,000 and potential total compensation of $1.275 million.
QUOTE: As quoted in the opinion, Cartwright responded to demands that Negy be immediately fired with: “Sometimes we have to go through a process, as frustrating as … that process is to me.” When asked, Cartwright could not recall what was frustrating about the process.
Michael Johnson, UCF’s provost and executive vice president for academic affairs.
QUOTE: Johnson publicly condemned Negy’s tweets the day the investigation started. At a 2022 arbitration hearing, Johnson said Negy was “dangerous” and that “[w]e didn’t see any way to put him safely in a classroom situation again.” Johnson was apparently so unconvincing that the arbitrator re-instated Negy anyway.
Tosha Dupras, who was at the time the interim dean of UCF’s College of Sciences. Dupras issued the notice of termination.
FUN FACT: Since 2022, this native of Canada has been dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Texas Tech.
QUOTE: When responding to an email calling for Negy’s removal from the classroom long before the investigation was complete, Dupras said: “I agree with the thoughts you have expressed in [y]our email.”
Two others had different roles, but were not directly the decision-makers:
Nancy Fitzpatrick Myers, then the director of UCF’s Office of Institutional Equity. Myers ran the investigation.
FUN FACT: Since 2024, attorney Myers has been director of Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct.
QUOTE: From the opinion: “Although Myers stated that OIE performed an independent credibility assessment for the witness statements, she noted that the results were not written down and that it ‘was something [she] was assessing as [she] went through the record.’”
S. Kent Butler, who at the time was UCF’s interim chief Equity, Inclusion and Diversity officer, and is now a professor of counselor education. Butler, Cartwright, and Johnson put out the initial statement soliciting complaints about Negy.
FUN FACT: Butler did crisis management work in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
QUOTE: Less than 24 hours after the start of the investigation, an incoming freshman asked Butler what would happen to Negy. Butler responded: “The wheels are in motion … [B]elieve that by the time you get on the campus as a freshman, it will have been dealt with.”
A brief summary of their roles in Negy’s firing, at least as described in the court’s opinion (I wasn’t there, after all):
Cartwright, Johnson, and Butler issued UCF’s initial statement about Negy, which invited people to submit complaints about him.
Myers wrote and submitted the 244-page report to Negy’s supervisor (not a party to this action), who then recommended Negy’s termination.
Cartwright, Johnson, and Dupras made the decision to terminate Negy.
The court granted Butler’s motion for summary judgment, deciding that Butler wasn’t at any point in the process a decision-maker. If Butler wasn’t part of the process to decide to terminate Negy, the court reasoned, then he wasn’t in a position to retaliate. I’m not sure I agree; I think putting out a press release inviting people to submit complaints could certainly create a chilling effect on speech, and therefore constitute an act of retaliation.
The court seems to view the termination as the only form of retaliation in question, but that isn’t how the complaint was written, which lists the statement as a form of retaliation. Sure, termination is worse, but I think that anything that would chill a person of reasonable fortitude from speaking out is potentially a form of retaliation. Having a government official multiple levels of supervision above you put out a call for complaints specifically about you would be a disincentive for most people, I’d think. But what do I know? “I’m just a caveman… your world frightens and confuses me.”
The court also granted Myers’ summary judgment motion on the second claim for direct censorship, ruling that the right to academic freedom over in-class speech has not been clearly established in the Eleventh Circuit. Negy had precedent from other circuits, but not this circuit, to show that in-classroom speech was entitled to some level of academic freedom. The court here is indeed bound by bad circuit precedent. The Supreme Court needs to fix this doctrine at some point.
Nevertheless, let’s move on…
The court rejects the qualified immunity defense for the retaliation claims
The remaining defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity, specifically arguing that Negy could not show he was terminated for his tweets. After all, in a vacuum, at no point did any of them say, “You, sir, have the wrong opinions on the Internet, and therefore you must fly from us. Begone!” Instead, there was a long investigation that found lots of things they didn’t like about what he said in the classroom. So their argument, in a nutshell, was that there’s no causality here. Where’s the smoking gun?
Negy’s response was that there was no observable “smoking gun” because the entire process was a smokescreen, and the decision to terminate him was effectively made by the time they announced the investigation. (Duh.) Because this was a motion for summary judgment made by the defendants, Negy only had to show the possibility that he could prove it at trial, and so he provided evidence that suggested the decision-makers had a preordained outcome in mind.
Scroll back and read the quotes in the mini-bios above. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine, given this and more evidence like it, that the investigation was a pretense.
There’s a second way the defendants could have gotten qualified immunity: by showing they’d have made the decision to fire Negy even if he hadn’t tweeted those statements, on the basis of the things reflected in the report. But the argument that they would’ve fired Negy for his classroom speech alone faced an awfully big hurdle: their 15 yearsof deciding not to do that. It wasn’t like Negy woke up one morning in 2020 after a lifetime of milquetoast platitudes and chose rhetorical violence.
From following this case, it seems to me that Negy’s entire career has been what I’d describe as punk rock pedagogy: he didn’t care if you loved it or hated it, as long as you remembered the show. There is an argument that the pursuit of truth is enhanced by that kind of teaching — a darned good one given how many of us have experienced it at one time or another. All of our interactions are balances between our honest opinions and what we can say within the bounds of society. There is only one human being I genuinely believe was so intrinsically good that his unfiltered views were socially acceptable to everyone, and Fred Rogers isn’t with us anymore. The rest of us are wearing masks at least some of the time, and letting those masks slip to study our real thoughts is something we might want to allow in a psychology classroom.
The court also noted that the purpose of qualified immunity was to avoid liability for unsophisticated decision-makers or decisions that had to be made on-the-spot, where the decision-maker wasn’t in a position to know what they did was unlawful. (The paradigmatic example is that of a police officer who has to make a split-second decision.) The court rejected that rationale: “Defendants had ample time to make reasoned, thoughtful decisions regarding how they wished to proceed with the investigation. Moreover, they had the benefit of making those decisions with counsel.” At some point, while writing their 244-page report, perhaps one of them might have considered the law? (FIRE has pushed this argument before.)
You stop that censorship right meow
The excessively logical among you might well be asking: If (diversity officer) Butler’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim was granted because he wasn’t a decision-maker, and (investigator) Myers also wasn’t a decision-maker, why wasn’t Myers able to get summary judgment on the retaliation claim, too?
It has to do with something called the “cat’s paw” theory. The name comes from the fable of the monkey and the cat. The short, not-very-artistic version is this: A clever monkey talks a cat into reaching into a fire and pulling chestnuts out of it, promising to share them. Instead, the monkey eats the chestnuts as they come out, and all the cat gets is a burned paw. (Is it just me, or are monkeys in fables always mischievous? Where’s the decent monkey in mythology? Just once, give me the monkey who shares the chestnuts and and even brings some milk. Just once, 17th century French authors, subvert my expectations.)
Under the cat’s paw theory, a state actor can be liable for retaliation if they make intentionally biased recommendations to the decision-maker (who then does not independently investigate) in order to reach the desired outcome. Was this a biased investigation? My feelings on the topic are summed up in a 2021 story:
The entire process of preparing this report was motivated by complaints about Negy’s tweets. Nobody interviews 300 people over seven months about incidents covering 15 years unless they’re desperate to find something, anything, to use against their target. UCF’s lack of sincerity in their investigation of Negy’s tweets — which, technically, was what they were investigating, based on the spurious allegation that Negy’s offensive tweets were required reading in his classes — is reflected in their decision to investigate allegations as far back as 2005, the year before Twitter was founded.
I’ll paws here to make clear that I don’t purr-sonally know either Negy or the Defendants. Still, based on the timeline, the purr-ported need for the investigation, and its fur-midible scope, I’m feline like Negy was purr-secuted. The meow-nifestly unfair termination, I feel, is inseparable from the hiss-tory behind the report’s creation. (Okay, I’ll stop. Sorry, I was just kitten around.)
Institutions need to avoid overreacting to outrage
For Negy and the defendants (which is not the name of a punk rock band, yet), the next step is to decide if they can work this out themselves or they need a trial to look deeper into whether UCF’s decision to fire him was effectively made when the investigation started. But there’s a larger principle here that other institutions need to learn before they learn it the embarrassing way UCF has.
Maybe, just maybe, people saying things that merely offend you isn’t that serious. Maybe having someone in your community of nearly 70,000 students and over 13,000 faculty and staff members who says things that simply offend people is not actually a sign of a dire crisis. Maybe the students who demand that level of ideological conformity are not the ones you should be trying to attract. Because maybe, if you cultivate a level of automatic groupthink that rejects the possibility of dissenting views, you will come to discover that, eventually, your administration has a dissenting view.
What if, instead of reacting to every declaration of witchcraft by tightening the buckles on your hats, you tried explaining that lots of things might be offensive, and if you don’t like Negy, you might have luck with one of the thousands of other professors? What if, instead of modeling the kind of purge your ideological opponents might adopt one day if, I don’t know, they were politically powerful at some point, you modeled the idea that we can cooperate across deeply-held but incompatible beliefs?
I don’t know much about politics, but… It would certainly be cheaper, wouldn’t it?
FIRE will continue to follow Negy’s case and keep you updated.
In the summer of 2020, two issues dominated the headlines: the COVID pandemic and the widespread unrest surrounding George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, and the “racial reckoning.” It was in this environment, with the country also at or near the apex of “cancel culture,” that the University of Central Florida tried to fire associate professor of psychology Charles Negy for his tweets about race and society. Negy fought back and sued.
Five years later, his lawsuit continues — and last week, it brought good news not just for Professor Negy but for everyone who cares about free speech on campus.
Last week, Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that Negy’s lawsuit could proceed against four of the five administrators he sued. Importantly, the court denied claims of qualified immunity, a doctrine that says public officials aren’t liable for unconstitutional activity unless they knew or should have known their actions were unconstitutional. By denying qualified immunity to UCF’s administrators, Judge Mendoza formally recognized what was obvious from the very beginning: UCF knew or should have known that what it was doing violated the First Amendment, but they went ahead and did it anyway.
(As a note, Negy is represented by Samantha Harris, a former FIRE colleague, which is how I learned about his case a few years ago.)
Negy was fired for his speech, then re-instated by an arbitrator
In the summer of 2020, Negy posted a series of tweets (since deleted) commenting on race and society. (For example, on June 3, 2020, he tweeted: “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege.”)
After some students complained to the school about Negy’s tweets, UCF responded by soliciting further complaints about him. That led to the opening of an investigation into Negy’s classroom speech as well. Seven months later, what began as an investigation of tweets led to 300 interviews; whichled to a (get ready for this) 244-page report. As I wrote at the time, the report made absolute hash of academic freedom with what struck me as nonsensical lines drawn between speech it believed to be protected and unprotected:
According to the UCF investigation, it is protected speech to say that girl scouts preserve their virginity (p. 25), but not that women are attracted to men with money (p. 26). It is protected speech to say that Jesus was schizophrenic (p. 36), but unprotected to say that Jesus did not come into the world to die for everyone’s sins (p. 36). It’s protected to say that Islam is cruel and not a religion of peace (p. 107) but not that it is a toxic mythology (p. 35).
Based on the report, in January 2021, UCF administrators decided to fire Negy without providing a normally required six-month notice period — allegedly because he was a “safety risk.” (Caution: Dangerous Tweets!) Unsurprisingly, in May of 2022, an arbitrator ordered him re-instated, citing a lack of due process. And as I pointed out then:
UCF’s case against Negy was never likely to survive first-contact with a neutral decision-maker. When an investigation of tweets includes incidents from 2005 — the year before Twitter was founded — either the investigator is lying about their purpose or confused about the linear nature of time.
In 2023, Negy sued the institution and five individuals who had been involved in the UCF decision. Some of Negy’s claims were dismissed last year; the recent ruling was on motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
Why claims only went forward against four out of five defendants
Last week’s ruling involved two causes of action. The first is a First Amendment retaliation claim against five individual defendants. First Amendment retaliation is basically just what it sounds like: a government employee retaliating against an individual for his or her protected speech. In Negy’s case, his claim is that certain UCF employees didn’t like his tweets, and decided to fire him for those tweets — with everything in-between, including the investigation and report, motivated by the desire to punish him for using his First Amendment rights on the Internet.
The second cause of action is against one particular UCF employee — the employee who was in charge of writing the report — alleging a direct First Amendment violation. Again, that’s just what it sounds like: a government official censoring Negy’s protected expression. Negy argued UCF’s report claimed that several instances of Negy’s in-classroom speech amounted to discriminatory harassment, when his speech was actually protected by the First Amendment as an exercise of academic freedom. In other words, Negy claimed that the UCF employee violated his First Amendment rights by telling decision-makers that Negy’s speech wasn’t protected.
To understand the judge’s ruling, it’ll be helpful to be able to refer to the defendants by something more than pronouns. Let’s meet them!
The first three were joint decision-makers about what to do with the investigation results. They are:
Alexander Cartwright, the president of UCF.
FUN FACT: While this case was pending, Cartwright received a 20% pay raise, giving him a base salary of $900,000 and potential total compensation of $1.275 million.
QUOTE: As quoted in the opinion, Cartwright responded to demands that Negy be immediately fired with: “Sometimes we have to go through a process, as frustrating as … that process is to me.” When asked, Cartwright could not recall what was frustrating about the process.
Michael Johnson, UCF’s provost and executive vice president for academic affairs.
QUOTE: Johnson publicly condemned Negy’s tweets the day the investigation started. At a 2022 arbitration hearing, Johnson said Negy was “dangerous” and that “[w]e didn’t see any way to put him safely in a classroom situation again.” Johnson was apparently so unconvincing that the arbitrator re-instated Negy anyway.
Tosha Dupras, who was at the time the interim dean of UCF’s College of Sciences. Dupras issued the notice of termination.
FUN FACT: Since 2022, this native of Canada has been dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Texas Tech.
QUOTE: When responding to an email calling for Negy’s removal from the classroom long before the investigation was complete, Dupras said: “I agree with the thoughts you have expressed in [y]our email.”
Two others had different roles, but were not directly the decision-makers:
Nancy Fitzpatrick Myers, then the director of UCF’s Office of Institutional Equity. Myers ran the investigation.
FUN FACT: Since 2024, attorney Myers has been director of Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct.
QUOTE: From the opinion: “Although Myers stated that OIE performed an independent credibility assessment for the witness statements, she noted that the results were not written down and that it ‘was something [she] was assessing as [she] went through the record.’”
S. Kent Butler, who at the time was UCF’s interim chief Equity, Inclusion and Diversity officer, and is now a professor of counselor education. Butler, Cartwright, and Johnson put out the initial statement soliciting complaints about Negy.
FUN FACT: Butler did crisis management work in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
QUOTE: Less than 24 hours after the start of the investigation, an incoming freshman asked Butler what would happen to Negy. Butler responded: “The wheels are in motion … [B]elieve that by the time you get on the campus as a freshman, it will have been dealt with.”
A brief summary of their roles in Negy’s firing, at least as described in the court’s opinion (I wasn’t there, after all):
Cartwright, Johnson, and Butler issued UCF’s initial statement about Negy, which invited people to submit complaints about him.
Myers wrote and submitted the 244-page report to Negy’s supervisor (not a party to this action), who then recommended Negy’s termination.
Cartwright, Johnson, and Dupras made the decision to terminate Negy.
The court granted Butler’s motion for summary judgment, deciding that Butler wasn’t at any point in the process a decision-maker. If Butler wasn’t part of the process to decide to terminate Negy, the court reasoned, then he wasn’t in a position to retaliate. I’m not sure I agree; I think putting out a press release inviting people to submit complaints could certainly create a chilling effect on speech, and therefore constitute an act of retaliation.
The court seems to view the termination as the only form of retaliation in question, but that isn’t how the complaint was written, which lists the statement as a form of retaliation. Sure, termination is worse, but I think that anything that would chill a person of reasonable fortitude from speaking out is potentially a form of retaliation. Having a government official multiple levels of supervision above you put out a call for complaints specifically about you would be a disincentive for most people, I’d think. But what do I know? “I’m just a caveman… your world frightens and confuses me.”
The court also granted Myers’ summary judgment motion on the second claim for direct censorship, ruling that the right to academic freedom over in-class speech has not been clearly established in the Eleventh Circuit. Negy had precedent from other circuits, but not this circuit, to show that in-classroom speech was entitled to some level of academic freedom. The court here is indeed bound by bad circuit precedent. The Supreme Court needs to fix this doctrine at some point.
Nevertheless, let’s move on…
The court rejects the qualified immunity defense for the retaliation claims
The remaining defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity, specifically arguing that Negy could not show he was terminated for his tweets. After all, in a vacuum, at no point did any of them say, “You, sir, have the wrong opinions on the Internet, and therefore you must fly from us. Begone!” Instead, there was a long investigation that found lots of things they didn’t like about what he said in the classroom. So their argument, in a nutshell, was that there’s no causality here. Where’s the smoking gun?
Negy’s response was that there was no observable “smoking gun” because the entire process was a smokescreen, and the decision to terminate him was effectively made by the time they announced the investigation. (Duh.) Because this was a motion for summary judgment made by the defendants, Negy only had to show the possibility that he could prove it at trial, and so he provided evidence that suggested the decision-makers had a preordained outcome in mind.
Scroll back and read the quotes in the mini-bios above. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine, given this and more evidence like it, that the investigation was a pretense.
There’s a second way the defendants could have gotten qualified immunity: by showing they’d have made the decision to fire Negy even if he hadn’t tweeted those statements, on the basis of the things reflected in the report. But the argument that they would’ve fired Negy for his classroom speech alone faced an awfully big hurdle: their 15 yearsof deciding not to do that. It wasn’t like Negy woke up one morning in 2020 after a lifetime of milquetoast platitudes and chose rhetorical violence.
From following this case, it seems to me that Negy’s entire career has been what I’d describe as punk rock pedagogy: he didn’t care if you loved it or hated it, as long as you remembered the show. There is an argument that the pursuit of truth is enhanced by that kind of teaching — a darned good one given how many of us have experienced it at one time or another. All of our interactions are balances between our honest opinions and what we can say within the bounds of society. There is only one human being I genuinely believe was so intrinsically good that his unfiltered views were socially acceptable to everyone, and Fred Rogers isn’t with us anymore. The rest of us are wearing masks at least some of the time, and letting those masks slip to study our real thoughts is something we might want to allow in a psychology classroom.
The court also noted that the purpose of qualified immunity was to avoid liability for unsophisticated decision-makers or decisions that had to be made on-the-spot, where the decision-maker wasn’t in a position to know what they did was unlawful. (The paradigmatic example is that of a police officer who has to make a split-second decision.) The court rejected that rationale: “Defendants had ample time to make reasoned, thoughtful decisions regarding how they wished to proceed with the investigation. Moreover, they had the benefit of making those decisions with counsel.” At some point, while writing their 244-page report, perhaps one of them might have considered the law? (FIRE has pushed this argument before.)
You stop that censorship right meow
The excessively logical among you might well be asking: If (diversity officer) Butler’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim was granted because he wasn’t a decision-maker, and (investigator) Myers also wasn’t a decision-maker, why wasn’t Myers able to get summary judgment on the retaliation claim, too?
It has to do with something called the “cat’s paw” theory. The name comes from the fable of the monkey and the cat. The short, not-very-artistic version is this: A clever monkey talks a cat into reaching into a fire and pulling chestnuts out of it, promising to share them. Instead, the monkey eats the chestnuts as they come out, and all the cat gets is a burned paw. (Is it just me, or are monkeys in fables always mischievous? Where’s the decent monkey in mythology? Just once, give me the monkey who shares the chestnuts and and even brings some milk. Just once, 17th century French authors, subvert my expectations.)
Under the cat’s paw theory, a state actor can be liable for retaliation if they make intentionally biased recommendations to the decision-maker (who then does not independently investigate) in order to reach the desired outcome. Was this a biased investigation? My feelings on the topic are summed up in a 2021 story:
The entire process of preparing this report was motivated by complaints about Negy’s tweets. Nobody interviews 300 people over seven months about incidents covering 15 years unless they’re desperate to find something, anything, to use against their target. UCF’s lack of sincerity in their investigation of Negy’s tweets — which, technically, was what they were investigating, based on the spurious allegation that Negy’s offensive tweets were required reading in his classes — is reflected in their decision to investigate allegations as far back as 2005, the year before Twitter was founded.
I’ll paws here to make clear that I don’t purr-sonally know either Negy or the Defendants. Still, based on the timeline, the purr-ported need for the investigation, and its fur-midible scope, I’m feline like Negy was purr-secuted. The meow-nifestly unfair termination, I feel, is inseparable from the hiss-tory behind the report’s creation. (Okay, I’ll stop. Sorry, I was just kitten around.)
Institutions need to avoid overreacting to outrage
For Negy and the defendants (which is not the name of a punk rock band, yet), the next step is to decide if they can work this out themselves or they need a trial to look deeper into whether UCF’s decision to fire him was effectively made when the investigation started. But there’s a larger principle here that other institutions need to learn before they learn it the embarrassing way UCF has.
Maybe, just maybe, people saying things that merely offend you isn’t that serious. Maybe having someone in your community of nearly 70,000 students and over 13,000 faculty and staff members who says things that simply offend people is not actually a sign of a dire crisis. Maybe the students who demand that level of ideological conformity are not the ones you should be trying to attract. Because maybe, if you cultivate a level of automatic groupthink that rejects the possibility of dissenting views, you will come to discover that, eventually, your administration has a dissenting view.
What if, instead of reacting to every declaration of witchcraft by tightening the buckles on your hats, you tried explaining that lots of things might be offensive, and if you don’t like Negy, you might have luck with one of the thousands of other professors? What if, instead of modeling the kind of purge your ideological opponents might adopt one day if, I don’t know, they were politically powerful at some point, you modeled the idea that we can cooperate across deeply-held but incompatible beliefs?
I don’t know much about politics, but… It would certainly be cheaper, wouldn’t it?
FIRE will continue to follow Negy’s case and keep you updated.
Why College Student Personas Are Critical for Enrollment Marketing Success
Every message has an audience. Even this article was written with you in mind: someone navigating the complexities of higher ed marketing and looking for a smarter way to connect with students.
In the competitive world of college and university marketing, developing comprehensive college student personas is essential. A well-crafted persona helps you move beyond generic outreach and into the realm of meaningful engagement, putting you in the shoes of your prospective students to tell the story of:
Where they’ve been
Where they’re headed
How your program can help them get there
A story-driven, persona-based approach allows you to lower acquisition costs, boost student engagement, and reinforce your institution’s mission. But more importantly, it helps students feel seen. When students feel welcomed and understood, real connection happens.
That’s when a prospect takes a first step toward becoming a future graduate.
What Are Student Personas?
College student personas are fictional, research-based profiles that represent key segments of your institution’s prospective audience.
A persona can help you understand an audience group’s motivations, goals, challenges, backgrounds, and even decision-making behaviors. Rather than marketing to a broad, faceless group, personas allow you to tailor your messaging to be more relevant and compelling.
A well-detailed student persona might include details such as:
Age range
Academic interests
Career goals
Financial concerns
Preferred communication channels
Ideally, each persona will be grounded in data from multiple sources including surveys, interviews, feedback from admissions, and digital marketing analytics, if available.
How Personas Enhance the Student Journey
Student personas are a critical jumping-off point for marketing and enrollment efforts in higher education. Persona identification should occur early in the brand development process to ensure that the brand, messaging, and story align with each audience — whether it is career changers, veterans pursuing education in civilian life, or working nurses looking to advance in their careers.
A persona-driven approach focuses on a multifaceted view of your college or university’s core audiences, primarily consisting of their demographics, psychographics, and behavioral attributes.
While developing multiple custom personas for all your degree programs may seem daunting and can be time consuming, the effort will pay off in the long run in terms of enrollment and student success.
Aligning all key stakeholders involved in developing and deploying the story and identity of a brand around key student personas is also critical to creating a more cohesive and clear experience for students throughout their journey. These personas should inform and influence all teams and stakeholders in their strategies — from paid media ads and targeting, to blog content, to website copy and landing pages, to nurture campaigns.
No matter where students are in their educational journey, having a seamless experience across all channels and touchpoints is more important than ever before.
Utilizing various forms of primary and secondary research in the form of interviews, focus groups, market research, historical student data, and more, we at Archer Education are able to craft a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of what prospective students care about and how to most effectively reach and engage with them.
Steps to Create College Student Personas
Creating college student personas starts with research. Whether your enrollment marketing team does the research itself or relies on secondary sources (we suggest using a combination of both) the information-gathering process for developing student personas is essentially the same. Enrollment marketers will want to begin by gathering a lot of information from a wide range of sources.
1. Conduct Discovery Interviews
Interviews with key institutional stakeholders including program directors, enrollment and admissions teams, faculty, alumni, and current students are an important source of information for understanding student aspirations and goals, challenges and pain points, and even lifestyle circumstances.
We recommend speaking with as many stakeholders as possible to gather diverse insights and perspectives through one-on-one discussions, group interviews, and focus groups to inform robust college student personas. The interviewer’s goals are to:
Learn who students are by gathering demographic and psychographic data. Psychographics focuses on understanding students’ values, goals, interests, and emotions to gain a complete and accurate picture of them as individuals.
Discover why students want to enroll in a particular program.
Explore why they’re attracted to a particular institution.
Learn what challenges or pain points they face.
Find out what they want to accomplish after graduation.
Stories and examples gathered during interviews with current students and alumni about how your program helped them achieve their educational or career goals are especially effective for connecting with prospective students.
2. Mine Historical Student Data
Existing student demographic data (if available) including age, gender, prior education (degree type and level), and job title can help provide very tangible and relevant information for student personas. Institutions that consistently track and report data have an advantage, while brand-new programs that lack historical data may need to lean more heavily on other sources.
Student or alumni reports or survey results, if available, can provide great supplemental information for getting to know prospective, current, and former students better.
3. Conduct Market Research
Many students today, and nontraditional adult learners in particular, are hyperfocused on outcomes and looking for a return on investment in their chosen degree program. Marketing tools and resources enrollment marketers can use to make their program’s case to prospective students include:
Government data on job growth and salaries from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Insights from sources such as Lightcast, an aggregator of economic, labor market, demographic, education, profile, and job posting data
Industry-specific articles that highlight opportunities and motivate students to enroll
4. Leverage Audience Intelligence Tools
The ability to gather insights into audiences through social listening and other data sources — known as audience intelligence — is gaining traction with marketers as tools become more advanced. At Archer, one tool that our team uses is Sparktoro, an audience research tool that crawls millions of social profiles and web pages to learn what (and who) your audience reads, listens to, watches, follows, shares, and talks about online. This is a helpful supplemental tool that can help provide a clearer picture of your audiences across various data points and attributes.
If you’re not in a position to pay for audience intelligence tools, some free tools are available, such as CareerOneStop, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor. This tool is more limited to demographic information, but it can be helpful for learning more about certain industries or occupations that relate to a given student persona.
Facebook Audience Insights is another free tool that we have leveraged in the past to gain a better understanding of users connected to our partners’ pages, as well as to learn about the interests and affinities of a given audience. The tool has become more limited as Facebook has tightened up its access to users’ data and profile attributes, but it still may be worth checking out — especially if Facebook is one of your primary marketing channels.
5. Synthesize Research and Outline Personas
When discovery interviews are complete and market, audience, and other research has been gathered, it’s time to begin synthesizing what you’ve found and outlining your data-informed personas.
Depending on the scope of your project and goals, the structure and template you decide to use for college student personas may look quite different. Personas developed for the entire graduate school of an institution, for example, will probably look very different from personas created for one specific program.
Regardless of the scope and subsequent approach, you should ensure that you’ve covered your bases across the spectrum of core audiences while trying to make each as distinct as possible from one another — either in terms of shared interests and goals, or in terms of demographic factors such as incoming occupation (such as being a working nurse) or lifestyle circumstances (such as being a stay-at-home parent returning to school).
Once you’ve identified the distinct student personas you want to focus on, it’s time to build them out in greater detail. The more in-depth information you’ve gathered, the easier it will be to create distinct, detailed personas that are applicable. When creating personas, make sure to honor your institution’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by representing students of different races, ethnicities, gender identities, and abilities. Don’t let your personas reinforce stereotypes.
There are many different templates and approaches you can use to develop personas — and there is no “right” way. Again, it really depends on your specific goals and how you can make the personas as applicable and actionable as possible.
At Archer, our teams find that including areas such as skills, interests, incoming occupations, age, education, media usage, and more are important. Also, we highly recommend including a “story” section (as in the examples below) to humanize your fictional student and create a clearer picture of who this persona is and what they care about.
College Student Persona Examples
When we are tasked with creating personas across multiple programs and verticals, we like to create a persona architecture with overarching personas and subpersonas so we can plug them in across various programs, depending on our partner’s needs and goals. This gives our enrollment marketing teams options to target student personas on a broader or more granular level, depending on what makes the most sense for the program.
The persona examples for students below feature overarching personas for a mix of tech/coding bootcamp programs with detailed subpersonas for each target beneath.
Technology is a broad field with opportunities for individuals who come in with a diverse mix of experience, education, interests, and skills. Developing a broader overarching persona (with subpersonas underneath) can help provide a high-level snapshot into a broader group of individuals who still share important commonalities. You can include things such as an overview and some of the top motivations that are most relevant to that audience, in addition to other elements that help showcase who this audience is and what they care about.
Then drill down using the data and stories you’ve collected in your research to animate your multiple subpersonas. Below is a subpersona we created for a partner’s tech bootcamp degree program.
The next example below is a program-specific persona created for a single degree program. Programmatic personas typically include more in-depth and detailed information than personas designed to encompass more than one program. Notice the inclusion of sample job titles and skills.
Developing student personas will not only help your institution attract the right students, it will help your marketing teams, enrollment specialists, and administrators identify and better understand your students’ needs and goals — a win-win for educators and students alike.
Creating Student Personas to Drive Enrollment
Persona-based marketing is a tried-and-true tool for customer acquisition, and higher education is no exception. When exploring colleges or degree programs, students want to know which one will be a good fit for them. Recognizing themselves in your marketing materials can make the difference between their moving forward in the enrollment funnel and moving on to a competitor.
At Archer Education, we partner with dozens of institutions to craft story-driven, persona-based approaches to student acquisition. Request more information and see what Archer can do to help you connect with and enroll the right students.
On April 25, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, issued a Commissioner’s Charge against Harvard University announcing that the EEOC is investigating whether “Harvard may have violated and may be continuing to violate Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion (including but not limited to tenure decisions), compensation, and separation decisions; internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs.”
The charge also covers “entities managed by, affiliated with, related, or operating jointly with or successors to” Harvard University. This includes the institution’s medical school, school of public health, and school of arts and sciences, as well as the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, among others. The investigation will look back to 2018 for potential discrimination.
As Acting Chair Lucas explains in the charge, the allegations “are based on publicly available information regarding Harvard, including, but not limited to, documents and information published on Harvard and its affiliates’ public webpages (including archived pages); public statements by Harvard and its leadership; and news reporting.” The charge references documents that were on Harvard’s website, including resources that tracked its decade-long progress to diversify its faculty, but these documents have since been deleted from the university’s website.
Lucas highlights data showing a 10% drop in white men among “all ladder faculty” from 2013 to 2023 and the corresponding 10% increase in total women, nonbinary, and faculty of color in the same time span. She also points to the increase in the percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty that are women, nonbinary, and/or people of color. Acting Chair Lucas believes Harvard took “such unlawful action in an effort to achieve, in Harvard’s own words, ‘demographic diversification of the faculty.’” Moreover, Lucas claims, “there is reason to believe that these trends and the underlying pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and sex have continued in 2024 and are ongoing.”
The charge also emphasizes that various programs hosted by the university and its affiliates — including fellowship programs, research opportunities, and other initiatives targeted toward underserved groups, including Black and Native American students — demonstrate disparate treatment by the university and its affiliates against White, Asian, male, and straight applicants and training program participants.
The EEOC’s Commissioner’s Charge is the latest escalation of the battle between Harvard and the Trump administration, which has frozen or paused billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, and initiated a task force to investigate the university’s behavior towards Jewish students. The Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services are also investigating the university, including for race-based discrimination.
In a letter in response to the Department of Education, Harvard explained:
“Employment at Harvard is similarly based on merit and achievement. We seek the best educators, researchers, and scholars at our schools. We do not have quotas, whether based on race or ethnicity or any other characteristic. We do not employ ideological litmus tests. We do not use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in our hiring decisions. We hire people because of their individual accomplishments, promise, and creativity in their fields or areas of expertise, and their ability to communicate effectively with students, faculty, and staff. And we take all of our legal obligations seriously, including those that pertain to faculty employment at Harvard, as we seek to offer our students the most dynamic and rewarding educational experience that we can.”
CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this charge and other relevant enforcement activity at the EEOC.
May 19, 2025, by Dean Hoke: In my recent blog series and podcast, Small College America, I’ve highlighted the essential role small colleges play in the fabric of U.S. higher education. These institutions serve as academic homes to students who often desire alternatives to larger universities, and as cultural and economic anchors, especially in rural and small-town America, where, according to IPEDS, 324 private nonprofit colleges operate. Many are deeply embedded in the towns they serve, providing jobs, educational access, cultural life, and long-term economic opportunity.
Unfortunately, a wave of proposed federal budget cuts may further severely compromise these institutions’ ability to function—and in some cases, survive. Without intervention, the ripple effects could devastate entire communities.
Understanding the DOE and USDA Budget Cuts
The proposed reductions to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budgets present a two-pronged threat to small colleges, particularly those in rural areas or serving low-income student populations.
Department of Education (DOE)
The most significant concerns center on proposed changes to Pell Grants, a vital financial resource for low-income students. One House proposal would redefine full-time enrollment from 12 to 15 credit hours per semester. If enacted, this change would reduce the average Pell Grant by approximately $1,479 for students taking 12 credits. Students enrolled less than half-time could become ineligible entirely.
Additionally, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG) programs face serious threats. The House Appropriations Subcommittee has proposed eliminating both programs, which together provide over $2 billion annually in aid to low-income students.
Programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, which support first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students, have been targeted in previous proposals; however, current budget drafts maintain level funding. Nonetheless, their future remains uncertain as negotiations continue.
The Title III Strengthening Institutions Program, which funds academic support services, infrastructure, and student retention efforts at under-resourced colleges, received a proposed funding increase in the FY 2024 President’s Budget, though congressional appropriations may differ.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The USDA’s impact on small colleges, while less direct, is nonetheless critical. Discretionary funding was reduced by more than $380 million in FY 2024, reflecting a general pullback in rural investment.
Programs like the Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program, which supports broadband access, healthcare facilities, and community infrastructure, were level-funded at $2.8 billion. These investments often benefit rural colleges directly or indirectly by enhancing the communities in which they operate.
While some funding has been maintained, the broader trend suggests tighter resources for rural development in the years ahead. For small colleges embedded in these communities, the consequences could be substantial: delayed infrastructure upgrades, reduced student access to services, and weakened town-gown partnerships.
Why Small Colleges Are Particularly Vulnerable
Small private nonprofit colleges—typically enrolling fewer than 3,000 students—operate on thin margins. Many are tuition-dependent, with over 80% of their operating revenue derived from tuition and fees. They lack the substantial endowments or large alumni donor bases that buoy more prominent institutions during hard times.
What exacerbates their vulnerability is the student profile they serve. Small colleges disproportionately enroll Pell-eligible, first-generation, and minority students. Reductions in federal financial aid and student support programs have a direct impact on student enrollment and retention. If students can’t afford to enroll—or stay enrolled—colleges see revenue declines, leading to cuts in academic offerings, faculty, and student services.
Additionally, small colleges are often located in areas experiencing population decline. The so-called “demographic cliff”—a projected 13% drop in the number of high school graduates from 2025 to 2041 will affect 38 states and is expected to hit rural and non-urban regions the hardest. This compounds the enrollment challenges many small colleges are already facing.
Economic and Social Impact on Rural Towns
The closure of a small college doesn’t just mean the loss of a school; it signifies a seismic shift in a community’s economic and social structure. Colleges often rank among the top employers in their towns. When a college closes, hundreds of jobs disappear—faculty, staff, groundskeepers, maintenance, food services, IT professionals, and more.
Consider Mount Pleasant, Iowa, where the closure of Iowa Wesleyan University in 2023 cost the local economy an estimated $55 million annually. Businesses that relied on student and faculty patronage—restaurants, barbershops, bookstores, and even landlords—felt the immediate impact. Community organizations lost vital volunteers. Town officials were left scrambling to figure out what to do with a sprawling, empty campus in the heart of their city.
Colleges also provide cultural enrichment that is often otherwise absent in small towns. Lectures, concerts, art exhibitions, and sporting events bring together diverse groups and add vibrancy to the local culture. Many offer healthcare clinics, counseling centers, or continuing education for adults—services that disappear with a campus closure.
USDA investments in these communities are often tied to colleges, whether in the form of shared infrastructure, grant-funded development projects, or broadband expansions to support online learning. As these federal investments diminish, so too does a town’s ability to attract and retain both residents and employers.
Real-Life Implications and Stories
The headlines tell one story, but the real impact is felt in the lives of students, faculty, and the surrounding communities.
Presentation College in Aberdeen, South Dakota, ceased operations on October 31, 2023, after citing unsustainable financial and enrollment challenges. Hundreds of students, many drawn to its affordability, rural location, and nursing programs, were forced to reconsider their futures. The college quickly arranged teach-out agreements with over 30 institutions, including Northern State University and St. Ambrose University, which offered pathways for students to complete their degrees. The Presentation Sisters, the founding order, are now seeking a buyer for the campus aligned with their values, while local officials explore transforming the site into a technical education hub to continue serving the community.
Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama, a 168-year-old institution, closed its doors on May 31, 2024, after a $30 million state-backed loan request was ultimately rejected despite initial legislative support. The college had a $128 million annual economic impact on Birmingham and maintained partnerships with K–12 schools, correctional institutions, and nonprofits. The closure triggered the transfer of over 150 students to nearby colleges like Samford University, but left faculty, staff, and the broader community facing economic and cultural losses. A proposed sale of the campus to Miles College fell through, leaving the site’s future in limbo.
Even college leaders who have weathered the past decade worry they’re nearing a breaking point. Rachel Burns of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) has tracked dozens of recent closures and warns that many institutions remain at serious risk, despite their best efforts. “They just can’t rebound enrollment,” she says, noting that pandemic aid only temporarily masked deeper structural vulnerabilities.
Potential Closures and Projections
College closures are accelerating across the United States. According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 467 institutions closed between 2004 and 2020—over 20% of them private, nonprofit four-year colleges. Since 2020, at least 75 more nonprofit colleges have shut down, and many experts believe this pace is quickening.
A 2023 analysis by EY-Parthenon warned that 1 in 10 four-year institutions—roughly 200 to 230 colleges—are currently in financial jeopardy. These schools are often small, private, rural, and tuition-dependent, serving large numbers of first-generation and Pell-eligible students. Even a modest drop of 5–10% in tuition revenue can be catastrophic for colleges already operating on razor-thin margins.
Compounding the challenge, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia released a 2024 predictive model forecasting that as many as 80 additional colleges could close by 2034 under sustained enrollment decline driven by demographic shifts. This figure accounts for closures only—not mergers—and spans public, private nonprofit, and for-profit sectors.
Layered onto these economic and demographic vulnerabilities are the potential impacts of proposed federal education funding cuts. The Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget blueprint once again targets student aid programs, proposing the elimination or severe reduction of subsidized student loans, TRIO, GEAR UP, Federal Work-Study, and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG). Although similar proposals from Trump’s first term (FY 2018–2021) were rejected by Congress, the renewed push signals ongoing political pressure to curtail support for low-income and first-generation students.
To assess the potential impact of these policy shifts, a policy stress test was applied to both the Philadelphia Fed model and the historical closure trend. The analysis suggests that if these cuts were enacted, an additional 50 to 70 closures could occur by 2034.
Philadelphia Fed model baseline: 80 projected closures
With policy cuts: Up to 130 closures
Historical average trend (2020–2024): ~14 closures/year
10-year projection (status quo): ~140 closures
With policy cuts: Up to 210 closures
In short, depending on the scenario, anywhere from 130 to 210 additional college closures may occur by 2034. Institutions most at risk are those that serve the very populations these federal programs are designed to support. Without intervention—through policy, partnerships, or funding—the number of closures could rise sharply in the years ahead.
These scenario-based projections are summarized in the chart below.
Why Should Congress Care
According to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), a private, nonprofit college or university is located in 395 of the 435 congressional districts. These institutions are not only centers of learning but also powerful economic engines that generate:
$591.5 billion in national economic impact
$77.6 billion in combined local, state, and federal tax revenue
3.4 million jobs supported or sustained
1.1 million people are directly employed in private nonprofit higher education
1.1 million graduates are entering the workforce each year
As such, the fate of small private colleges is not just a higher education issue—it is a national economic and workforce development issue that should command bipartisan attention.
Strategies for Resilience and Policy Recommendations
There are clear, actionable strategies to reduce the risk of widespread college closures:
Consortium and shared governance models: Small colleges can boost efficiency and sustainability by sharing administrative functions, faculty, academic programs, technology infrastructure, and enrollment services. This allows institutions to reduce operational costs while maintaining their distinct missions and brands. In some cases, these arrangements evolve into formal mergers. An emerging example is the Coalition for the Common Good, a new model of mission-aligned institutions that maintain individual identities but operate under shared governance. This structure offers long-term financial stability without sacrificing institutional purpose or community impact.
Strategic partnerships: Collaborations with community colleges, online education providers, regional employers, and nonprofit organizations can expand reach, enhance curricular offerings, and improve student outcomes. These partnerships can support 2+2 transfer pipelines, workforce-aligned certificate programs, and hybrid learning models that meet the needs of adult learners and working professionals, often underserved by traditional residential colleges.
State action: States should establish stabilization grant programs and offer targeted incentive funding to support mergers, consortium participation, and regional collaboration. Policies that protect institutional access in rural and underserved areas are especially urgent, as closures can leave entire regions without viable higher education options. States can also play a role in convening institutions to plan for shared services and long-term viability.
Federal investment: Continued and expanded funding for Pell Grants, TRIO, SEOG, Title III and V, and USDA rural development programs is essential to sustaining the institutions that serve low-income, first-generation, and rural students. These investments should be treated as critical infrastructure, not discretionary spending, given their role in expanding educational equity, enhancing workforce readiness, and promoting rural economic development. Consistent federal support can help stabilize small colleges and enable long-term planning.
College leaders, local governments, and community groups must advocate in unison. The conversation should move beyond institutional survival to one of community survival. As the saying goes, when a college dies, the town begins to die with it.
Conclusion
Small colleges are not expendable. They are vital threads in the educational, economic, and cultural fabric of America, especially in rural and underserved communities. The proposed federal budget cuts across the Departments of Education and Agriculture represent a direct threat not only to these institutions but to the communities that depend on them.
If policymakers fail to act, the consequences will be widespread and enduring. The domino effect is real: reduced funding leads to fewer students, tighter budgets, staff layoffs, program cuts, and eventually, campus closures. And when those campuses close, entire towns are left to absorb the fallout—economically, socially, and spiritually.
We have a choice. We can invest in the future of small colleges and the communities they anchor, or we can stand by as they vanish—along with the promise they hold for millions of students and the towns they call home.
References
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2025 Budget Summary and Justifications
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), Analysis of Proposed Pell Grant and Campus-Based Aid Reductions
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) and Higher Ed Dive, Data on College Closures and Institutional Viability Trends
Fitch Ratings, Reports on Financial Pressures in U.S. Higher Education Institutions
Iowa Public Radio and The Hechinger Report, Case Studies on Rural College Closures and Community Impact
Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), Statements and Data on TRIO Program Reach and Effectiveness
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Predictive Modeling of U.S. College Closures (2024)
EY-Parthenon, 2023 Report on Financial Vulnerability Among Four-Year Institutions
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development and Community Facilities Loan & Grant Program Summaries
Interviews and commentary from institutional leaders, TRIO program directors, and SHEEO policy staff
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Data on Enrollment, Institution Type, and Geographic Distribution
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
Under a new accountability measure recently proposed as part of a larger House budget bill, colleges would have to pay millions of dollars each year to reimburse the government for their students’ unpaid loans.
The plan builds on an idea—known as risk-sharing—that lawmakers and policy analysts have been toying with since at least 2015. As the federal student loan portfolio grew, the goal was to require colleges to have some skin in the game and incentivize them to improve student outcomes.
And while the concept has gained some bipartisan support in theory, higher education institutions have repeatedly argued that it is difficult to create a fair accountability system when many of the variables involved are out of an institution’s control and depend on the decisions of individual students and borrowers.
So far, the higher ed lobby has successfully defeated proposed risk-sharing plans such as the one included in a Republican bill from the last Congress, known as the College Cost Reduction Act. But now, an almost identical proposal is back and at the heart of House Republicans’ plan to cut at least $330 billion from higher education programs over the next 10 years. The overall legislation, which aims to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget, could receive a vote on the House floor this week, though some lawmakers have threatened to block the measure amid concerns that it doesn’t include deeper cuts. Even if the bill fails, it serves as a marker of what House Republicans hope to accomplish moving forward.
Many higher education policy experts warn that practically speaking, the latest risk-sharing plan relies on a complicated formula that’s essentially a black box. Released in late April, the proposal has not been tested enough to know its ramifications, they say, and the limited data available is inconclusive. Some analyses released by conservative groups say the program will be a financial boost for efficient public institutions and penalize bloated private ones. But one study conducted by a lobbying group suggests that public regional and minority-serving institutions that serve high populations of low-income students will get hit the hardest.
“Fundamentally it’s an astonishing level of federal overreach to essentially lump in all institutions of higher education together—public, private, for-profit—and run a convoluted formula to determine winners and losers at the federal level and then redistribute funding,” said Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president of government affairs for the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.
Democratic politicians also argue that the purpose of the legislation is not truly to hold colleges accountable for student outcomes like graduation rates and income levels, but to crack down on what the government considers overly liberal institutions and fund President Donald Trump’s priorities.
Even some conservative supporters acknowledge that it’s difficult to know the full scope of the bill’s potential impact this early. But they say risk-sharing is a necessary tool to penalize colleges that provide a poor return on investment and ensure the production of a well-prepared, financially stable workforce. They also suggest that the incentives such as additional grant funding to institutions that keep costs low and graduation rates high will offset the penalty for most public institutions.
“With any policy change, we’re not going to be able to predict in advance 100 percent of how this is going to affect everyone, everywhere, all the time. But I don’t think that should be an excuse to not make policy changes,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. “I still think the data we have gives us a general idea of which sorts of institutions would be affected and the magnitudes of the penalties involved.”
So How Does It Work?
The proposed risk-sharing plan would kick in for new loans starting in July 2027, said an aide for Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. That means colleges wouldn’t be penalized for disruptions to the student loan system that occurred during the pandemic or efforts during the Biden and Trump administrations to overhaul repayment.
If we don’t even understand how this works, why the heck are we passing it? I mean, it’s a concept, but I don’t think it’s the concept that people think it is.”
Jason Delisle, nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute
And because borrowers don’t have to start paying back their loans until six months after they graduate or stop out, institutions likely won’t have to pay a penalty until 2029 or 2030 at the earliest, the aide added.
But from then on, institutional payments would be calculated annually—major by major—for each new cohort of borrowers and would continue until they’ve paid off their loans. The amount per cohort could change from year to year, depending on factors such as borrower behavior, postgraduation earnings and college costs. But it’s expected to grow as more and more cohorts are added to the lump sum.
Under the bill, the amount per cohort would be calculated using a three-part formula, which is largely unchanged from what Republicans proposed last Congress in the CCRA.
The first step is to determine a college’s risk-sharing liability, which is how much each institution owes the government. To do that, the formula looks at the difference between how much students were supposed to repay during a given year and how much they actually did. The calculation takes into account the value of any missed or partial payments as well as any interest that the government waived or principal contributions it matched, the committee aide said. It does not, however, include debt waived through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which was a concern for institutions.
This is the part of the formula that raises the most questions for institutions, as the mechanics of exactly how the risk-sharing liability is calculated are not clearly outlined in the legislation or in a CCRA database published by the education committee Republicans in 2024. And even if it were, much of the data needed to run the formula is not publicly accessible.
“How the formula works is the million-dollar question, and something that we’ve been trying to work on for a year and a half,” one policy expert said. “It’s very complicated and relies on metrics that aren’t publicly available.”
House committee aides counter that colleges have access to student borrower data via the National Student Loan Data System, which can be used to predict future risk-sharing payments. They also point to a recent Dear Colleague letter reminding colleges of their responsibility to monitor borrower payments.
But even then, higher ed lobbyists say, it’s not clear who will be responsible for calculating the liability. If any part of that responsibility falls to campus financial aid administrators, higher ed groups say the plan will increase the administrative burden on colleges.
“If I were a lobbyist, I would just say to all of my members, go to your congressman and say, ‘We don’t know what this does,’” said Jason Delisle, a policy analyst who has worked at think tanks across the political spectrum but is now based at Urban Institute where he’s a nonresident senior fellow. “If we don’t even understand how this works, why the heck are we passing it? I mean, it’s a concept, but I don’t think it’s the concept that people think it is.”
Incentives to Lower Costs
Once that risk-sharing liability is known, the next step in the formula is to figure out how much of that liability fee a college will have to pay. That’s done using what the legislation calls an earning-price ratio, which compares students’ earnings to the federal poverty line and college cost. A higher EPR means a lower final payment. For example, if an institution’s EPR is 0.3, or 30 percent, then it has to pay 70 percent of the original liability.
To further offset the risk-sharing penalty, colleges can also qualify for a new pot of funding proposed in the bill called the PROMISE Grant, which is the third step of the formula. How much a college would get in PROMISE funding depends on the total value of Pell Grants received and the graduation rate of Pell-eligible students. This grant is funded by other colleges’ risk-sharing payments.
Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, is leading the effort to cut billions from higher education programs.
Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images
So, according to data from the House committee, the State Technical College of Missouri should get $3,230,130.50 in PROMISE grants. But the community college would have to pay $9,688, bringing its net gain down to $3,220,442.50. Washington University in St. Louis, however, would receive no PROMISE Grant funding and lose about $3.5 million. (The House Committee data only lists the final risk-sharing payment—not original liability values or EPRs.)
In theory, this data demonstrates how the EPR and the PROMISE Grant are supposed to support colleges that serve low-income students, but many higher ed lobbyists are worried the program will actually do the opposite. That’s largely because colleges can only receive a PROMISE Grant if they agree to lock in tuition rates for each new freshman class. If they can keep tuition costs low, then their EPR scores will only be strong. Some lobbyists say that neither is a feasible option for public colleges and minority-serving institutions, which rely heavily on funding from the state.
“It’s not a coincidence that some of our schools that would get hit the hardest are in states that invest very little in public higher education. Some of our schools in Pennsylvania and Arizona, for example, would fare extremely poorly, and it’s by and large because tuition levels are such a determinative component as it relates to the penalty assessment,” said MacGregor Obergfell, director of governmental affairs at APLU. “To think of what traditional conservative orthodoxy is, it seems pretty unusual that a conservative position is using the federal government to punish state institutions for decisions made by their states.”
Reward or Penalty?
Some higher ed groups also noted that much of the formula either depends on or fails to acknowledge factors outside of a college’s control. Much of this has to do with unpredictable borrower behavior, but there are other factors at play, too; for example, when calculating discounts with the EPR, the formula doesn’t account for differences in the cost of living from college to college.
“Institutions in higher-cost areas are at more of a disadvantage than other institutions,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations for the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “They have to charge higher prices to reflect higher costs of labor, maintaining facilities and all those types of things.”
The burden of risk-sharing payments may be so high that colleges elect to opt out of the federal student loans program entirely, she added: “Ultimately it would have an impact on lower-income students who have a need both for a Pell Grant and a direct loan to help them meet their cost of attendance.”
Of colleges that enrolled 70 percent or more low-income, Pell-eligible students, 96 percent would have to pay a risk-sharing penalty and 91 percent would lose money over all when PROMISE Grant is factored in, according to the American Council on Education’s analysis of the House data.
The committee countered that finding with its own analysis of the data, sent to Inside Higher Ed, showing how colleges that enroll the highest share of low-income students should see about $99 more per student, while those that enroll the lowest share would lose about $66 per student.
The ACE analysis as well as the committee’s data are among the few studies that show the estimated impact of the previously proposed risk-sharing plan. None have been updated yet to reflect the latest iteration.
Another analysis from Cooper, the AEI fellow, estimated that public institutions as a whole should get more money under the plan, but private nonprofits are expected to face a substantial penalty.
Although critics point to how the plan would affect individual institutions, particularly small, underresourced schools, proponents argue that the focus should be on the impact to higher education over all, and that colleges can lower their costs to see a payoff.
“Because the net gains are significantly larger, the sector as a whole sees a net gain even though more institutions have net losses,” Cooper said. “So, the upside for institutions here is that there are significant rewards available to those which can improve their outcomes.”
At the end of the day, it’s all about how you choose to look at the data.
“I would just like to see [the formula of risk-sharing] play out for a couple of hypothetical colleges based on data that has some bearing on reality,” said Delisle from Urban Institute. “And that’s a hard thing to come by right now.”
